|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A fatal logical flaw in creationism? | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
RAZD writes: In ID the design process is ongoing -- a constant tweaking of the design if you will -- and does not confine itself to a single moment of creation. I don't think this is a neccessary problem for an instant moment of creation. Many ID/ creation proponents put forward the idea that the initial created organism/ organisms had preplanned potentialities within their genome which, at the relevant time, were realised leading to aparent leaps in evolution. Allowing this tenuous line of argument ther is no reason why some all knowing creator could not imbue sufficient 'potential' into his initial creation to allow for all the subsequent development which we characterise as evolution. Of course this is all arrant nonsense and requires us to assume that there is layer upon subtle layer of highly complex information encoded into the initial genome/ genomes far beyond even the most complex current understandings of genetic organisation, a supposition for which there is absoloutely no basis. However, if we do allow this premise then there is no reason why an omnipotent creator cannot produce an organism, in a single instance of creation, capable of giving rise to all subsequent diversity and even novel IC structure.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
proponents put forward the idea that the initial created organism/ organisms had preplanned potentialities within their genome the problem with that is where a species branches into other species from the same set of instructions ... how can you get more than one result from the same script? (why are there still monkeys? ahahahaa) this also assumes that all extinctions were pre-planned is the name of the designer Loki? we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Denesha Inactive Member |
Dear Hoonwoo,
I think sharks are perfect. Long presence in the fossil record, various adaptive diet, worldwide distribution and still well diversified. Denesha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I don't really see that as a problem. For straightforward diversification of life all that is needed is differential responses to specific environmental niches, things like sympatric speciation might need a bit more finagleing. The same script can give different results if it recieves different inputs, I assume you mean script as in a piece of computer coding.
There are (still?) monkeys because some of the monkey/ ape ancestors ended up in an environment/situation where their monkey 'potentiality' was realised and some where their ape 'potentiality' was realised. As to how you construct such an evolutionary program, you probably have to be both omniscient and omnipotent to do so or indeed to understand it fully, how convenient for the creationists.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
HoonWoo Inactive Member |
ID is a very lousy solution - it's worst then saying we do not know!
If we all accept ID, we are more likely to miss out on better solutions(or explanations) and hence impede progress! Everytime we are stumped, just say "ID" or "god did it" and problem solved!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
... in other words the process degenerates into purely evolutionary processes and the ID concept does not add anything of value to the mix ...
you probably have to be both omniscient and omnipotent to do so OR the results are not predetermined and the whole thing is an experiment to find out ... ... which gets us back to purely {naturalistic \ scientific} processes and the ID concept does not add anything of value to the mix ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
HoonWoo Inactive Member |
I thought sharks have poor eyesight?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Denesha Inactive Member |
Dear HoonWoo,
No needed good eyes in their sensual world. They have the ampulae of Lorenzini and the lateral line. More efficient perception organs. See more here (at least): Information on Fish Lateral Line System Denesha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
HoonWoo Inactive Member |
What's the point of having eyes then?
A perfect eyesight would have help. At least it doesn't have to munch on human mistakening us as seals!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
TechnoCore Inactive Member |
Please!
Perfection is a no-word. Nothing is perfect in all aspects. Are humans perfect? Perfect for what ? For living at temperatures between 20-40 degrees C ? maybe. For grinding rocks to sand by chewing on them ? No. For running 60Mph? No, but cheeta's are good at it. If you define perfect as a beeing like God, then in what aspect of him are you refering to ?Clearly he sucks at explaining things. So we can all agree on that he is not perfect at that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Denesha Inactive Member |
Dear TechnoGore,
Two things.1- I have never assumed that "perfect" is related to God. Perfect is efficient against extinction. 2- Replies will bring this discussion completely out-topic. However, why not introduce a new thread? Denesha
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
I am not putting ID forward as something I support personally. I am simply saying one particular criticism of RAZD's, that because the 'designing' was ongoing there could be no single instant of creation and therefore ID and creationism were incompatible, did not really apply to all ID theories.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Wounded King Member Posts: 4149 From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA Joined: |
Generally the less hard line proponents of ID don't mind it getting a bit evolutionary as long as there is still that supposed IC gap to stick God, or little green men or atlanteans or whatever, into. Its still just the same old tired argument from incerdulity, they don't believe such a thing could simply have evolved therefore it didn't.
As long as they still have one single thread to hang onto where they can say 'but look this particular part of this metabolic pathway simply couldn't have evolved, even though every other single thing has, that must be the bit that God (LGM, atlanteans, etc...) contributed, praise be to God (LGM, antlanteans, etc...)!'. I never said that ID added anything of value, just that one of your particular criticisms of it was innaccurate. TTFN, WK
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5032 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
I wonder why I have not seen the "gap" explained in terms of the difference of the pre and post 1900 use of the word "ether"(aether)?? Humphries im a video explain that "einstein went back" to the ether and Bridgman describes the "instrument" insistence on "an ether" and I see not problem finding your said 'gap" in this one word over interpretive history time. Also if the instrumental side is stressed the concept of where in textu IC comes in seems nonproblematic to me as the philsophy can get quite complicated when the prgamatics of operationalism are integrated with the known empirical correlations. The ICR difference to say Johnson supported ID seems writeable in such a "space". Y'think??
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1405 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
works for me.
I'm surprised they are not all over dark matter and energy ... we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024