Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
1 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design is NOT Creation[ism]
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 113 of 189 (145067)
09-27-2004 1:12 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by ID man
09-27-2004 1:09 PM


You can't make your opponent back up to the beginning without being willing to do so yourself.
You've confused my arguments with your strawmen. I never asked you to "back up to the beginning"; only to provide positive evidence that chloroplast gene expression mechanisms were designed, per your assertion that they were.
You have not done so. Your only response has been to ignore the question and change the subject. Is this really the best you have, ID man?
Don't ask for something you cannot provide.
All I asked you for was positive evidence that the chloroplast gene expression mechanism was designed. I'm sure that I can't provide evidence that it was designed, but then, I never claimed it was designed.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by ID man, posted 09-27-2004 1:09 PM ID man has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 126 of 189 (145135)
09-27-2004 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 124 by Percy
09-27-2004 4:25 PM


The hurricanes were so bad you fled to Finland, huh!
Fled?
The hurricanes were so bad, that's where he woke up afterwards!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 124 by Percy, posted 09-27-2004 4:25 PM Percy has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 139 of 189 (145348)
09-28-2004 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 137 by ID man
09-28-2004 12:19 PM


As I have stated many times we don’t need to know the designer to detect & understand the design.
How can that be a fact, when we've never ever "detected" design except in cases where we already understood fundamental qualities about the designer (for instance that they were human)?
The only designer we've ever detected isn't avaliable to be the designer of the structures you're talking about, because they predate the evolution of that designer. We've never been able to detect unknown designers from nothing but their purported "designs".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 137 by ID man, posted 09-28-2004 12:19 PM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by ID man, posted 09-28-2004 12:33 PM crashfrog has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 159 of 189 (145416)
09-28-2004 4:56 PM
Reply to: Message 142 by ID man
09-28-2004 12:33 PM


Did we have to know they were human or anything about them in order to detect and understand (or try to) the design?
Well, we certainly didn't come to the conclusion that humans made them based on any aspect of the items themselves. Moreover, restricting the possible designers to only humans meant that we could easily come to conclusions about their manufacture and use.
In other words, it was due to the a priori conclusion that the designer was human that we were able to determine the purpose and function of their design. So yes, knowing that they were human was crucial to the analysis and detection of their design.
We didn't know who designed or built it but we know it was designed and built.
No, we know that humans designed and built it. That knowledge does not come from any aspect of Stonehenge, however.
IOW we know Stonehenge wasn't the product of nature acting alone.
Right, because we know humans were there to build it.
In regards to the evolution of life, humans weren't around till the end. With no other designer avaliable, we must conclude that no design occured - that the only remaining possibility, no matter how improbable you may find it, is the truth; all other conjectures are impossible.
It does not mean that aliens didn't design and build Stonehenge.
What aliens?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by ID man, posted 09-28-2004 12:33 PM ID man has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1497 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 173 of 189 (146022)
09-30-2004 12:08 PM
Reply to: Message 171 by ID man
09-30-2004 11:30 AM


I always wonder why evos don't post the link or the full article.
The full articles aren't generally avaliable online; you usually have to go to the library (you know, where books are kept) to dig it up.
Since we always give full bibliographical citations, however, it should be trivial for you to look up the article yourself. You can hardly claim we're "hiding" something.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 171 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 11:30 AM ID man has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 175 by ID man, posted 09-30-2004 12:13 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024