Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design ⇒

Confusing mice with mousetraps

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Confusing mice with mousetraps
custard
Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display
Message 17 of 90 (188742)
02-26-2005 4:37 PM 		Reply to: Message 1 by tsig
02-23-2005 1:14 AM

DHA writes:
​
Which leads to the second claim of the intelligent design argument: the physical marks of design are visible in aspects of biology. This is uncontroversial, too.
​
Michael Behe NYT article.
​
So does this mean that Behe, or other ID advocates, won't need mandatory labeling on food products to indicate the presence of genetically modified ingredients?
​
Seriously, how would Behe, or anyone else, given two tomatoes be able to determine which one was engineered in a lab by man, and which was engineered by God?
​
This message has been edited by custard, 02-26-2005 16:38 AM
This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by tsig, posted 02-23-2005 1:14 AM tsig has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by tsig, posted 02-26-2005 4:52 PM custard has not replied
 Message 20 by RAZD, posted 02-26-2005 6:58 PM custard has not replied
  
custard
Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display
Message 33 of 90 (189666)
03-02-2005 2:33 PM 		Reply to: Message 26 by LDSdude
03-01-2005 12:25 PM

LDS writes:
​
We don't see the hand of God reaching out of the clouds and placing a new animal on the planet, but through theories of probability, we can infer they were designed.
​
To which 'theories of probability' do you refer, exactly?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by LDSdude, posted 03-01-2005 12:25 PM LDSdude has not replied
  
custard
Inactive Member

Normal Thread Display
Message 41 of 90 (189798)
03-03-2005 1:44 PM 		Reply to: Message 37 by pink sasquatch
03-03-2005 8:49 AM

Re: design or not, it's not "obvious"
pink writes:
​
Quite frankly, I think your claim that you can "obviously" detect "absence of design" is as outrageous as the ID claim that they can "obviously" detect "design".
​
Another great point. I also like the stacked rocks example.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by pink sasquatch, posted 03-03-2005 8:49 AM pink sasquatch has not replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by tsig, posted 03-03-2005 5:26 PM custard has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024