Sorry mate, did not understand your post. Could you be clearer?Thanx

Hopelessly Off Topic Nonsensical Drivel. Please do not reply to this post!

evolution is theory creation is trueThis message has been edited by AdminJar, 11-11-2005 11:43 AM

Oh I guess that settles it then. Pack up and go home, everyone, EvC is done for.

It is not apparent that is what Brad was saying this time. (To me it is almost never apparent what Brad is saying).I think, however, that your post doesn't actually have anything to do with this thread. It is necessary that we attempt to stick to the discussion at hand so people can follow what is going on.Do NOT stick little bits like that in willy-nilly. Too much of it will cause you to lose posting privileges.Your statement indicates that you don't know what "theory" means. You might start an thread asking the question. If you are willing to learn there are many willing to help.

Samuel, Beth, Susan, Mitt, samyy: whoever you are.We have been through this before. Stop it right now.

---

"evolution is theory creation is true"-bbb67Mate, I'm making the assumption that ID is true (which requires creation on some level). Then I'm asking what we could do with that information. There are a few really good ideas for a use of ID. Can you match the ones found on this thread? C'mon mate, views from creos are few and far between in the science pages. Make a stand mate!

It would be immensely useful to have a good understanding of the design mechanism. If we knew how the design process worked, we might be able to "design out" disease.At the moment we are having some difficulty designing out genetic diseases. If our genetic models of disease are all wrong and there is way of designing out failures of biological systems other than very hit-and-miss genetic engineering, then obviously it would be immensely useful.I suppose you could consider it to be a kind of scientific faith healing. But that is probably blasphemy.Mick

Here is the Guiness ad on their website (you have to specify your age and location first).I think the punchline is very funny - even if the evolutionary path is a little screwy I found the article in the Grauniad you mentioned. If you really couldn't show an ad like this in the States things are even worse than I thought.

---

I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then

Assuming that design could be detected, surely there would be a problem with this - since, using ID logic, everything is designed (either by God or by man) it wouldn't be possible to tell anything apart from anything else. Everything would test positive for design,
and we would be back where we started.In this way, theory of ID would only be of utility if some life wasn't designed, and if there wasn't a superpowerful intelligent designer.Whoops for all those Christian IDers!Sorry if someone has already made this point.

Excellent point, Tusko. Somehow, I think we mostly missed that until you pointed it out.Maybe for Dembski, this is wrong. He seems to allow that stalactites and snowflakes are not designed, since they are the result of known natural processes. But many christians would indeed say that stalactites and snowflakes are designed by God. And since ID proponents are mainly creationist christians, that must surely be the consensus view of the ID folk.

Thank you so much (flushes with pleasure).However, I didn't phrase that so well. I think it's actually the case that no Christian IDer could ever use the argument that ID could be useful to sort life that has been designed from that which has arisen by natural processes.Although he may believe snowflakes can arise from natural processes, Dembski is pretty clear that no life can arise in this way. So any speculation that ID could be useful in detecting designed life and distinguishing it from undesigned life would be verboten for any Christ-lovin' IDer.[edit for spelling]
[edit to hopefully increase clarity]
This message has been edited by Tusko, 11-12-2005 11:22 AMThis message has been edited by Tusko, 11-12-2005 11:32 AM

Geoffrory's notion of the inversion (in arthropods to Earth, vertebrates to our Sun) can infantalise Gould's epitome of Goethe's importance in hoxology, if parrallel with evergreens moving to the same Earth and Angiosperms to the mass of the solar system is an orbit of the same class of trajectories. This would show up in the proteins of current evo-devo discussion if true but would remove the "appearence of age" from Gould's plants(that have "lateral" leaves) and return the 'ground' to a proper evaluation when studying EITHER plants or animals. Gould went too far to think he make some concept that seperated them without really saying if the segement was not something that Newton's work also directly applies to or not. Thus Gould shunted off the direct imposition and "transcendentalism" of Geoffroy in the same paleontologyEdited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.Edited by Brad McFall, : correct spelling error