Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,807 Year: 3,064/9,624 Month: 909/1,588 Week: 92/223 Day: 3/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 46 of 377 (612272)
04-14-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by jar
04-14-2011 1:07 PM


Re: Parsimony?
jar writes:
Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.
You don't think parsimony has any role to play when investigating reality scientifically?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:07 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:18 PM Straggler has replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 47 of 377 (612274)
04-14-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Straggler
04-14-2011 1:15 PM


Science?
Straggler writes:
jar writes:
Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.
You don't think parsimony has any role to play when investigating reality scientifically?
LOL
Get serious.
We are talking about a Designer and First Causes and Uncaused Causes.
What does that have to do with science?

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 1:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 6:58 PM jar has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 48 of 377 (612275)
04-14-2011 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 44 by jar
04-14-2011 1:06 PM


Nonsense.
Even theistic evolution has NO place in any science class and the ID movement is nothing but another attempt to get Creationism in the classroom and to redefine science to be nothing but magic.
The ID movement is just Biblical Creationism in old worned out clothes.
This is such an obvious red herring ...
All I'm saying is that ID and biblical creationism isn't the same thing, if theistic evolution is scientific or not is totally irrelevant.
I brought it up to show that ID and creationism wasn't the same thing.
Repeating the same old PRATTs doesn't make them true, jar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:06 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:27 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 1:46 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 68 by Granny Magda, posted 04-14-2011 3:07 PM slevesque has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 49 of 377 (612276)
04-14-2011 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:24 PM


slevesque writes:
Nonsense.
Even theistic evolution has NO place in any science class and the ID movement is nothing but another attempt to get Creationism in the classroom and to redefine science to be nothing but magic.
The ID movement is just Biblical Creationism in old worned out clothes.
This is such an obvious red herring ...
All I'm saying is that ID and biblical creationism isn't the same thing, if theistic evolution is scientific or not is totally irrelevant.
I brought it up to show that ID and creationism wasn't the same thing.
Repeating the same old PRATTs doesn't make them true, jar.
And Behe is just another Biblical Creationist. He may not be a YEC, but he's still just a creationist.
AbE:
Honestly, there seems to be no honor among any of that crowd, they will change names or try different definitions, whatever they seem to think will squeeze by the courts.
Edited by jar, : add apostrophe
Edited by jar, : AbE:

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:24 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:31 PM jar has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 50 of 377 (612277)
04-14-2011 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by jar
04-14-2011 1:27 PM


And Behe is just another Biblical Creationist. He may not be a YEC, but he's still just a creationist.
AbE:
Honestly, there seems to be no honor among any of that crowd, they will change names or try different definitions, whatever they seem to think will squeeze by the courts.
And now your just lying (unknowingly, I hope), because Behe is very clearly a theistic evolutionist and always has been.
And theistic evolutionism is, by definition, not creationism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 1:48 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 54 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:55 PM slevesque has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 51 of 377 (612278)
04-14-2011 1:46 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:24 PM


All I'm saying is that ID and biblical creationism isn't the same thing, . . .
That's like saying that Brown's Hydroplate Theory is not the same as biblical creationism.
The motivation of ID is to find some scientific sounding rationale for already held religious beliefs. ID is not motivated by scientific discovery or increasing our knowledge of the natural world. If it were we would see ID proponents doing scientific research. They aren't doing that research, nor do they have any intention of doing any research.
Biblical creationism is a movement that looks to attack science that conflicts with the idea that God created through supernatural means. That is exactly what ID is, and that is exactly what the proponents of ID do. ID proponents attack evolution without ever supporting their ID claims with positive evidence. Behe's entire IC argument boils down to "Not evolution, therefore ID".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:24 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:57 PM Taq has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 9970
Joined: 03-06-2009
Member Rating: 5.6


Message 52 of 377 (612279)
04-14-2011 1:48 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:31 PM


And now your just lying (unknowingly, I hope), because Behe is very clearly a theistic evolutionist and always has been.
Behe argues that the differences between species can not be explain by evolutionary mechanisms. That is not what theistic evolution is.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:31 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:55 PM Taq has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 53 of 377 (612283)
04-14-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by Taq
04-14-2011 1:48 PM


Behe argues that the differences between species can not be explain by evolutionary mechanisms. That is not what theistic evolution is.
Behe believes in the fact of evolution (nested hierarchy, fossil record, etc.) but not on the Neo-Darwinian mechanism.
He instead proposes directed evolution as the mechanism through which things evolved.
You don,t get any more theist evolutionist then that ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 1:48 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 2:12 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 60 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2011 2:42 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 69 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 4:15 PM slevesque has not replied

  
jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 54 of 377 (612284)
04-14-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:31 PM


slevesque writes:
And Behe is just another Biblical Creationist. He may not be a YEC, but he's still just a creationist.
AbE:
Honestly, there seems to be no honor among any of that crowd, they will change names or try different definitions, whatever they seem to think will squeeze by the courts.
And now your just lying (unknowingly, I hope), because Behe is very clearly a theistic evolutionist and always has been.
And theistic evolutionism is, by definition, not creationism.
Sorry but no. As soon as you bring in some magic outside agency that meddles in the process it stops being science and becomes Creationism.
And as I said, the Creationists will call themselves anything that they think will get around the SCOTUS.
Edited by jar, : think not thing

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:31 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:01 PM jar has replied
 Message 61 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2011 2:45 PM jar has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 55 of 377 (612285)
04-14-2011 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Taq
04-14-2011 1:46 PM


Do you, or do you not, agree that they are not the same thing ?
Sure, they have similarities, and they have the same sort of connection as a rhombus and a square, but at the end of the day, this does not justify claiming that they are the same thing, because they clearly aren't.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 1:46 PM Taq has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2011 5:48 PM slevesque has not replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 56 of 377 (612286)
04-14-2011 2:01 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by jar
04-14-2011 1:55 PM


Sorry but no. As soon as you bring in some magic outside agency that meddles in the process it stops being science and becomes Creationism.
And as I said, the Creationists will call themselves anything that they think will get around the SCOTUS.
You really are the kind of all humpty-dumpties, playing with definition and words as to fit your needs.
Sorry, but putting in some 'outside magic' does not make someone automatically a creationist. It may make an idea none-scientific, but to actually be a creationist you have to think God poofed things out of nothing, not simply changed things incrementally over time.
Creationism Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 1:55 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by jar, posted 04-14-2011 2:48 PM slevesque has replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 57 of 377 (612288)
04-14-2011 2:12 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:55 PM


slevesque writes:
Behe believes in the fact of evolution (nested hierarchy, fossil record, etc.) but not on the Neo-Darwinian mechanism.
Every creationist accepts evolution to some degree (though I'm old enough to remember when they rejected "microevolution" too). You can't use that as a criterion for separating evolutionist from creationist.
What separates creationism from science is postulating a creator/director/designer.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:55 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:18 PM ringo has replied

  
slevesque
Member (Idle past 4640 days)
Posts: 1456
Joined: 05-14-2009


Message 58 of 377 (612289)
04-14-2011 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by ringo
04-14-2011 2:12 PM


Every creationist accepts evolution to some degree (though I'm old enough to remember when they rejected "microevolution" too). You can't use that as a criterion for separating evolutionist from creationist.
Depends on how you define evolution, but in any case Behe goes far beyond any limit a creationist accepts about the ToE.
For example, he believes that apes and humans share a common ancestor who lived 5 or so millions years ago. This is what I mean when I say he accepts the fact of evolution
What separates creationism from science is postulating a creator/director/designer.
I agree creationism isn't science. But that's the red herring in question here, because that is not what we are talking about.
All I'm saying is that ID and creationism isn't the same thing. You can't interchangebly use both words to talk about the two.
ID is one thing, creationism is another. Having common similarities doesn't make them the same thing.
God it's so hard to pass such an easily understable point around here sometimes. I probably feel like you do when you talk to a creationist who keeps repeating the same PRATT ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 2:12 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by ringo, posted 04-14-2011 2:34 PM slevesque has replied
 Message 70 by Taq, posted 04-14-2011 4:22 PM slevesque has not replied
 Message 109 by Straggler, posted 04-15-2011 6:11 AM slevesque has not replied

  
ringo
Member (Idle past 411 days)
Posts: 20940
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005


Message 59 of 377 (612290)
04-14-2011 2:34 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:18 PM


slevesque writes:
All I'm saying is that ID and creationism isn't the same thing. You can't interchangebly use both words to talk about the two.
It has already been pointed out that the cdesign proponentsists disagree with you.
Your point has been refuted a thousand times.

If you have nothing to say, you could have done so much more concisely. -- Dr Adequate

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:18 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:52 PM ringo has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1343 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 60 of 377 (612292)
04-14-2011 2:42 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:55 PM


slevesque writes:
Behe believes in the fact of evolution (nested hierarchy, fossil record, etc.) but not on the Neo-Darwinian mechanism.
He instead proposes directed evolution as the mechanism through which things evolved.
You don,t get any more theist evolutionist then that ...
no, that's not right either. my understanding of the matter is that behe believes entirely in the modern theory of evolution, including all of the darwinian mechanisms, common descent, etc. he just holds that there are some special exceptions which cannot be explained by those mechanisms. he does not believe in directed evolution in the way that a theistic evolutionist would, except in a certain small regard as some direction is obviously needed to construct his irreducibly complex structures.
Edited by arachnophilia, : No reason given.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:55 PM slevesque 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