Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
3 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: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The design inference
Peter
Member (Idle past 1509 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 86 of 121 (7406)
03-20-2002 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 79 by John Paul
03-18-2002 7:37 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
schraf:
We don't know how to detect it. That's the problem.
John Paul:
We have a very, very good idea. There is a better case for design in living organisms than there is for life arising from non-life via purely natural processes.

Perhaps you could summarise this 'better case' in bullet points ?
Also, please explain how we have a very, very good idea about how to detect design, and perhaps you could pass that on the the
marine archeaologists and geologists who are agruing about the
man-made or natural formation of undersea structures off the coast
of India (I believe).
How CAN you be sure that a 100 X 100 grid of trees was planted ?
What would be the tolerance acceptable on that alignment before
you would conclude lack of design ?
Step 1:: Does E have a high probability of ocurring ?
This is the whole stumbling block of Dembski's design filter for
me. In whose opinion is this probability formed ? If we do not
understand the mechanisms by which life WAS formed (and life has
arisen somehow) how can we assign probabilites to it ?
If E is natural emergence of life on earth, I assign that a high
probablity based upon various readings about thermal vents, and
such like ... so I assign the emergence to regularity.
I've even seen statistical probablitities against abiogenesis, which,
if the assumptions upon which they are based are challenged,
reduce the odds to mathematically acceptable without pointing out
that statistical probability doesn't really mean anything (especially
ater the event).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by John Paul, posted 03-18-2002 7:37 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1509 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 95 of 121 (7863)
03-26-2002 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by The Barbarian
03-26-2002 1:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by The Barbarian:
JP's an odd guy. He claims to be a Muslim. But he insists that the Bible is the Word of God.
I'm starting to suspect he's just a poseur.

You'll probably find that it's because Islam views itself
to be an elaboration of christianity. God provided us
with MORE of his grand design through Mohamad (forgive the
spelling). It's kind of like an onion, with judaism in
the middle, surrounded by christianity, surrounded by
Islam ... sort of religous evolution really

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by The Barbarian, posted 03-26-2002 1:05 AM The Barbarian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by gene90, posted 03-26-2002 10:24 AM Peter 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