Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 48 (9179 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: Jorge Parker
Post Volume: Total: 918,259 Year: 5,516/9,624 Month: 541/323 Week: 38/143 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Can't ID be tested AT ALL?
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4227 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 117 of 304 (308075)
04-30-2006 8:46 PM
Reply to: Message 114 by inkorrekt
04-30-2006 5:22 PM


Re: What IC is and isn't.
If everything is so simple, then why is it that no one has ever synthesized a living cell yet? It should not be a problem at all for all our Scientific "genies".
because we havn't yet? what kind of question is that? we are just starting to understand the structures of the cell, what does this have to really do with IC?
if ID is to be thought of as a better theory than the ToE and abiogenesis,it has to answer questions neather of the others can, and answer questions it claims why the others are wrong.
if IC is the reason why ToE is not the answer we have to have an understanding of what IC is first!
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 04-30-2006 08:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 114 by inkorrekt, posted 04-30-2006 5:22 PM inkorrekt has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4227 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 120 of 304 (308387)
05-02-2006 4:32 AM
Reply to: Message 119 by inkorrekt
05-01-2006 10:21 PM


Re: What IC is and isn't.
My question is not a test of ID. This is a challege to those who insist that there is no complexity inside the cell and even "Irreducible Complexity"
yes and no.. people question the useage of complexity, what does it mean how do we measure it, what can we measure it agenst? Till you can tell us what complexity is and with it IC the term is meaningless and a faulty argument
The ball is in your court, YOU have to come up with something, its not our job to prove you wrong, you have to show you are right

This message is a reply to:
 Message 119 by inkorrekt, posted 05-01-2006 10:21 PM inkorrekt has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4227 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 126 of 304 (309514)
05-05-2006 8:58 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by jaywill
05-05-2006 3:08 PM


Re: What IC is and isn't.
thats funny, are you sure you arn't reading Behe? he uses the same arguement with the mouse trap, and people have refuted that one
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/behe/review.html - for an review
I recall the example of a mousetrap. You can take away the color from a red mouse trap and it will still do its job. But you cannot take away, let us say, the coiled spring. If you reduce the coiled spring from the mouse trap, it won't function to trap the mouse.
just as the author at T.O points out yes it will fuction but not all that well
This message has been edited by ReverendDG, 05-05-2006 08:59 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by jaywill, posted 05-05-2006 3:08 PM jaywill has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 129 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 11:11 AM ReverendDG has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4227 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 141 of 304 (309761)
05-06-2006 4:30 PM
Reply to: Message 129 by jaywill
05-06-2006 11:11 AM


Re: What IC is and isn't.
OK? no i was making the point that it was amusing that you hadn't read behe but came up with the same idea i think you misunderstood me
as for this :
I mean I have seen this or that point debated. But has anyone written a book of similiar length taking each chapter to task? It seems that over the Internet there's a lot of bragging about how bad Behe was refuted. I often question whether some of these braggers have even read Darwin's Black Box.
i have and its nothing but nonsense, and meaningless science words with no meaning other than to impress non-science people
why would we need to refute every chapter? his arguments amounts to "evolution couldn't happen because of some calculation we came up with that makes it impossible, so it is." or "i just don't consider it possible so its not"

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by jaywill, posted 05-06-2006 11:11 AM jaywill has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4227 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 195 of 304 (329784)
07-08-2006 2:33 AM
Reply to: Message 194 by inkorrekt
07-08-2006 2:19 AM


Re: What IC means and what it doesn't.
However, this experiment is being quoted as proof for creation of life from non living material.Does this success have anything to do with life?
no its not, name one publication that said it was "proof" of anything more than amino acids are possible to create
this is a creationist credited strawman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 194 by inkorrekt, posted 07-08-2006 2:19 AM inkorrekt has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4227 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 209 of 304 (348162)
09-11-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 12:13 PM


Only by our understanding of what inteligence and design is. Never in a theological Godlike sense.
so how do we go aobut testing intelligence and design, so far anyone has yet to answer this
Never in a theological Godlike sense.
funny,everyone who is asked who the designer is says god, so it is theological and only pretending to be science by denial of not defining the core of ID, the designer
as i have pointed out to someone else here, if complexity is how ID is defined, then any answer but a god that is eternal causes an ad infinum loop

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 12:13 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 211 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 6:55 PM ReverendDG has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4227 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 214 of 304 (348207)
09-11-2006 7:42 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 6:55 PM


Our definitions will change as our prejudice and understanding changes.
We are limited by our level of understanding.
wow nice dodge, so.. you have nothing, why should we accept this as science again? oh i know! because you say so, riiiggght
Everyone?
everyone who posts here does, if you say aliens did it you have to ask who designed them then? more aliens? this is science?!?
es, from one point of view. Let us consider the scenario that we find
something in the future off world that suggests that it was designed by inteligence. Should it happen there will be long debate over many years. Will this debate be theological by default? If we arrive at the conclusion in the future that there is sufficient evidence to support intelligence being involved in the process of evolution it does not automatically imply God. That is a matter of faith.
nice quotemining, i never said the arguments would be theological in nature i said the conclusions are. and it does imply god based on ID, as i said based on the way ID is setup, the conclusion has to be god in the end for ID to work based on how they claim things are designed, namely complexity. Also even if we found a 'designed' item on another planet, how would that help your argument? if its an object like we have we would know it since it would be like things we make, but how would we know its not natural if its nothing like what we make? this is just an argument to claim archology is like ID, but archologists know who designed the objects they find because theres only one answer not two or more, namely humans
can you tell me how you would answer if i asked you if the designer is not a god what would it be, if complexity is how you show stuff is designed?
Defining God and the intentions of God are a whole other forum.
i'm sorry can you read what i wrote again? i said that IDiests deny they are trying to bring god into science by not defining the designer, which in 99% of the cases is god, the other 1% is stopping at aliens, so they don't have to take the last step to god. thanks for not getting it, and just trying to change the subject
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 6:55 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 10:36 PM ReverendDG has replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4227 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 218 of 304 (348989)
09-14-2006 3:07 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-11-2006 10:36 PM


Not a dodge at all. Simply a statement that a test for intelligence today will come from a different understanding as time goes by.
the only tests we can make involve humans, we have no other source of intelligence and as i said half a dozen times now, in the context we do have, which is us nothing other than what we make shows design, unless you can point some out?
Why does one have to ask if the designer was designed to determine if there was evidence of design?
because it makes or breaks whether or not it is science, if ID isn't required to answer "who designed the designer?" we might as well accept esp exists or ufos. because if ID isn't accountable for answering ALL the questions it supposably claims to answer, why should we accept it?
anyway you are arguing something i never claimed about evidence of design. i wish you could at least quote me where i said that my argument of the designer had anything to do with evidence of design, this is very disingenious of you and i feel this becomeing a waste of my time if you continue to misconscrue what i say
my real argument is that the identity of the designer as god is led by the reasoning that if the context of knowing if something is designed
is considering something complex as implying intelligent design then by logic the designer is designed as well. if the designer of the designer is designed, then it is meaningless and an infinit loop unless you invoke something eternal like god, this happens due to lack of evidence to measure ID or test it or do any science with it
wouldn't have a clue. What makes you assume it is God? You seem to have a God issue. Remove this and look at the simple concept of intelligence at work. Are you ignoring the concept on the grounds that God might be implied? God is a belief. You either believe or you don't. The question of wether or not intelligence may have set evolution in motion has nothing to do with it.
do you even bother to read my answers? you keep saying this but my answers never get through, ID claims the universe is designed, do you know of anything other than a god that can do this? do you even know anything about ID? it says evolution can't explain complexity it has nothing to do with evolution other than to say evolution is impossible , so it must have been designed
i'm reading God based on what ID says what are you reading about? all of the leaders of the ID movement say its god. why shouldn't i accept what the people who bloody started the thing say, they like to deny it but they have plenty of papers showing what they really think
I don't have a god issue, i have an ID issue that says Goddidit" in another form without calling it god, while claiming its science, with no scientific evidence and all the evidence they claim refuted 2 years ago
i mean come on they took a creationist book and changed god to designer how low is that?
Can you tell me how you arrive at the conclusion that evolution excludes or nullifies the concept of intelligent design?
i never said it did, you have that backwards, ID nullifies evolution, go read about intelligent design, all of its arguments claim a priori
that evolution doesn't explain complexity, but ID does
i said unlike what you claim i did.
that evolution answers the questions that ID claims it does and answers the why for we have a baddly setup spine and legs and heart and breath passage and backwards eyes
ID doesn't it claims its designed that way but thats it its "Designerdidit" this isn't science its junk masking itself as science
another question, why bother defending something you don't really agree with? or defending something you really don't understand?
if you have to invoke "well you just don't understand the reasons behind it!" then its hokum and shouldn't be counted as science
now answer childs question because i want to know your answer too please
just to add one last thing:
The authoritative description of intelligent design[36] explicitly states that the universe displays features of having been designed. Acknowledging the paradox, Dembski concludes "no intelligent agent who is strictly physical could have presided over the origin of the universe or the origin of life."[37] The leading proponents have made statements to their supporters that they believe the designer to be the Christian God, to the exclusion of all other religions.[18]
from the ID wiki: Intelligent design - Wikipedia
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : No reason given.
Edited by ReverendDG, : adding more

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-11-2006 10:36 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-17-2006 12:31 PM ReverendDG 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