Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The utility of ID
Larni
Member (Idle past 163 days)
Posts: 4000
From: Liverpool
Joined: 09-16-2005


Message 31 of 42 (258781)
11-11-2005 5:52 AM
Reply to: Message 17 by Brad McFall
11-04-2005 7:08 AM


Re: Detecting design.
Sorry mate, did not understand your post. Could you be clearer?
Thanx

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 11-04-2005 7:08 AM Brad McFall has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by tardygm2, posted 11-11-2005 9:06 AM Larni has replied

  
tardygm2 
Inactive Member


Message 32 of 42 (258799)
11-11-2005 9:06 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by Larni
11-11-2005 5:52 AM


Re: Detecting design.

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

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by Larni, posted 11-11-2005 5:52 AM Larni has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by BuckeyeChris, posted 11-11-2005 10:38 AM tardygm2 has not replied
 Message 34 by AdminNosy, posted 11-11-2005 10:49 AM tardygm2 has not replied
 Message 35 by AdminJar, posted 11-11-2005 12:22 PM tardygm2 has not replied
 Message 36 by Larni, posted 11-11-2005 12:39 PM tardygm2 has not replied

  
BuckeyeChris
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 42 (258812)
11-11-2005 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by tardygm2
11-11-2005 9:06 AM


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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by tardygm2, posted 11-11-2005 9:06 AM tardygm2 has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 34 of 42 (258814)
11-11-2005 10:49 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by tardygm2
11-11-2005 9:06 AM


Sticking to the topic
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by tardygm2, posted 11-11-2005 9:06 AM tardygm2 has not replied

  
AdminJar
Inactive Member


Message 35 of 42 (258839)
11-11-2005 12:22 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by tardygm2
11-11-2005 9:06 AM


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

Comments on moderation procedures (or wish to respond to admin messages)? - Go to:
  • General discussion of moderation procedures

  • Thread Reopen Requests

  • Considerations of topic promotions from the "Proposed New Topics" forum
  • New Members: to get an understanding of what makes great posts, check out:
  • "Post of the Month" Forum

  • "Columnist's Corner" Forum
  • See also Forum Guidelines, Style Guides for EvC, and Assistance w/ Forum Formatting

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 32 by tardygm2, posted 11-11-2005 9:06 AM tardygm2 has not replied

      
    Larni
    Member (Idle past 163 days)
    Posts: 4000
    From: Liverpool
    Joined: 09-16-2005


    Message 36 of 42 (258844)
    11-11-2005 12:39 PM
    Reply to: Message 32 by tardygm2
    11-11-2005 9:06 AM


    Re: Detecting design.
    "evolution is theory creation is true"-bbb67
    Mate, 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!

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 32 by tardygm2, posted 11-11-2005 9:06 AM tardygm2 has not replied

      
    mick
    Member (Idle past 4986 days)
    Posts: 913
    Joined: 02-17-2005


    Message 37 of 42 (258975)
    11-11-2005 6:28 PM
    Reply to: Message 26 by nwr
    11-10-2005 10:53 PM


    Re: bump
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 26 by nwr, posted 11-10-2005 10:53 PM nwr has not replied

      
    MangyTiger
    Member (Idle past 6353 days)
    Posts: 989
    From: Leicester, UK
    Joined: 07-30-2004


    Message 38 of 42 (258999)
    11-11-2005 9:53 PM
    Reply to: Message 30 by Larni
    11-11-2005 5:50 AM


    Re: Completely agree
    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

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 30 by Larni, posted 11-11-2005 5:50 AM Larni has not replied

      
    Tusko
    Member (Idle past 100 days)
    Posts: 615
    From: London, UK
    Joined: 10-01-2004


    Message 39 of 42 (259035)
    11-12-2005 6:03 AM
    Reply to: Message 14 by Silent H
    11-04-2005 6:20 AM


    Re: Detecting design.
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 14 by Silent H, posted 11-04-2005 6:20 AM Silent H has not replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 40 by nwr, posted 11-12-2005 9:23 AM Tusko has replied

      
    nwr
    Member
    Posts: 6408
    From: Geneva, Illinois
    Joined: 08-08-2005
    Member Rating: 5.1


    Message 40 of 42 (259048)
    11-12-2005 9:23 AM
    Reply to: Message 39 by Tusko
    11-12-2005 6:03 AM


    Everything is designed
    Tusko writes:
    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.
    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.

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 39 by Tusko, posted 11-12-2005 6:03 AM Tusko has replied

    Replies to this message:
     Message 41 by Tusko, posted 11-12-2005 11:10 AM nwr has not replied

      
    Tusko
    Member (Idle past 100 days)
    Posts: 615
    From: London, UK
    Joined: 10-01-2004


    Message 41 of 42 (259073)
    11-12-2005 11:10 AM
    Reply to: Message 40 by nwr
    11-12-2005 9:23 AM


    Re: Everything is designed
    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 AM
    This message has been edited by Tusko, 11-12-2005 11:32 AM

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 40 by nwr, posted 11-12-2005 9:23 AM nwr has not replied

      
    Brad McFall
    Member (Idle past 5032 days)
    Posts: 3428
    From: Ithaca,NY, USA
    Joined: 12-20-2001


    Message 42 of 42 (311832)
    05-14-2006 9:40 PM
    Reply to: Message 17 by Brad McFall
    11-04-2005 7:08 AM


    Re: Detecting design.
    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 paleontology
    Edited by Brad McFall, : No reason given.
    Edited by Brad McFall, : correct spelling error

    This message is a reply to:
     Message 17 by Brad McFall, posted 11-04-2005 7:08 AM Brad McFall 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