Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,918 Year: 4,175/9,624 Month: 1,046/974 Week: 5/368 Day: 5/11 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The I in ID
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 137 of 146 (141328)
09-09-2004 11:16 PM
Reply to: Message 127 by ID man
09-09-2004 4:41 PM


Re: more (ad hominem) from ID man
ID man continues to repeat writes:
What anti-IDists don't understand is that they are starting (or start) from the complexity that needs to be explained in the first place. Evidence shows that even asexual reproduction is IC. Show us ONE piece of evidence that displays nature, acting alone, producing IC.
Another false canard. The present does not need to be explained to understand evolution and to see it working and being tested and the test results validating the theories (a point that IDeism has yet to reach).
Complexity of existing systems does not need to be explained when new complex systems are seen to evolve, especially ones where they result in a system made up of several features which then qualify under Behe’s own definition as an system. If it is observed to happen once then it is likely to be observed again.
And in spite of the attack on Miller the point he made has not been refuted: that is an IC feature according to Behe’s own definition as shown by the verifiable evidence of Hall’s experiment (which is in a journal, so that strawman is also irrelevant). Behe is refuted by Hall. Behe has not addressed the matter of the feature being IC, but has committed that logical fallacy of style over substance by attacking the manner of the experiment.
and AGAIN you are attacking the people and not the argument.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 127 by ID man, posted 09-09-2004 4:41 PM ID man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 140 of 146 (141334)
09-09-2004 11:53 PM
Reply to: Message 139 by crashfrog
09-09-2004 11:25 PM


IC is invalidated by E. coli experiment
I would say that this counts as invalidation of the concept that an IC system means having to assume a designer.
Here is clearly an example of an IC system that has developed under experimental conditions where the system was not induced but evolved from other existing elements.
That this system is IC has also been shown, as it is composed of 3 features that have to work together for the system to work at all.
IC is a dead concept. RIPed.
heh.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2004 11:25 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2004 12:45 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1436 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 142 of 146 (141343)
09-10-2004 1:54 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by crashfrog
09-10-2004 12:45 AM


yep. I went to the recommended ID forum to see what it was like and found this:
http://www.iscid.org/boards/ubb-get_topic-f-6-t-000523.html
Topic: Open viewing, invited posting
New Update: If you would like to be considered as a participant of Brainstorms, please send an email to moderator@iscid.org and in the message either provide evidence of previous posts that you've made that you'd like us to use in our consideration or send a new post for evaluation.
Moving forward, Brainstorms is implementing a new discussion board policy. This policy is an attempt to improve the quality of our forum's postings while at the same time slowing down the pace. Good conversations don't happen when people post in a frenzy, driven only by an eagerness to shoot down ideas, accuse, and slogan-sling.
There is a danger in taking this policy: it could be that it doesn't fit internet dynamics. We will have to wait and see. One thing is for sure: we were not happy with the quality of discussions that were taking place, and saw no reason to waste our bandwidth hosting the sort of thing that is pervasive across the net. If you want to advocate for or against Darwinism, go somewhere else. If you want to advocate for or against ID, go somewhere else. Indeed, if you see this conversation as "ID vs. Darwinism" then you might as well go somewhere else as well.
Brainstorms was never set up to be a standard, anything goes, discussion forum. We have a goal: to foster substantive, scientific discussions. Some people think that having this goal amounts to censorship. We're sorry if you see it that way. We don't. We see it as implementing heuristics to produce above status-quo conversations.
Active participation at Brainstorms is now limited to:
(1) An invited group of participants who we feel have generally been productive community members and who have generally remained congenial unless provoked (and sometimes despite being provoked)
(2) Suitably screened emails sent as thread-starters to moderator@iscid.org (if someone's email is accepted, then he or she automatically becomes a probationay participant).
(3) ISCID members
Posting at Brainstorms, for any of these three groups of people, is a privilege that can be revoked if abused.
In other words, if your not 100% for ID then go somewhere else. You can try to send an e-mail, but your chances of getting one approved that criticises ID in any way will not be allowed (our egos are too fragile). You can read all you want to, but can't post until we bless you.
Also this is posted:
Topic: Purchase "Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA"
ISCID Executive Director William Dembski is the editor of a recently released collection of essays on the nature and role of teleology in science. Purchase a copy through the link below and support ISCID.
Debating Design: From Darwin to DNA
William A. Dembski and Michael Ruse (Editors)
Amazon.com
Book Description
William Dembski, Michael Ruse, and other prominent philosophers provide here a comprehensive balanced overview of the debate concerning biological origins--a controversial dialectic since Darwin published The Origin of Species in 1859. Invariably, the source of controversy has been "design." Is the appearance of design in organisms (as exhibited in their functional complexity) the result of purely natural forces acting without prevision or teleology? Or, does the appearance of design signify genuine prevision and teleology, and, if so .... yada yada ...
Looks like Dembski is one of the head honchos.
Rules, Policies, and Disclaimers
If you agree to abide by our rules below, please press the Agree button, which will enable you to register on this message board. If you do not agree to these terms, press the Cancel button.
The ISCID boards have different levels of access.
Non-members and members can participate in the Brainstorms forum under tight moderation. Brainstorms is the only board on which anonymous/pseudonymous names are allowed.
Non-members can view and members can post in the Archive, and News sections.
Members are able to view and post in the Member Services Boards.
Sorry, but I've been to stifled debate sites before. I'll let the mountain come to mohammed.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2004 12:45 AM crashfrog 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