Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design explains many follies
John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 256 of 302 (304965)
04-18-2006 11:22 AM


I think some of you should step back and really consider the wisdom of your arguments, such as, "There could be an completely unintelligent designer. There could be any number of partly intelligent designers."
Yes, I'm a man of faith who believes in the almighty God of the Bible who declares He created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1), and all creatures on the earth "after their own kind" (Gen 1:21-25) - not through gradual evolution letting the theory of abiogenesis run its course. God then created man after His own image (Gen 1:26).
The only proof God gives to us is recorded in Matthew 12,
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Jesus, "Teacher, we want to see a sign from You."
39 But Jesus answered and said to them, "An evil and adulterous generation craves for a sign; and yet no sign will be given to it but the sign of Jonah the prophet;
40 for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,"
and in John 14:21,
"He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."
It's folly to reject this proof.
May Him who is the joy of Easter find residence in your hearts.

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

Replies to this message:
 Message 257 by AdminNosy, posted 04-18-2006 11:47 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 258 by ReverendDG, posted 04-18-2006 3:41 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 259 by Chiroptera, posted 04-18-2006 4:41 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2006 10:39 PM John 10:10 has not replied

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


Message 257 of 302 (304976)
04-18-2006 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by John 10:10
04-18-2006 11:22 AM


Backing up your assertions
John, you used probability calculations as support for your position.
You have been asked to support them. You have not, as yet, done so. That is a violation of forum guidelines that require you to support you position. This is a science forum; quoting scripture is not support for the probability calculations and it certainly doesn't constitute anything that resembles "proof".
The science forums are not a place for preaching. If you don't like that distinction then you should restrict yourself (or will be restricted) to the non-science forums.
This message has been edited by AdminNosy, 04-18-2006 11:48 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by John 10:10, posted 04-18-2006 11:22 AM John 10:10 has not replied

ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 258 of 302 (305022)
04-18-2006 3:41 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by John 10:10
04-18-2006 11:22 AM


The folly seems to be not admiting that your arguement shows that ID is not science, but a wedge to get religion in schools
you have no arguement really if you have to resort to pulling scripture out of your arse

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by John 10:10, posted 04-18-2006 11:22 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 259 of 302 (305032)
04-18-2006 4:41 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by John 10:10
04-18-2006 11:22 AM


quote:
...so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth,
Maybe you should take this to the Biblical Accuracy forum and present the evidence that this actually occurred.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by John 10:10, posted 04-18-2006 11:22 AM John 10:10 has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 260 of 302 (305088)
04-18-2006 10:39 PM
Reply to: Message 256 by John 10:10
04-18-2006 11:22 AM


Really?
I think some of you should step back and really consider the wisdom of your arguments ...
This from someone who has, as is amply demonstrated by your several posts, shown zero understanding of probabilities.
... such as, "There could be an completely unintelligent designer. There could be any number of partly intelligent designers."
Then demonstrate that such are not possible - do the work instead of just making the claim. I've asked you several times to substantiate your assertions and all I have gotten in return is just more assertions, or just repeats of previous assertions.
Demonstrate the wisdom of ignoring what all the possibilities might be John, and show us how such willful chosen ignorance explains any "follies" or provides any basis for increased understanding.
Yes, I'm a man of faith who believes in the almighty ...
And I'll say this again: you are not an IDer you are a creationist.
Some people could go further and say that you are a fake, not because of your self touted degree and profession (which I always ignore as irrelevant to the argument -- it's like a reverse ad hominum combined with an egotistical appeal to (selfs) authority), though you have certainly left yourself open to that (based - again - on the content of your posts),
But because you are pretending to be an IDer when you actually contradict many mainstream ID concepts and generally reject any of the logical positions that the basic concept {could\would\should} allow in a rational evaluation -- whenever it contradicts your creationist beliefs.
When you say "intelligent designer" what you really mean is "the almighty God of the Bible" -- and no other.
So be honest John, and admit that you are a creationist and NOT an IDer. You cannot use "ID" as a new fad word for god.
Enjoy.
ps - I'd also like to thank you for demonstrating that you {can't\don't\won't} identify any "follies" - to say nothing of explaining a single one in any way - other than to spout assertions, that you cannot substantiate any of your assertions, and that when pushed for a real answer, fall back on quoting the bible.
... which is totally off-topic and not allowed in science threads, and certainly not an answer to the questions.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by John 10:10, posted 04-18-2006 11:22 AM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 261 by Admin, posted 04-19-2006 9:56 AM RAZD has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 261 of 302 (305204)
04-19-2006 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 260 by RAZD
04-18-2006 10:39 PM


Forum Guidelines Warning
Hi everyone!
Though this message is a reply to RAZD, this is to all.
I guess the vacuum created by John 10:10's inability to argue or respond in any scientifically substantive way is a strong invitation to begin discussing him instead, but I think we should keep it objective and positive. In my opinion, John 10:10 is sincere but uninformed about science, creationism and ID. He accepts the traditional creationist belief that evolution and much other science is wrong, and he has some awareness of a few of the arguments creationists use, such as probability, but he doesn't understand them. The claim of an engineering physics degree is possibly spurious, or it might come from a Bible college, but degree or not it is clear that John 10:10 has very little scientific or mathematical background.
Where John 10:10 has gone wrong is in trying to paint a picture of himself as scientifically competent that is belied by his inability to make accurate scientific statements. He's also developed a habit of not addressing rebuttals (already addressed by AdminNosy), and is given to quoting scripture.
All this can be very frustrating, but I'd like to encourage the participants not to let John 10:10 lure them into violations of the Forum Guidelines. Yes, John 10:10 is violating them pretty well himself, but unfortunately for the rest of you there is no rule about when it's okay to violate the Forum Guidelines. If John 10:10 continues in his current vein he'll lose his privileges in the science forums, and attempts by members to spur John into meaningful posts through insult will only cause difficulty for themselves.
I don't see any Forum Guidelines violations worth noting so far, but I sense we're beginning to run right up to the edge, hence this caution.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by RAZD, posted 04-18-2006 10:39 PM RAZD has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 262 by John 10:10, posted 04-19-2006 4:46 PM Admin has replied

John 10:10
Member (Idle past 2996 days)
Posts: 766
From: Mt Juliet / TN / USA
Joined: 02-01-2006


Message 262 of 302 (305307)
04-19-2006 4:46 PM
Reply to: Message 261 by Admin
04-19-2006 9:56 AM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
It seems most here are very good at insults, and the latest Admin warning contains a few more.
I will give you my credentials one more time for those who are interested in facts, not insults.
I did not go to Bible College, but do have a good understanding of what the Bible declares, and who our creator God is.
I do have a BS degree in Engineering Physics, with a minor in math, and 20 graduate hrs in Mechanical Engineering. I have spent 41 years in the Nuclear Energy Business - 4 years @ Combustion Engineering/ABB, 20 years with GE Nuclear Energy Division, 9 years with Westinghouse @ DOE Savannah River, and now 8 years with Sargent & Lundy (currently working at TVA Browns Ferry Nuclear Plant). I have designed nuclear reactor vessels, steam generators, and other nuclear steam supply system equipment, provided technical direction for the installation of this equipment at many nuclear plants, determined corrective actions for many mechanical problems at nuclear power plants, and spent 9 years at Savannah River where nuclear materials and tritium were made, processed, and safely stored.
My engineering abilities and understanding of scientific principles have served me very well for 41 years, and continue to do so.
I have stated again and again that I can offer no proof that ID is the reason for our existence, but neither can evolution, abiogenesis, or according to some, any other scientific principle. According to some, nothing is 100% provable. On this point I disagree. Many scientific principles are provable to a very high degree of certainly, but abiogenesis is not one of these. I do not object to teaching parts of abiogenesis as possibly being true, those parts that can be proven to a high degree of certainty. But teaching abiogenesis as proven science from the start to creature-hood is what I object to.
If most at this web site want to place their faith in abiogenesis, that is your right to do so. But so also is my faith that an Intelligent Designer or Creator God is the complete cause of our existence.
I’m sure this post will generate more insults and questionings of my credentials, but that’s your problem, not mine.

The evil one comes to steal, kill and destroy; but I Jesus have come that you might have eternal Life and have eternal Life more abundantly - John 10:10

This message is a reply to:
 Message 261 by Admin, posted 04-19-2006 9:56 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by CK, posted 04-19-2006 4:59 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 264 by kalimero, posted 04-19-2006 5:03 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 265 by Admin, posted 04-19-2006 5:58 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 266 by Chiroptera, posted 04-19-2006 6:13 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 267 by RAZD, posted 04-19-2006 8:21 PM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 269 by sidelined, posted 04-20-2006 2:48 AM John 10:10 has not replied
 Message 270 by Parasomnium, posted 04-20-2006 4:16 AM John 10:10 has not replied

CK
Member (Idle past 4128 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 263 of 302 (305312)
04-19-2006 4:59 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by John 10:10
04-19-2006 4:46 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
I really have to break cover for this one -
John I been observing the debate, the problem that your opponents have is that they cannot understand how someone who claims to have a strong science and mathamatics background can make such a rudimentary error in regards to the 50/50 probability that you offer as an "answer". Moreover, you don't even seem to be able to comprehend why this is such a rudimentary error.
Moreover, you don't seem to what to deal with the issues that people are raising in regards to your answer.
Would it be helpful if someone provided a more detailed explaination of why your conclusions are in error?
Do you understand what I'm getting at?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by John 10:10, posted 04-19-2006 4:46 PM John 10:10 has not replied

kalimero
Member (Idle past 2445 days)
Posts: 251
From: Israel
Joined: 04-08-2006


Message 264 of 302 (305313)
04-19-2006 5:03 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by John 10:10
04-19-2006 4:46 PM


But teaching abiogenesis as proven science from the start to creature-hood is what I object to.
Nobody is teaching abiogenesis as a proven fact. Its the principals of evolution that should be taught as fact (tentatively). Even in my university abiogenesis it is not taught as fact, but as a hypothesis.
My room-mate is learning softwear engeneering, he is fairly educated and an inteligent person, and even he was stuned to hear that science never proves anything, but is tentative.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by John 10:10, posted 04-19-2006 4:46 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 265 of 302 (305320)
04-19-2006 5:58 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by John 10:10
04-19-2006 4:46 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
Hi John 10:10,
As I said earlier, your inability to address the rebuttals, even to give any indication of understanding the rebuttals, is why this topic is turning from discussing the topic to discussing you. People get tired of repeating the same explanations over and over again and seeing you ignore them over and over again, and so you yourself have become the topic of conversation. You have only yourself to blame for this. We can put you out of your misery by removing your privileges from the science forums, but I'd prefer not to do that.
John 10:10 writes:
I do have a BS degree in Engineering Physics, with a minor in math...
Here's everyone's problem with you, John, by way of just one example: How can someone with an engineering physics degree and a minor in math make a boneheaded error like arguing that because something either is or it isn't that therefore the odds are 50/50?
My engineering abilities and understanding of scientific principles have served me very well for 41 years, and continue to do so.
They're not serving you very well here. If your strong technical background doesn't begin showing itself in your posts by addressing the substance of rebuttals then you'll lose your privileges in the science forums.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by John 10:10, posted 04-19-2006 4:46 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 266 of 302 (305322)
04-19-2006 6:13 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by John 10:10
04-19-2006 4:46 PM


quote:
I will give you my credentials one more time for those who are interested in facts, not insults.
Again, I don't care about your credentials. Your credentials are irrelevant. Your facts are wrong and your arguments are logically flawed. This has been repeatedly demonstrated. It doesn't matter what your credentials are; your credentials will not make your facts correct, nor will they fix the fallacies in your arguments.
-
quote:
According to some, nothing is 100% provable. On this point I disagree.
Oh? What scientific theory has been proven 100%?
-
quote:
neither can evolution...
Perhaps not 100%; however, the evidence in favor of it is pretty overwhelming. I would say that evolution has been "proven" to 100% minus a very, very, very small number.
-
quote:
...abiogenesis...
This point is probably true. Even if tomorrow a team of scientists have announced that they have created actual life in their laboratory under conditions that mimic the primordial earth, there is no way to conclude from this that this is what happened three and a half billion years ago. The only way we could know what happened is to find actual physical evidence from that time. Unfortunately, the precursors to life are not expected to be something that was likely to leave fossils, so we will probably never have any good evidence of the processes that led to the creation of life. So we will never know precisely what transpired. We will never be able to do more than propose possibilities.
-
quote:
I’m sure this post will generate more insults and questionings of my credentials, but that’s your problem, not mine.
You spend a great amount of time and effort in presenting your credentials; considering that your credentials are irrelevant to the discussion, it appears you do feel that this is your problem.

"Religion is the best business to be in. It's the only one where the customers blame themselves for product failure."
-- Ellis Weiner (quoted on the NAiG message board)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by John 10:10, posted 04-19-2006 4:46 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 268 by Admin, posted 04-19-2006 8:25 PM Chiroptera has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 267 of 302 (305354)
04-19-2006 8:21 PM
Reply to: Message 262 by John 10:10
04-19-2006 4:46 PM


Poor John's insults ...
It seems most here are very good at insults, ...
Let he who is without sin cast the first stone eh?
John, msg 256 writes:
I think some of you should step back and really consider the wisdom of your arguments, such as, ... (quotes me)
The arrogant condescension of this remark, the insinuation that I don't consider the implications of what I post, and the bare assumption that you know better and that you can presume to correct me -- when you have demonstrated no such ability in any of your several so-called responses.
And as I said before, I don't care tiddly-boo what your education and profession is.
I do have a BS degree in Engineering Physics, ... etc. ... My engineering abilities and understanding of scientific principles have served me very well for 41 years, and continue to do so.
Because this is really just another appeal to authority logical fallacy, with the added egotistical twist that you are claiming to be the expert (while demonstrating inability at basic math probability skills). What your claim here is that your argument is correct just because you have a degree and worked. How is that valid John?
The point is that your argument is just plain wrong, wrong on many levels, even uncontestedly wrong (as in the errors have been noted and you have not {contested\bothered} to answer).
You could be Einstein, and if you made the same specious and vapid claims and then failed to correct or to substantiate your position when challenged I would be making the same challenges, the same remarks, the same conclusions, about the failures of your arguments.
Who makes the argument has no bearing on the validity of the argument. What the argument says is the only thing that has bearing on the validity of the argument. If the argument is challenged then you need to provide evidence to substantiate it or withdraw the argument -- you need to provide more what to the argument.
The only thing I expect from someone claiming these credentials is the ability, the willingness and the courtesy of substantiating their positions when challenged or recanting them when they can't do so. I expect this basic honesty from people with high school diplomas (or less), and I certainly should expect no less from someone with 1.5 college degrees and 41 years of work.
So stop beating your chest, John, and stop whining about being {insulted\persecuted\ganged} and start demonstrating that ability you claim by making some substantiated and mathematically valid arguments.
Stop insulting yourself with what you post.
Many scientific principles are provable to a very high degree of certainly, ...
{sigh} ... repeating once more for the peanut gallery: As pointed out science doesn't "prove" any theory, the best that you get is substantiating evidence that doesn't contradict the theory. So far evolution has substantiating evidence. Where some theories ran into contracting evidence, those theories were invalidated (Lamarckism, etc) and replaced by new theories. This is how science operates.
... but abiogenesis is not one of these.
Sorry, I missed any kind of substantiation for this assertion, any evidence, any display of logical thinking, any reason to think it is anything more than just another blind faith argument from incredulity.
And in point of fact abiogenesis has substantiating evidence with more accumulating every day. Since it's inception as a science (essentially with the Miller Urey experiments) it has grown to be rather exciting, imh(ysa)o, field standing on it's own legs.
Denial of evidence has remarkably little effect on the existence of the evidence.
I’m sure this post will generate more insults and questionings of my credentials, but that’s your problem, not mine.
Bare the chest, get out the willow switches, rend your clothes and cover yourself with ashes ...
Yeah, you're just another poor old persecuted christian that gets dumped on by all the unholy anti-christs ... instead of just somebody that {can't\won't} actually answer the criticism of their arguments or provide any substantiation other than making assertions about how great they are.
Clothes make the man, eh? And on sites like this your clothes are your arguments. I suggest you start dressing your arguments with substance.
Now you have two choices: you can take this as an insult, or you can take it as valid criticism and change your ways for the better.
According to your calculations you have a 50:50 chance of getting it right ...
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by John 10:10, posted 04-19-2006 4:46 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 268 of 302 (305355)
04-19-2006 8:25 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by Chiroptera
04-19-2006 6:13 PM


Hi Chiroptera,
John 10:10 may have provided his credentials in detail because I requested them a couple days ago in Message 246:
Physics and engineering both make intensive use of math and probability, and your basic math error seems inconsistent with such a background. Maybe if we understood your background in a little better detail it would help the discussion make progress. Are there any other details you'd be willing to provide?
The information he provided makes him even more perplexing. Perhaps he's a bit like Salty, minus the salt if you get my meaning. Somewhere along the way the boat lost the rudder and the oars left the water.
John 10:10,
I know this is demeaning and insulting, and we have Forum Guidelines against it (see rule 10), but if you read back through the thread you'll see that I intervened as Admin on a couple occasions (I use the Catbert avatar as Admin) to protect you against the frustration you were causing by ignoring rules 2 and 4 (stay on-topic, support your position with evidence and/or reasoned argumentation, address rebuttals, don't keep repeating the same points).
I was hoping you would use the extra time to your advantage, but you changed nothing you were doing, and then AdminNosy gave a warning and you ignored him, too. I've gotten a little more ascerbic just to make sure that I have your attention before I take action, and I'm about ready to. If your next post is pretty much like the ones before it then I'll be removing your privileges in the science forums.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by Chiroptera, posted 04-19-2006 6:13 PM Chiroptera has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5909 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 269 of 302 (305399)
04-20-2006 2:48 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by John 10:10
04-19-2006 4:46 PM


Re: Forum Guidelines Warning
John 10:10
I have stated again and again that I can offer no proof that ID is the reason for our existence, but neither can evolution, abiogenesis, or according to some, any other scientific principle. According to some, nothing is 100% provable. On this point I disagree. Many scientific principles are provable to a very high degree of certainly, but abiogenesis is not one of these
Not to throws stones your way but some would also disagree with you.
If you thought that science was certain ” well, that is just an error on your part."
Richard Feynman (1918-1988).
No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong. Albert Einstein
In science, 'fact' can only mean 'confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.' I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
Stephen Jay Gould (1941 - 2002)
So in regards to ID can you provide confirmation in any amount? Do you have an experiment that can be falsified? As Albert implied experimentation is the key to the validity of any hypothesis.
Do you have anything to offer except opinion to show that ID is more than merely conjecture? Do you know of research that has confirmed even one prediction that is based on the principle of intelligent design?
Hell, are you aware of even one prediction ever made in ID to which experimentation can be applied?

Science alone of all the subjects contains within itself the lesson of the danger of belief in the infallibility of the greatest teachers in the preceding generation . . .Learn from science that you must doubt the experts. As a matter of fact, I can also define science another way: Science is the belief in the ignorance of experts.
Richard Feynman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by John 10:10, posted 04-19-2006 4:46 PM John 10:10 has not replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 270 of 302 (305402)
04-20-2006 4:16 AM
Reply to: Message 262 by John 10:10
04-19-2006 4:46 PM


Back to real discussion.
John,
I'm sorry if you feel insulted by what I and others wrote, and I apologize for my part.
I wrote:
quote:
Judging from your recent posts, I'd have thought there wasn't a snowball's chance in hell of you having understood basic probability theory, which I reckon would be one of the minimum requirements for a degree such as you claim to have.
Although I still stand by the actual content of that remark, I realize I should not have said it in such a harsh tone. I agree with Admin that this thread should be about arguments, and not about anyone's person.
That said, here is something I'd like to draw your attention to, it's an example of inaccurate thinking on your part:
John 10:10 writes:
According to some, nothing is 100% provable. On this point I disagree. Many scientific principles are provable to a very high degree of certainly, but abiogenesis is not one of these.
You say you disagree that nothing is 100% provable. So you think that some things are 100% provable. That's fine, I agree.
But to augment your point, you then go on to say that "many scientific principles are provable to a very high degree of certainty". First of all, a very high degree of certainty is not the same as 100%, and second, this very point is what many science-minded people have been saying all along.
If you say that abiogenesis is not among the scientific theories that have been "proven" with a high degree of certainty, then I agree. But the controversy between ID and evolution is not about how life started, but about how it became as complex as it is. The theory of evolution provides a very thorough and complete explanation for this.
By "thorough and complete" I mean that the details of what we find in nature are explained in a consistent manner by the theory of evolution, always compliant with it. As yet, the theory has withstood any challenge of the form "if such and such part of the theory is true then we should find such and such evidence". In most cases, we eventually find the evidence we seek. And sometimes we find evidence to the contrary, which prompts us to refine the theory so that it can explain the new evidence along with the evidence we already had.
Now, about that little matter with the 50/50 percent chances. CK said:
Would it be helpful if someone provided a more detailed explaination of why your conclusions are in error?
I'll give it go, in the form of a question. Please be so kind as to provide an answer.
An inexperienced archer tries to hit a small target a hundred metres away. There is a strong side wind blowing. The arrow the archer is using is bent and is missing part of the feathers at the butt. The archer is wearing a blindfold.
What is the chance that the archer will hit the target?
A. Fifty percent, because the archer will either hit the target, or miss it.
B. Almost zero, considering the circumstances.
What would you say, John? A or B?
This message has been edited by Parasomnium, 20-Apr-2006 02:39 PM

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 262 by John 10:10, posted 04-19-2006 4:46 PM John 10:10 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