Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 59 (9164 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,920 Year: 4,177/9,624 Month: 1,048/974 Week: 7/368 Day: 7/11 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   10 Categories of Evidence For ID
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 61 of 147 (207501)
05-12-2005 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-12-2005 4:41 PM


Actually, that would be better stated as "some" IDists accept common descent. Behe, Gene and others are in the minority but they do exist. Dembski, Cordova, myself and others take an opposing view. There are several camps developing in ID just as there are your closed universalists verses your flat universalists, relativity gravitists verses graviton gravitists in physics, etc.
Wait a second. In the whole "teach the controversy" argument of ID proponents, they point to various scientists having differences regarding specifics of the evo model, and call that evidence for why it is a faulty and failing model.
Doesn't that mean what you just said about ID, is an indication that ID is faulty and failing?
But let me move beyond that to another question... what criteria allows you, Dembski, and others to oppose the position taken by Behe on common descent? And I don't mean lack of info, I mean what positive info do you have for a model with no descent and only multiple creation events?
As far as I understand it Dembski does not deal with any physical evidence at all, and is only part of constructing the mathematical and philosophical tools necessary to detect design. I am unsure how one who does not work with the fossil evidence can possibly claim to have evidence for multiple creation events, rather than a single initial creation, with descent unpacking from preprogrammed data?
Why could this intelligence not have come from another universe? We don't have to get into metaphysics if one ponders how this could occur through a singularity in a black hole. It may not be so painfully obvious if you discard norms of mundane thinking and go a bit deeper.
What other universe? Now you have another universe and an ability to move from one to another? Wouldn't Occam's Razor come in to play somewhere about now?
Evolution does not require extra universes.
By the way, since you guys appeal to design and function, what is the point of moving through a hole to another universe billions of different times to leave behind different biological entities, instantly disappearing and covering any trace that they had been there? This is to ask, what is the function of the entities to the designer and what were they designed for?
All of our probes and even our Voyager craft had obvious function outside of their own existence, for our utility.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-12-2005 4:41 PM Jerry Don Bauer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-12-2005 7:01 PM Silent H has replied

  
Silent H
Member (Idle past 5850 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 77 of 147 (207635)
05-13-2005 3:53 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by Jerry Don Bauer
05-12-2005 7:01 PM


I am not asking you questions for Dembski. I am asking you questions regarding your position and simply noting that they would be similar for him. Given that you just said that you and Dembski share a position against Behe on the nature of common descent, I am a bit confused by your sudden dismissal of being compared with Dembski.
So answer the question, what evidence do YOU have which shows that multiple creation events occured over the long stretch of life on earth, rather than one creation event followed by an unpacking of original coding which we would view as descent?
If this is your position, you do have evidence... right?
I don't oppose any positions Behe has in ID because common descent doesn't have a thing to do with ID.
The above is in direct contradiction to statements in your previous post...
Actually, that would be better stated as "some" IDists accept common descent. Behe, Gene and others are in the minority but they do exist. Dembski, Cordova, myself and others take an opposing view. There are several camps developing in ID just as there are your closed universalists verses your flat universalists, relativity gravitists verses graviton gravitists in physics, etc.
You need to clarify your position.
In any case Behe definitely states in Darwin's Black Box that "common descent" can be part of the ID model of speciation. I realize detection of design is different than models of speciation, but in order to be taught as a replacement model for speciation it will need that aspect and not just detection of design.
If IDs model of speciation is not common descent, then what is its model and what is the evidence for it, or how has it arranged evidence to show this?
I saw another one somewhere to me something to the effect that the second law no longer applies to chemical reactions in open system.
I did not say anything like that. You have already misread one post of mine and my assumption must be that you have misread another. My post was that 2LOT only acts as a hindrance to abiogenesis or genetic development within closed systems. In an open system 2LOT is not absent, but rather present and working for complex systems generating.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Jerry Don Bauer, posted 05-12-2005 7:01 PM Jerry Don Bauer 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