PuckSR
Posts: 314
Joined: Nov. 2005
|
| Quote | | I don't really think ID insists upon evidence of poking. |
| Quote | | ID says it can be shown that beyond reasonable doubt that some systems could not have brung themselves into existence. |
| Quote | | just because they may say that the flagellum evidences design does not mean the design comes in discrete packets of poking. It simply means that certain systems are clear examples that let us know we are not dealing with an undesigned process. |
Ok...the entire point of the flagellum "case" is one of poking. The entire concept of IC insists poking was necessary.
ID without poking: pointing to the exactness of the physical laws..
Every time you hear reference to IC...the point is that IC systems cannot have arisen without interference from an intelligent agent...AKA poking
| Quote | | That is fair enough, but I just can't help remembering when I asked a Christian at work what would happen to her belief in the Christ story if she found out that in the Mediteranian world of that time there were other gods with almost identical life stories as Jesus and which preceded his life by a couple of centuries. |
But, if you suggested to a scientist that his theory was flawed...and proposed an alternative that was a better explanation...he would alter his view...
i.e. Before the whole Darwin revolution most scientists were strict creationists(not scientific creationists, they thought the origin of species was outside the realm of science)....they all changed their minds because Darwin and Geologists proposed natural, accurate explanations for the natural history of the world.
| Quote | | Miller believes in ID (intelligent interference happened), however, he just thinks it is undetectable. So the argument is about whether God's interference is detectable, not whether it happened. So Miller thinks ID is true, but unprovable. |
but
| Quote | | ID is the science of detecting and proving Design |
So...Miller may believe that the world is designed....
but he doesnt believe in ID...which is they science of detectable and proveable design....
He doesnt believe either parts of that statement....so he is not a confused IDist.
You really seem to be missing this....
ID vs Naturalistic Science is not a case of design vs. non-design. It is a case of detectable design vs undetectable design. If something is undetectable, science obviously cannot advocate its existence...since the scientific endeavor is based around detectability.
| Quote | | Yeah, but you didn't. Point being, statements like that an arm is already a proto-wing just means anything goes, with enough imagination. |
Not really.
When we compare the wings of mammals, dinosaurs, and birds we discover that they are all based on "arms"(actually hands)...they all, however, developed in different ways.
When does a hand become a dolphin's flipper?
They both have fingers, and the same bone structure that we find in most mammals....did it happen when the skin fused together?
Did it happen when they lost the ability to move the fingers independently....
You think of things in definitive terms: flipper, hand, wing
but when you really get down to it, they are incredibly similiar....we all know that a flipper helps you swim, a hand helps you walk/grab, and a wing helps you fly...
but you swim with your hands...so are your hands flippers?
| Quote | | It is true I cannot imagine that God doesn't exist, any more than I can imagine magic. The point is that I used to be able to and now I can't. |
You also cannot see the possibility of random mutation....
But, clearly this is based on faith. If it wasnt based on faith, you would be able to consider any possibility.
I can imagine a world without light, without gravity, and without God....but I still inherently know that all of those things exist in my world....but i can at least conceptionalize a world without.
| Quote | | I was never a creationist. When I was a Christian, I knew that I had not examined the question of evolution, and took very little position on the matter. |
Sorry...i didnt mean to offend you. I didnt mean Creationist in the typical "literal" bible sense...i meant the belief that God created us...specially...at some point
If that was never your belief, then i apologize......
|
