The Actual Argument for ID

Status
Not open for further replies.
GeoffP

GeoffP

Caput gerat lupinum
Valued Senior Member
All right.

Now, there's been a lot of stink about the whole ID thing. I deal mostly in quantitative issues, but I was curious to see if anyone (IAC or anyone) would care to illustrate and argue any of the numerical issues used to advance the case of ID. Anyone? Bueller?

I appreciate that there may not be anyone on currently equipped to take on the task. Maybe we could invite or trick Michael Behe himself into showing up? Like maybe if we wrapped a dinosaur bone in a Dead Sea scroll and slipped it under a box propped up with a stick.
 
....all right, I like tuataras. Anyone wanna argue about that? :bugeye:
 
There are too many mistakes and inefficiencies to allow for any theory built on the premise that incrementally superior attributes have been winning differential breeding competition.

If some law of nature were operating here, the net result would not be so arbitrarily screwed up.

For these kinds of errors and nonsense to have been established, they must have been creatures of Incompetent Design essays.
 
No one seems to be posting the "pro ID" on the thread, and I suspect we're not going to get any. Should I then take up the "pro" myself? I think I might do it justice, if I read up on it.
 
What's wrong with my argument?

How can you get flaws characteristic of bad design if you don't have design?

When things operate by laws of the natural world, they don't arbitrarily screw up. Rain doesn't just fall up by mistake once in a while.

If the best and the brightest have bred for a billion years, winner take all the future, how did we come to be surrounded by losers and half-crippled sufficers? Eyeballs wired backwards, appendices that are a threat to mere survival, ankles that sprain and cataract prone eyes.
 
Geoff:
Like maybe if we wrapped a dinosaur bone in a Dead Sea scroll and slipped it under a box propped up with a stick.
Click to expand...

That was actually quite funny. Wasn't the above mechanism used by some biologists to demonstrate that a mousetrap was reducible?
 
iceaura said:
Rain doesn't just fall up by mistake once in a while.
Click to expand...

How is hail formed? Oh yeah, by raindrops freezing as they fall, being swept back upwards, falling and gathering more mass, being swept back up, etc.

btw, the only flaw in the designs, and the only designs are in your eyes. Things just are, no design required.
 
i've been hesitant about posting in this thread because i'm not exactly pro ID.
on the other hand you must admit that science hasn't exactly solved the matter of lifes origins.
 
I don't know if I can spend the time to review all of ID - things are pretty damn busy about now. But I'll try. Won't be for some time tho.
 
i look upon the matter thusly:
until the matter of lifes origins remain unresolved then every possibility from god snapping his fingers to being poured out of a piss bucket is at least possible.
 
why is the origin of life so important? for millenia, mankind has come and gone just fine without having any scientific theory about the origin of life. most, if not all religions, do not condemn/exhort followers based on their beliefs of their origin of life. in fact, that isn't even a main point in the theology of the 3 major religions.

why the fuss now? science isn't competing with religion, as I understand.
 
btw, the only flaw in the designs, and the only designs are in your eyes. Things just are, no design required.
Click to expand...
See, Geoff - other people feel threatened by my argument. That one even redefined "rain" to make a contradiction with my observation about the workings of natural law. Obvious desperation. You are wrong to take it so casually.
 
§outh§tar said:
science isn't competing with religion, as I understand.
Click to expand...
They are and have been for thousands of years. Always will given the diametrically opposed agendas (truth of the cosmos as best we can obtain it vs "truth" of the cosmos according to a powerful few with some dogma as backup)
 
Life contains many "flaws" by the simple expedient of them not being sufficient impediment to successful procreation. You are mistaken in your view that evolution is somehow moving toward "better" lifeforms. Wrong. Evolution is for the moment with no goals. Whatever works in the given environment.

Example:

If the perfect eye evolved under a sun that fluctuated wildly in brightness every few hours, then, over millenia settled down, all of the later evolved amateur biologists would be pointing out things like the useless and defective design of that stupid extra membrane that flops out during changes in even tiny light levels. How annoying and useless.
 
superluminal said:
They are and have been for thousands of years. Always will given the diametrically opposed agendas (truth of the cosmos as best we can obtain it vs "truth" of the cosmos according to a powerful few with some dogma as backup)
Click to expand...

Yeah, science really is competing with religion....

Science = naturalism

Science ONLY searches for naturalistic explanations for things...even if a scientist found evidence of the supernatural, by default they would have to try to explain how things happened naturalistically...
 
VitalOne said:
Science ONLY searches for naturalistic explanations for things...
Click to expand...
A lie. Science searches for the best explanation for things. It looks at evidence and follows the clues. So far, only "natural" (i.e. physics) phenomena have been observed.

...even if a scientist found evidence of the supernatural, by default they would have to try to explain how things happened naturalistically...
Click to expand...
Duh! Then it wouldn't be "supernatural" anymore. If it completely fell outside the realm of known physics, we'd invent a new branch of physics for it.
 
Why would anyone believe fervently in anything without rigorous evidence and testing? Isn't that pretty dumb?
 
superluminal said:
A lie. Science searches for the best explanation for things. It looks at evidence and follows the clues. So far, only "natural" (i.e. physics) phenomena have been observed.
Click to expand...
NO its not...why do you think Kansas had to change the definition of science just to let science acknowledge anything besides naturalistic explanations? I know why, because science by DEFAULT only has naturalistic explanations

superluminal said:
Duh! Then it wouldn't be "supernatural" anymore. If it completely fell outside the realm of known physics, we'd invent a new branch of physics for it.
Click to expand...
No, this isn't true....ask any scientist they would tell you anything supernatural has no place in science....no place at all...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top