Faith Schools
- Started
- Last post
- 336 Responses
- -scarabin-0
ID is science with an open mind.
discipler
(Oct 13 05, 08:28)ha ha ha
- ********0
Let me guess. This thread is still going nowhere?
determinedmoth
(Oct 13 05, 08:19)he says it, nothing, i say it and i get a 'go fuck yourself.'
i see how it is.
- mrdobolina0
it's not science.
why do you suppose the discovery institute would change their banners over the years?
- discipler0
hah, nevermind dobs. It's circles with you.
Let's get some work done. :)
- deep_throat0
way back when, William Paley used his watchmaker illustration to demonstrate how there must be an author to all of this design. And not only an author, but a purposeful author. And now, with advances in biochemistry and physics, we can say with confidence that this is the case.
discipler
(Oct 13 05, 08:19)and they already explained that argumetn away a hundred years ago! what's so different now?
The whole IR thing seems like a reiteration of the same old same old creationist debate that has been debunked a 1000 times. Why does it make a difference to apply IR to cells and DNA, and not something like the human heart? Isn’t the human heart too irreducibly complex? Like Behe’s mousetrap analogy. Remove ONE valve, or one vein, and the whole thing doesn’t work?
- deep_throat0
impossible complexity??
lol, the whole ID argument seems to be baseed on subjectivity with terminology like that!
- deep_throat0
impossible complexity??
lol, the whole ID argument seems to be baseed on subjectivity with terminology like that!
- mrdobolina0
kona, this thread doesnt interest you, why are you here?
- discipler0
deep_mote, the difference is that a hundred years ago, scientists could not peer into the cell and had no idea that DNA existed. We have new data now. Let's not be afraid of what the implications of it may be. I don't know about the mechanics of the human heart. I'm strictly speaking on a molecular level about things which are at the core of life.
- deep_throat0
My leg too is irreducibly complex, remove one joint, one knee cap, one toe, and I cannae walk. So the whole thing must have been designed at ONCE by a superior being? That seems to be the sum of that argument. Disipler acts like this is all new, like wow, we’ve just discovered the cell is more involved than just a blob.
- deep_throat0
I don't know about the mechanics of the human heart. I'm strictly speaking on a molecular level about things which are at the core of life.
discipler
(Oct 13 05, 08:37)yes but the argument is EXACTLY the same. Evolutionists always new how complex and intertwined the whole gamut of life systems are.
- discipler0
well, have you looked at the actual science? Have you objectively looked at the claims behind specified and irreducible complexity? I mean, forget about how it "sounds".
- Mimio0
Science can only make material observations and predictions. In the absense of a working hypothesis it's really not logical to infer that a super intelligent being set our current reality/universe in motion. In fact it's intellectually dishonest and reeks of other agendas.
- discipler0
deep_smote, it doesn't achieve anything to a system that is already designed and in place and remove components of it. You only demonstrate that it won't work if you do. Am I missing your point?
- deep_throat0
well, have you looked at the actual science? Have you objectively looked at the claims behind specified and irreducible complexity? I mean, forget about how it "sounds".
discipler
(Oct 13 05, 08:38)yes i have, Ive looked at Behe’s 1996 book, that introduced this theory. And it is exactly the same argument, how the cell that clots blood must have been MADE for that function. Same as saying the leg for walking must have been MADE at once for walking with all its parts. Funny, for a book written 10 years ago, that was never peer reviewed, and designed to be read by a popular (not scientific audience) the first time I heard of IR was last month from you discipler. Funny that.
- discipler0
Mimio, science shouldn't be limited to only the best naturalistic explanation. It should be open to the best possible explanation. And if you want to talk about observations and predictions, then you'll clearly lose the Darwinian position.
What reeks of agenda is philosophical naturalists trying to censor honest scientists who are following the evidence wherever it may lead.
- deep_throat0
deep_smote, it doesn't achieve anything to a system that is already designed and in place and remove components of it. You only demonstrate that it won't work if you do. Am I missing your point?
discipler
(Oct 13 05, 08:40)its an analogy dick-wad. Same as the mouse trap that behe uses.
- discipler0
deep throat, now you're just spewing rhetoric. Didn't you see my list of peer reviewed works done by ID proponents? Behe's book has been revolutionary and to this day, his critics only misunderstand his arguments in their attempts at rebuttals. Have you read his latest articles? The one's I've posted?
The point you miss is that there is no naturalistic mechanism that can produce irreducibly complex systems and specified information, as in DNA. That is the point. And by removing a component from these systems, you demonstrate this.
- deep_throat0
Behe's book has been revolutionary and to this day, his critics only misunderstand his arguments in their attempts at rebuttals. Have you read his latest articles? The one's I've posted?
The point you miss is that there is no naturalistic mechanism that can produce irreducibly complex systems and specified information, as in DNA. That is the point. And by removing a component from these systems, you demonstrate this.
discipler
(Oct 13 05, 08:44)haha, completely ignoring what i said,
Revolutionary?? yes, in the small circle of Christian fundamentalists.
- mrdobolina0
but how does that prove anything other than the fact that the shit is complex?