If the challenge below were met, would it be evidence for ID or for teleportation?
Comments
Suppose some yet unknown organism was discovered in the cage. Would Darwinists not attribute it's appearance to known laws of physics and chemistry anyway? Hasn't some pillar of NDE already declared that even if there were no evidence for NDE, we should still be obliged to believe it is true?russ
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
10:28 AM
10
10
28
AM
PST
The mocking, anti-religious attitude expressed by Darwinists is wrong.a5b01zerobone
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
09:44 AM
9
09
44
AM
PST
cdf:
I understand why you might say that the “intelligent design hypothesis†is different than “special creation,†but in the end you must admit that the principle behind each is the same. Both claim that an “intelligent agent†must have intervened and created something… be it a flagellum, DNA, or a platypus. So you must understand why many can't get past this “hangup.â€Â
Intrigued by CDF's irreverence, I felt I needed to speak up. If one can believe in the Big Bang (and most scientists do)one can surely believe that an intelligent agent input the necessary data into the Cambrian Explosion.
Also "So you must understand why many can't get past this hangup".
Last time I checked about 80% of Americans considered themselves to be Christians 80%! That does not include the observant Jews, Muslims ,Hindus, Jains, Zoroastrians, Buddhists, New Age groups, Jungians, Platonists, Deists out there.a5b01zerobone
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
09:39 AM
9
09
39
AM
PST
"What is more “probableâ€Â:
organic compounds forming from inorganic compounds and so on… or an “intelligent agent†appearing from nothing to “design†a flagellum or DNA fully formed?"
It is, at least in principle, possible to determine the probability of the former, as it would be calculated based on known chemistry, reaction rates, etc. The second question, seems to me ill-posed, as the actions of an "intelligent agent", are, almost by definition, not statistically calculable. I would agree that for an intelligent agent to appear from "nothing" is impossible; the mere appearance presupposes pre-existence. But just because we can't detect something, doesn't mean it's not there. (c.f. dark matter). We DO know, however, that intelligent agents (e.g. ourselves) can design propulsion devices and write coded messages, so if we ALLOW (and this is more a philosophical consideration than a religious one) that a superior, pre-existing intelligence might exist, (and it need not even be God, at least proximaly) then it is no great leap (and rather probable) to expect that he/she/it would possess superior abilities to our own. Atheistic and agnostic sci-fi writers are continually proposing such beings, with nary the mention of God; why is it so hard to seriously consider them when talking about the origin and development of life on earth?SCheesman
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
09:21 AM
9
09
21
AM
PST
What if a husband treated his wife the same way that skeptics treat God? She'd be out of the house, slamming the door on the way (and maybe slapping his face just before) faster than you can say Richard Dawkins.Jared White
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PST
Whoever set up this display obvously is confusing the intelligent design hypothesis with special creation. How are we ever going to get the world past this hangup.
It'll never happen, on either side.austinite
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
08:34 AM
8
08
34
AM
PST
Bill says, "If the challenge below were met, would it be evidence for ID or for teleportation?"
so bill how different is this than Behe's proposed, grow bacteria in a petri dish and see if a flagellum develops? At what level would the formation of a flagellum falsify ID? At what level would it not?rb
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
08:15 AM
8
08
15
AM
PST
bFast:
I understand why you might say that the "intelligent design hypothesis" is different than "special creation," but in the end you must admit that the principle behind each is the same. Both claim that an "intelligent agent" must have intervened and created something... be it a flagellum, DNA, or a platypus. So you must understand why many can't get past this "hangup."
SCheesman:
What is more "probable":
organic compounds forming from inorganic compounds and so on... or an "intelligent agent" appearing from nothing to "design" a flagellum or DNA fully formed?cdf
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
08:02 AM
8
08
02
AM
PST
“A suitable rejoinder would be to put a test tube filled with amino acids and an electrical source and wait for the first self-replicating organism to appear; or a large container with fruit flies and a radiation source and wait for the new “super flyâ€Â.â€Â
ROFLMAO! Or we could do like Jonathan Wells suggested – just put a cell in a test-tube, “kill†it, then wait for it to reconstitute itself through the natural law of self-organization. I'm actually beginning to feel as though I may have underestimated my own intelligence these past 32 years. Where do you get “God poofed life into existence in its present form†from “Life displays evidence of design� ID is so simple to understand, yet so many just don't have the mental capacity to “get it†Imagine being taught by a professor who doesn't have the competence to distinguish Biblical creation from ID? How scary is that? Maybe I'm just that smart? Nah, I rather tend to think others have allowed themselves to be blinded by their own “chance†worshiping beliefs because what science has discovered is too much for them to cope with. Maybe they need scientific grief counseling, much like the grief counseling offered after President Bush won reelection.shaner74
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PST
A suitable rejoinder would be to put a test tube filled with amino acids and an electrical source and wait for the first self-relicating organism to appear; or a large container with fruit flies and a radiation source and wait for the new "super fly".SCheesman
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
07:32 AM
7
07
32
AM
PST
Whoever set up this display obvously is confusing the intelligent design hypothesis with special creation. How are we ever going to get the world past this hangup.bFast
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
07:21 AM
7
07
21
AM
PST
This is OT on this thread, but here's an interesting piece concerning JunkDNA (from a YEC source):
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4829jb
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
07:10 AM
7
07
10
AM
PST
I'm sure God feels very welcome here. He's being invited to do a circus animal trick, on their terms and not on his. What kind of special treat will they give him if he does it? I'm sure they're trying hard to think of some favor that would impress him, and he's just waiting until they come up with it.
No, this is tempting/testing God. He will certainly show up and reveal himself unmistabably to all, but it will be in his chosen time and way; and he'll decides who gets what rewards or consequences.TomG
January 15, 2007
January
01
Jan
15
15
2007
07:09 AM
7
07
09
AM
PST
Reminds me of the people gathered around the cross at the crucifiction demanding that Jesus call down angels to rescue himself "if he's who he said he was...". As if God would respond to this kind of mocking demand.jb
