Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

You Should Know the Basics of a Theory Before You Attack It

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

The commenter who goes by the name Carpathian has been posting on this site for a long time.  Yet today he writes:

Since the ID designer pre-dates life, he cannot be alive . . .

*Sigh*  Carpathian, why does it seem to satisfy you so much to erect a distorted caricature of the ID position and knock it down?  If you are so certain you are correct and that ID is wrong, why don’t you attack what ID actually posits?

I believe the Darwinian account of origins is wrong.  But what have I accomplished if I spout off some nonsense that Darwinism does not actually posit, refute it, and then say, “thus I have proven Darwinism wrong”?

The answer, of course, is “nothing.”  Having studied Darwinism for over 20 years, I can tell you what it posits.  Therefore, when I attack it, I am attacking the actual thing, not some distortion of the thing that exists nowhere but my own mind.

Now, here’s your task:  Tell me why your statement is not an accurate representation of the ID position.  This issue has been covered numerous times here at UD.  Anyone who purports to have even a basic understanding of ID would know why it is wrong.

Therefore, if you cannot tell me why it is wrong, that means you do not have a basic understanding of ID.

To those who would be tempted to help Carp out, please do not.  Let him work it out for himself.

 

 

Comments
It never ceases to astound me that critics like Carp spew literally hundreds of comments into our combox purporting to debunk ID only to fail when asked to articulate a basic ID idea. Carp is even more brazen than most. After his ignorance of the theory he has been criticizin has been demonstrated he tries to bluff it out.Barry Arrington
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
03:32 PM
3
03
32
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington:
But your inability to articulate a basic ID position does disqualify you from criticizing ID.
LOL! IDists themselves don't have a basic ID position. Mapou agrees with me it is Creationism. As far as moving on, I have no intention of doing that. ID doesn't work and I don't intend to censor myself. If there is any censorship here, you're going to have to own that. KF is wrong about his lab position and you're afraid to take a position. Please don't leave this discussion. It's just starting to get interesting!Carpathian
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
03:14 PM
3
03
14
PM
PDT
Ok Carp. There is no shame in being unable to demonstrate why that is not an accurate statement of the ID position. But your inability to articulate a basic ID position does disqualify you from criticizing ID. Move along now.Barry Arrington
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
03:00 PM
3
03
00
PM
PDT
Mung, "2 + 2 = 4" is a statement mathematicians should be comfortable with. "2 + 2 = 4 " is not an accurate representation of math itself.Carpathian
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
02:28 PM
2
02
28
PM
PDT
Since the ID designer pre-dates life, he cannot be alive and also cannot be God if ID is to be taken as science. I think this is a statement that ID should be comfortable with. - Carpathian My statement is not an accurate representation of the ID position. - CarpathianMung
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
02:20 PM
2
02
20
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington, The why is because it was not a statement that was supposed to represent the ID position. You still haven't answered my question. Could KF’s lab that created life have been run by living creatures?Carpathian
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
01:56 PM
1
01
56
PM
PDT
Carpathian has shown progress. He admits his statement does not represent the ID position. The next step is for him to demonstrate why that is the case.Barry Arrington
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
01:47 PM
1
01
47
PM
PDT
Mung:
Carpathian: My statement is not an accurate representation of the ID position. Mung: No kidding. Why not?
Because it wasn't meant to be. Sort of like why 4 is not a good representation of why math is important in high school.Carpathian
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
01:16 PM
1
01
16
PM
PDT
Mung, Less drama, more answers. Is this a statement that ID would be comfortable with?
Since the ID designer pre-dates life, he cannot be alive and also cannot be God if ID is to be taken as science.
I would appreciate an actual response. I answered Barry's question, please have the courage to answer mine.Carpathian
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
01:12 PM
1
01
12
PM
PDT
You're a real piece of work Carpathian. You admit your statement fails as an accurate representation of ID. You claim you have an excuse, you were talking to kf. But then you go on to repeat it and say that "I think this is a statement that ID should be comfortable with." Or maybe you're not a piece of work after all, but rather just a tool.Mung
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
12:39 PM
12
12
39
PM
PDT
Carpathian:
My statement is not an accurate representation of the ID position.
No kidding. Why not? Barry:
Therefore, if you cannot tell me why it is wrong, that means you do not have a basic understanding of ID.
Mung
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
12:36 PM
12
12
36
PM
PDT
Barry Arrington, My statement is not an accurate representation of the ID position. It's a response to kairosfocus here:
kairosfocus: The first does not call for anything more than a molecular nanotech lab some generations beyond Venter et al. Carpathian: Just who would run this lab if life doesn’t exist yet?
I didn't get a response, so I asked again:
kairosfocus, Show me how a non-living, non-god entity, that cannot control the physics of the universe, is able to design and then distribute life.
I am answering KF here so how can you claim I'm misrepresenting ID? Are you in agreement with KF? Could KF's lab that created life have been run by living creatures? Was I wrong to say it couldn't have been?
Since the ID designer pre-dates life, he cannot be alive and also cannot be God if ID is to be taken as science.
I think this is a statement that ID should be comfortable with.Carpathian
November 7, 2015
November
11
Nov
7
07
2015
12:26 PM
12
12
26
PM
PDT
1 2

Leave a Reply