A simple case for intelligent design

[Dan From Smithville]

Redherring

Answer the question in the comment that you are quoting, or make a relevant comment based on the comment that you are quoting.

It is your claim. Many have asked how you arrived at it. You have never provided the explanation or argument in support of it. You have had more than enough time, but have chosen to give this bizarre, fallacy-laden cabaret act instead.

There is a hole in the house of the mouse
Around it does he rage in impiety
Because he cannot provide evidence
It was designed by a deity.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I never made that strawman, where did you get that stuff.?

I simply made the point that you don't need to know the mechanism in irdet to accept the BB theory.

Yes you did. You specifically stated that I cannot provide evidence for something I never claimed.

Look out! Your pants are on fire.

Fire, fire burn so bright
upon the tiny mouse
you blaze tonight.
Fueled by mendacious tendency
to strip the world
of it's reality.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I never made that strawman, where did you get that stuff.?

I simply made the point that you don't need to know the mechanism in irdet to accept the BB theory.

Has it ever occurred to you that can learn, understand and accept science and still maintain your belief in God? That what you rage against is not claiming there is no God. Or telling you not to believe.

 

[Bear Wild]

I don't have an explanation, you are asking a good question, and if any other ID theorist is interested in answering I would be happy to read about it.

I would defend theistic evolution, which means that God guided the process. But theistic evolution covers a wide rage of different views, and I don't have a favorite one.

That is the fundamental problem with the ID explanation. Just think about how complicated it is to explain how an intelligent designer could be constantly designing new genetic arrangements throughout the history of the Earth. Every new species excuse me "kind" would have to be redesigned. That intelligent designer would have to explain why so many errors in the genetic design that cause cancer and other diseases. Why have variation? Why would designed organisms go extinct. The few reported yet explained "gaps" in evidence for evolution this is nothing compared to the complete lack of explanation offered by ID proponents. Find a reasonable explanation that supports what is known and present it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Again stop that annoying tendency of quoting my posts and then make an irrelevant comment. What is the point of quoting my comment if you are going to say something irrelevant to my comment?


The point that I made is that not knowing the mechanism that caused the BB does not invalidates the theory.....

You brought up the Big Bang. Don't blame others for topics that you introduced. Try again.

You do not understand why the Big Bang is valid just as you do not understand why your ideas are not. That is what I tried to explain to you but it went over your heard.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Has it ever occurred to you that can learn, understand and accept science and still maintain your belief in God? That what you rage against is not claiming there is no God. Or telling you not to believe.

I have always thought it to be a bit blasphemous when believers in God try to tell their God how he had to make the world.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Redherring

Answer the question in the comment that you are quoting, or make a relevant comment based on the comment that you are quoting.

Please, don't use logical terminology that you do not understand. If you can't follow an argument ask for clarification.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I have always thought it to be a bit blasphemous when believers in God try to tell their God how he had to make the world.

It is very ironic. In the extreme, it is hypocrisy.

At most, science is correcting a basis of believing that isn't even a requirement to believe.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Please, don't use logical terminology that you do not understand. If you can't follow an argument ask for clarification.

I recognize this as a serious post, but that people find themselves having to make posts like this strikes me as funny. My sense of amusement arises from the clash between expectations of behavior and what creationists often provide.

 

[leroy]

It is your claim. Many have asked how you arrived at it. You have never provided the explanation or argument in support of it. You have had more than enough time, but have chosen to give this bizarre, fallacy-laden cabaret act instead.

There is a hole in the house of the mouse
Around it does he rage in impiety
Because he cannot provide evidence
It was designed by a deity.

Yes I provided my arguments for ID (Dembskies filter for example) It is your job to understand the argument and provide objections to those arguments

 

[leroy]

Yes you did. You specifically stated that I cannot provide evidence for something I never claimed.

y.

Really? Quote me


After you failed to find such quote please apologize for your false accusation

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Yes I provided my arguments for ID (Dembskies filter for example) It is your job to understand the argument and provide objections to those arguments

You have not. Show me all the research that has come out of Demski's work. You should have already done this, but I have not seen it. Dembski can't even apply it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Granted I can't provide a mechanism... So what,?

Just like it is a "pity" that you cant provide any examples of big bang mechanisms, except that nobody makes a big deal, and nobody would reject the BB just because we don't know the mechanism that caused the BB.

I am quoting you again. My second time with your straw man argument. I also note you have turned recognition of it into diversion.

I never made any claims about the Big Bang. It cannot be a pity for failing to provide mechanisms for a phenomenon I have made no claims about.

Man, your pants are blazing dude. You should consider putting them out with a blast of honesty.

 

[leroy]

That is the fundamental problem with the ID explanation. Just think about how complicated it is to explain how an intelligent designer could be constantly designing new genetic arrangements throughout the history of the Earth. Every new species excuse me "kind" would have to be redesigned. That intelligent designer would have to explain why so many errors in the genetic design that cause cancer and other diseases. Why have variation? Why would designed organisms go extinct. The few reported yet explained "gaps" in evidence for evolution this is nothing compared to the complete lack of explanation offered by ID proponents. Find a reasonable explanation that supports what is known and present it.

I don't see why is this a "fundamental problem"

For example it could be that God tunned the environment such that organisms would receive the correct mutations in the intedebd place and time. Such that humans would eventually evolve

Or it could be that organisms evolve mainly by natural mechanisms with some divine interventions every know and then

Or it could be that God set the correct initial conditions such that humans would eventually evolve

I don't claim to have evidence for any of these, but I don't see why is this a fundamental problem. There are many ways in which a designer could intervine.

Why would designed organisms go extinct

Why not,? Elaborate an argument, provide your premises.... How do you go from some animals go extinct to therefore I'd us wrong?

Why is that a fundamental problem, please elaborate an argument

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Really? Quote me


After you failed to find such quote please apologize for your false accusation

I have made errors, openly recognized them and where necessary, apologized for them. This is not one of those times.

A pity you cannot do so yourself. But I do not expect it.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I don't see why is this a "fundamental problem"

For example it could be that God tunned the environment such that organisms would receive the correct mutations in the intedebd place and time. Such that humans would eventually evolve

Or it could be that organisms evolve mainly by natural mechanisms with some divine interventions every know and then

Or it could be that God set the correct initial conditions such that humans would eventually evolve

I don't claim to have evidence for any of these, but I don't see why is this a fundamental problem. There are many ways in which a designer could intervine.



Why not,? Elaborate an argument, provide your premises.... How do you go from some animals go extinct to therefore I'd us wrong?

Why is that a fundamental problem, please elaborate an argument

You are really no longer worth engaging. I see no further value in playing your pigeon chess.

 

[leroy]

You brought up the Big Bang. Don't blame others for topics that you introduced. Try again.

You do not understand why the Big Bang is valid just as you do not understand why your ideas are not. That is what I tried to explain to you but it went over your heard.

Again for the 20th time

The point that i made was that one can accept the BB even if you don't know what mechanism cause it.

So please next time make a relevant coment where you explain why do you agree or disagree with that point.

 

[leroy]

[QUOTE="Dan From Smithville, post: 6526518, member: 62192

Dembski can't even apply it.

If that's your position then elaborate your argument, show that the filter is inaplicable

 

[leroy]

I am quoting you again. My second time with your straw man argument. I also note you have turned recognition of it into diversion.

I never made any claims about the Big Bang. It cannot be a pity for failing to provide mechanisms for a phenomenon I have made no claims about.

Man, your pants are blazing dude. You should consider putting them out with a blast of honesty.

ohhhh that quote...


It's sarcasm, I was being sarcastic, I wasn't challenging you, I simply made the point that one can accept the BB even if you can't tell what mechanism cause it.


It's not a pity that we can't describe the mechanism that caused the BB, in the same way its not a pity that we can't tell what mechanism was used by the designer. That was the whole point.

 

[leroy]

I have made errors, openly recognized them and where necessary, apologized for them. This is not one of those times.

A pity you cannot do so yourself. But I do not expect it.

Ok I made a mistake, I thought my point was clear and that it was obvious that my comment on the BB was sarcasm

So with that said, my point is and has always been that :

You can stablish that "X" is the cause of "Y" even if you don't know the mechanism used by X

Do you grant this point?