BobRyan said:
lordkalvan said:
Dr Patterson says nothing whatsoever about ID
Interesting dodge of the point raise. You asked why it is that you and others are claiming "not to see the point in the ID" argument. I simply point to the flawed logic that Patterson already admits to being within the darwinist camp such that we have someone "duped for 20 years" and we have darwinism promoted as "revealed truth" with "anti-knowledge" being used to propel the belief system forward.
When you ask how those in such a system could be confounded by the simple direct example of ID in the EM case vs the "applied chemistry case" I simply point to "the obvious".
I may have misunderstood your argument, in which case I apologize. However, you should be wary of avoiding claiming that, even if the conclusion you draw from Dr Patterson's remarks is entirely valid, it logically follows that evolutionary theory is wholly invalidated and the claims you make on behalf of ID must therefore be substantiated. And if you are telling me again that what you consider to be the obvious must be obvious, I again point to the weakness of argument from analogy without any evidence to make that analogy substantive.
[quote:77c2f]
Not every argument made against you reduces to Darwinist propaganda which can be countered by referencing whatever Dr Patterson may have written or said
Very true. At times Darwinists do have an argument not based on an obvious fallacy in logic. I concede that point readily. But when they do resort to a "deny-all" kind of pretense -- I am more than happy to remind the objective unbiased reader about the source of that kind of thinking as Patterson discovered it and reported it.[/quote:77c2f]
Asking you for evidence to support your analogy is not denying anything; it is simply asking for clarification of your argument.
BTW one of those letters came in 1993 -- are you suggesting that every ten years Patterson needed to say "and I still mean that... and yes I still mean that today"??
No need for the double interrogative; it doesn't make your question twice as devastating. Insofar as Dr Patterson has, after the event, contested the manner in which his words have been used by creationists against his intentions and clarified his conviction that evolutionary theory rests on sound principles, I rather think that if Dr Patterson meant something other than what he seems to say in these subsequent statements, and something different about his understanding of the soundness of evolutionary theory that is shown in the books and papers he wrote in the later years of his life, then the answer to your question would indeed be 'Yes'. That he failed to do this and, in fact, did quite the opposite, is surely significant.
Again - this is flawed reasoning.
I incline rather to view your reasoning as flawed in this case.
[quote:77c2f]I have pointed out before that, whereas I accept the validity of the analogy you make, it fails any evidential test for supporting the notion that ID can be identified in biology.
1. I argue that a "principle" for identifying ID (that is defining what it has to be contrasted TO) has already been established as a proven workable reliable method.[/quote:77c2f]
But only by reference to an example where the fact of ID is widely understood and recognized as a product of those supposedly looking for it.
2. I argue that the same kind of test should ALSO be applied in the "applied chemistry" realm of Biology when trying to determine IF something in "applied chemistry" shows ID attributes as one might find it in the study of EM wave forms.
But you can only be do this by assuming that the design and designers you are looking for are known to exist - because this is exactly what your EM analogy does - and that no alternative, plausible explanation is available that cannot be excluded.
3. I do not argue that BECAUSE it is discovered to exist in the study of EM wave forms that therefore it MUST exist in the applied chemistry field "Biology". Rather I argue that the construct has been established and proven already in the EM field and we should be more than happy to apply that same rule of contrast -- in this particular form of applied chemistry.
This qualifies your two previous statements and my understanding of your overall argument somewhat. However, it again appears to be the case that the 'rule of contrast' assumes that both the design and designer exist.
]Bob said
Conversely we DO see the SAME principle applicable between the ID example of the EM wave form AND the "applied chemistry" example of DNA-mRNA protein synthesis when you consider that the BACKGROUND noise in BOTH cases is accepted to be "what rocks can do by themselves given enough time, mass and energy".
I.e the glaringly obvious in this case.
I don't follow this point. Perhaps this is my fault, but can you be a little more explicit about what you mean.
[quote:77c2f]L.K
Again, analogy is not evidence: that X is analogous to Y is not evidence that X is the same as Y.
Again we are treated to the "deny-all" solution.
I am simply pointing to the obvious fact that the SAME "test for contrast" that was used in the EM wave form (the contrast to what "rocks can do given enough time, mass and energy) is AVAILABLE in the "applied chemistry example".
It is glaringly obvious -- as noted.[/quote:77c2f]
Pointing to a weakness in your argument is not a 'deny-all' solution, it is pointing to a weakness in your argument. Your 'glaringly obvious .... test for contrast' appears to be founded entirely on the assumption that that contrast exists and can be confidently concluded to be evidence of ID. I do not see this.
How one does the test and comes to a conclusion is not my point -- I am simply sticking with the incredibly obvious part of the argument -- because I know that each point -- no matter how obvious will be rejected in the "deny-all" solution some use... so I want them to have their chance to reveal their methods for the unbiased objective readers to see.
You seem to not know how to do the test, but you seem confident in the result it will produce. Your continuing insistence on claiming that X or Y is 'obvious' or even 'glaringly obvious' is not helpful. It is quite clear from my responses that I do not see this. This may be because it is neither 'obvious' nor 'glaringly obvious' at all to anyone but yourself, or it may be because you have failed to explain it clearly enough. I am not ignoring your point, I am just not understanding it sufficiently well to see the 'obviousness' of it.
Bob said -
Yet I will concede that it is not "more glaringly obvious" than is the obvious summation language in the Exodus 20:8-11 example showing that the work week and the creation week are the same cycle of time. So "pretending not to see the point" in cases where the incredibly obvious point is staring us in the face is not "A new tactic" for Darwinists on this topic.
I see no reason for "surprise" that they would do it again here.
Please see my comment above. Your suggestion that I am 'pretending not to see the point' is unwarranted and unfair. Your continued return to point-making founded solely on your contention that something is 'incredibly obvious' is the argument of a young child.
Again - my constant focus in revealing this "deny-all" solution that darwinists often resort to -- when faced with glaringly obvious problems (as in the case of Exodus 20:8-11 and in the case of ID PROVEN in the EM wave form arena yielding the benefit of a valid "CONTRAST TEST" for ID experiments in all other fields)
That you regard the soundness of your conclusions from your analysis of Exodus 20:8-11 as posing a 'glaringly obvious problem' for anyone who disagrees with you is in no way evidence that your argument about 'ID proven' is also a posing 'glaringly obvious problem' for anyone who also disagrees with you about this. It is empty rhetoric.
[quote:77c2f]L.K
Others can decide who is or who is not pretending
Now you have my method exactly. The idea is to lead the discussion to these glaringly obvious points so that all unbiased objective readers easily see the contrast in methods.
All smoke and mirrors dissappear that way.[/quote:77c2f]
My immediate, knee-jerk reaction is to ask you to ST*U about what may or may not be 'glaringly obvious points', but that would be impolite. Most of your argument seems to reduce to this repeated assertion and accusations that when I say that a point is not 'glaringly obvious' to me I am 'deny[ing] all' or 'pretending not to see the point'. Maybe the fault is your own for failing to make your point clearly and and logically enough.
: still holding my breath.