[_ Old Earth _] I'm yet to see a ID supporter explain this.

[BobRyan]

I have not yet seen a SINGLE creationist adequately respond to the biggest problem of irreducible complexity:

1) If something has a certain degree of complexity, it must be intelligently designed
2) God is more complex than the thing that has that degree of complexity requiring ID
CONCLUSION: God must need to be intelligently designed himself by a more complex thing.

This is one of those transparent ploy arguments that are patently "atheist" and religionist in logic reason and tone.

The idea is that nature is the god of the atheist and the atheist has every reason to accept his/her god with no explanation for their complexity that a Bible believing Christian has for accepting the complexity of the God of the Bible without explanation.

The truth is that placing this as framed in the OP between two groups of religionists is probably more correct than not.

But IF we have the opportunity to "introduce science" into the discussion and the "academic freedom to follow the data where it leads" then the "my god is nature and needs no stinking explanation since the God of the bible needs no explanation" is totally irrelevant!

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

BobRyan wrote:
The is the essence of the nonsensical argument "The painting can't have been designed by some kind of painter because the painter would be even more complex than the painting -- therefore rocks did it" non-argument.

jwu
That point fails - because we happen to know for sure that painters do exist.

Wrong. The evidence for bears in your neighborhood is "evaluated" even without know FIRST that bears have moved into your neighborhood.

obviously.

the "academic freedom to follow the data where it leads" begins with step one ADMITTING to what you are seeing - evidence for bears or evidence that an electromagnetic wave form shows design or that some other aspect found in nature shows evidence of design - architecture with function "something rocks can not do given enough time and enough rocks in one place".

I.e -- the obvious.

Bob said -

Nice atheist argument "does a designer exits" -- but in the ID context the issue is not "Designer in a box" the way atheists have hoped to spin the argument. Rather the point is "see a painting and ADMIT that it shows it has been painted EVEN if you don't know the painter".

Again - merely stating the obvious. (seems to be me role in these discussions because the role of atheist darwinism is so typically to "deny the obvious")

jwu
Not knowing the painter and deducing a painter when no painter has ever been observed are two entirely different things.

ID does not "deduce the painter" ID says -- look this is not just paint spilled on the floor -- turns out the work of art is paintED not the result of an earthquake plus many cans of paint and lots of time.

You know -- "the obvious" when academic freedom is allowed to "follow the data where it leads". The fact that someone later comes along and determines that the painting is the Mona Lisa is irrelevant to the first discovery that "it appears to be painted" and "rocks can not do this given enough time and enough rocks in one place". (i.e. the first discovery noted in this scenario)

The first discovery stands whether the painting's exact title and origin is ever discovered or not.

Obviously.

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

The devotee to atheist darwinist dogma gets all "wrapped around the axle" on "yes but did the data lead us to a design that was man-made or god-made" because in the atheist's mind "there is no god" and in the agnostic's mind "we don't know yet if there is a god". They want to follow the data as long as it does not lead them to a point that contradicts their religionist starting point.

Better to simply embrace academic freedom to follow the data where it leads than to continually pander to atheist and agnostic anxiety over "whether a painter exists".

Bob

 

[Jayls5]

Ugh. I made the mistake of viewing this thread while not signed in on another computer and saw Bob's posts again.

Terrible.

It was also "obvious" that everything revolved around the earth quite some time ago, but the data spoke louder than what was at first "obvious" to us.

And for the sake of others who still have to read your posts, stop using that loaded language.

 

[BobRyan]

Ugh. I made the mistake of viewing this thread while not signed in on another computer and saw Bob's posts again.

I will "help you" yet again --



Here is ID -- vs ATHEISM --

Intelligent Design:

Academic Freedom to [/u]“follow the data where it leadsâ€Â[/u] EVEN if it leads to a conclusion (such as Intelligent Design) that does not pander to the central doctrines and dogmas of atheists"

Real World Validation of ID as Science Fact.

ID theorists are just scientists that happen to be willing to admit to evidence for Intelligent Design when they find it in Nature. However this method of analysis is not limited to scientists open to “inconvenient facts†and willing to free science from today’s political bindings that demand conformance to the religious distinctives of atheism.

For example there are four fundamental forces in nature – the weak nuclear force, the strong nuclear force, gravity and electromagnetism. Some electromagnetic wave forms show that they have been purposely manipulated – their pattern shows “Intelligent Design†– (hence TV, Cell Phones, Radio) and others do not (background noise, static). We have entire industries (security, National Security Agency etc) based on the obvious and reliable fact that it is possible to evaluate electromagnetic wave forms and determine if they convey coded information – content from intelligent designers.

ID theorists are doing the same thing as they accept the fact that physics and biochemistry are the baseline medium in which Biology is expressed.

The empty claim that nothing in nature can be studied and evaluated to determine if it has an intelligent cause is disproven every day in commercial and private sector analysis of the electromagnetic wave forms alone. Admittedly the study of the instances of design found in Biology is just beginning by comparison but it is based on the same fundamental principles of analysis. While allowing this form of scientific investigation in the domain of Biology is clearly taboo to atheist religionists it is nonetheless consistent with the existing science principle of analysis already in use in many other domains of scientific investigation and discovery.

[/quote]


Always happy to assist those having trouble.

After all that is what this CHRISTIAN site is for when it comes to it's current invitation to Atheist and agnostic believers in Darwinian evolutionism to discover the light in "Academic freedom to follow the data where it leads" when it comes to the question of origins and design.

Bob

Bob

 

[jmm9683]

What a surprise, Bob is still spamming the boards with his same "definitions."

Let me help you out Bob.

Evolution
In biology, evolution is the process of change in the inherited traits of a population of organisms from one generation to the next. The genes that are passed on to an organism's offspring produce the inherited traits that are the basis of evolution. Mutations in genes can produce new or altered traits in individuals, resulting in the appearance of heritable differences between organisms, but new traits also come from the transfer of genes between populations, as in migration, or between species, in horizontal gene transfer. In species that reproduce sexually, new combinations of genes are produced by genetic recombination, which can increase the variation in traits between organisms. Evolution occurs when these heritable differences become more common or rare in a population.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution

ID
Intelligent design is the assertion that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection". It is a modern form of the traditional teleological argument for the existence of God, modified to avoid specifying the nature or identity of the designer to avoid a United States court ruling prohibiting the teaching of creationism as science. Its primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the U.S.-based Discovery Institute believe the designer to be the God of Christianity. Advocates of intelligent design claim it is a scientific theory, and seek to fundamentally redefine science to accept supernatural explanations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

Wow, that wasn't so hard to post definitions that aren't full of loaded language and to actually cite the source...