Search results

Stu: There is no infinite regress problem. It's been completely refuted. It's been shown to be nothing more than a feeble attempt to thwart design inferences. It's pure nonsense. Stu: Have you had experience using ID? If not you speak from ignorance.

James Bond: Another attempt to thwart a design inference with infinite regress. It won't work. We are right back to my example of finding a Mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars. If large detailed faces were found on the side of a Martian mountain, scientists would infer the activity of...

James Bond: I suspect that if scientists succeed in creating life from non-life they will accomplish it through bioengineering and/or nanotechnology. Likewise for seeding other planets with life. If this is a possible future then I see no reason this couldn't have been how life began on earth.

Once again. The hypothetical example of a Mount Rushmore-like structure being found on Mars is provided solely to refute the claim of ID critics that a design inference is thwarted by infinite regress or failing to identify the designer. The example of SETI works as well. Are the ID critics...

ID has nothing to do with God.

Stu wrote: You're misunderstanding what I'm saying. ID is similar to SETI. SETI is a search for man-made-like objects found in places where man could never have made them. An example of such an object is a narrowband radio signal like those generated by man's radio transmitters but coming...

TradeNik wrote: Where is the proof of abiogenesis? There is none, zero, nada. Yet scientists are absolutely convinced it happened. Why? They have nothing more than a suspicion. And they are following up their suspicion with an investigation. How is this different from ID?

The ID approach is much like searching for man-made objects found in places where man could never had made them. Similar to SETI. When confronted with such objects, scientists would conclude they were designed by an agent with a human-like intelligence. They wouldn't deny intelligent design...

James Bond wrote: No, not at all. I picked the OOL (origin of life) because that's where the ID inference begins. The ID critics want proof of ID which you have pointed out means overwhelming evidence. At the same time they are sure abiogenesis has occurred despite the fact that researchers...

Teleologist asked: Stu answered: If an advanced engineering process was used that didn't leave any "marks", a mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars would still be considered an artifact. Stu wrote: The scenario I've provided is that of a Mount Rushmore-LIKE structure on...

James Bond wrote: I never claimed ID was a scientific theory. I compare it with origin of life research. Witness simply that there is no theory of abiogenesis. Instead, there are countless speculations with very little consensus (apart from the appeal to a reductionist approach employing...

James Bond wrote: Do you have a reading comprehension problem? I never said there was a Mt. Rushmore-like structure on Mars. It was a hypothetical example.

James Bond wrote: What a moron. The ID critics on this thread are repeatedly asking for proof of ID. That means (as you say) that they are demanding overwhelming empirical evidence for ID. But they only require circumstancial evidence for a non-teleological origin of life. That's my point.

Stu wrote: So your test confirms that the Mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars is an artifact?

James Bond wrote: Which is exactly my point you idiot. The ID critics keep asking for proof of ID when they should be asking for evidence of ID.

For those that keep asking for proof of ID, consider what Allen MacNeill says:

TraderNik wrote: Who is advocating that personal belief should form the basis for school curricula? TraderNik wrote: ID isn't about proving a Creator God in the scientific sense. TraderNik wrote: I'm not aware of any creationists on this thread so I don't know who you are...

Stu wrote: Nonsense. We've been over this before. If scientists found a Mount Rushmore-like structure on Mars in the absence of any other evidence that intelligent life had ever been on the planet they would without hesitation infer that the structure was intelligently designed. It would be...

James Bond wrote: What do you mean by "natural phenomena"? Are the messages on this thread natural or supernatural phenomena?

James Bond wrote: A mere repetitive pattern as shown in this picture would invoke at best a very weak design inference. Let's see what happens if we make the design inference stronger. What if we had bunches of rocks arranged in the shape of letters that spelled out the message "John loves...