Search results

Absolutely. Its not just that we dont know who designed it- we cannot even show that it is, in fact, designed at all. I was slightly imprecise when I called this a "weak analogy" - its actually even worse: a "question-begging weak analogy". I would state that since all literal machines by...

For a good analysis of these numbers, check out minyanville: http://www.minyanville.com/articles/index.php?a=14991 To sum up: Stores were open longer, discounting more (=higher expenses) to get more shoppers who ended up spending less. By my math (and someone can check this) total...

Thank you Stu, for so elegantly summing up the problem with this line of reasoning. I assert that almost any Creationist/IDiot argument can be reduced to a logical fallacy. This one is commonly known as the "fallacy of weak analogy".

First of all, there is no such thing as a "Darwinist" - or did you mean "Biologist?" You are wrong- no "darwinist" would state that these are literal machines. Literal machines have literal designers, and there is simply no evidence or testability behind that notion. All you have shown...

I'll ask my biologist friend for some citations of papers related to the evolution of "molecular machines" and get back to you. Til then, all I can do is critique the format of the argument: Argumentum ad Ignorantiam.

Is there any evidence that this is a literal machine, other than the above papers' allegorical references to same as a machine? We use metaphor as a means to explain- not prove- our theories. If thinking of biological constructs as a machine helps you to think about the concepts, its...

Then ID is wrong. The fact that it is *not* a machine. Its something you found in nature that is *like* a machine. You can remove the word "like" all you want when discussing it- its still just a metaphore.

The problem is the whole argument for ID is an appeal to metaphore, not logic. "This is like a motor. Motors are designed. Therefore, this is designed." This is why logic should be a high school requirement- people know just enough (maybe not enough?) logic to be easily fooled.

Whats wrong with it is that its not falsifiable, isn't science, relies on allegory as an acceptable logical argument, and waters down the scientific education of our populace, making us less competitive in a highly competitive global market. Theres no logical difference between believing...

Actually my knowlege and experience with forum posts explains the origin of your posts quite handily. It was written by a human, who is a member of a species that evolved from a single-celled common ancestor that arose through abiogenesis. My argument does not suffer the infinte regress...

I have seen hundreds of forum posts in my short life. All were written by humans. When I see your post, I look to my knowledge and experience with forum posts and conclude it was written by a human. I have never seen a life form designed by an alien. When next I see a life form, I cannot...

The evidence is prima facie. ID would not exist except for the SCOTUS ruling that Creation science being taught in public schools was unconstitutional. ID arises as a legal trick to attempt to circumvent this ruling. You seem to be the one co-opting the definition of ID by ignoring the...

But you haven't avoided it at all. ID can hypothesize that life here was seeded by life elsewhere all it wants. It then must first prove that, then explain where that original life came from- the original problem- or it hasn't explained the origin of life, period. The only way out is to...

Your assertion is patently false. All scientists have an agenda- its usually the advancement of human knowledge through research, publication and instruction. They care very much if people dont accept the science. I for one have no agenda against theists. As I have said, you are welcome...

ID posits that life was designed by an intelligent agent- which, as I have pointed out- must be supernatural to avoid the infinite succession of creators issue. Further, nearly all ID proponents admit that only a supernatural designer passes muster, and most, when pressed by their acolytes...

Ok....I see- so this ID that has been going around for going on 10 years isnt the real, scientific ID. The Discovery institute allowed the fake ID to get into court so it could get ruled unconstitutional by mistake. ID is not, and never will be science. It is allegory at best and logical...

Point one speaks to a natural, intelligent life form that seeded life on this planet but arose from abiogenesis on their homeworld. Ok, I will bite- this sounds like something science should be able to handle. But note the choice of competing theories isn't ID vs Evolution but abiogenesis here...

You must have missed it in my somewhat lengthy post. Creationists believe life was created by a deity.

The problem is the boundaries of what science is able to explain is where ID has been able to prey upon peoples belief in the validity of science. ID is not scientific. It claims to be, but the conclusion it reaches lies outside the view of the science. It uses the language of science to...

I never said you couldnt be both. Most scientists in history have believed very strongly in God. But they checked that belief at the door when it was time to go about the business of science- which when you get down to it is the business of proving things empirically to other people. Our...