|
|
#31
10-01-2005, 04:18 PM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
If I say yes I think ID is science, you say well than any truth is science. Yes I think ID is science, can it be tested with the traditional scientific method? No-not yet, and I concede maybe never. If the evidence we have is pointing towards some thing should it be excluded for that reason alone. Some would say yes, but that to is changing. I understand some people will never even consider ID because it can't be explained by naturalistis methods. However I don't think it's fair when I or someone in my position can make (what seems to me anyway) a sound argument only to get the response."Nope. That's a fairy tale." As to why I think ID is a science. That answer is littered all over this board in my responses, and my posts. [/ QUOTE ] I agree that its wrong to think ID is a fairy tale just because its not science. More fool them if they claim that. but if it can't be explained by naturalistic methods then it shouldn't be confused with things that are explainable by naturalistic methods. Now I understand your position on that perhaps I can understand something else: Do you believe its impossible that complexity can occur without a designer or just that no alternative that satisfies you has been given? chez 
|
|
#32
10-01-2005, 04:26 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
Do you believe its impossible that complexity can occur without a designer or just that no alternative that satisfies you has been given? [/ QUOTE ] I believe that there is no naturalistic explanation for information rich systems.(as of yet) I think this and many other things point to design. Maybe we should start an "Is ID Science?" thread.
|
|
#33
10-01-2005, 04:27 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Do you believe its impossible that complexity can occur without a designer or just that no alternative that satisfies you has been given? [/ QUOTE ] I believe that there is no naturalistic explanation for information rich systems.(as of yet) I think this and many other things point to design. Maybe we should start an "Is ID Science?" thread. [/ QUOTE ] Haven't we already gone over that? Edit: Actually, you may not have been posting in here at that time, but there were a bunch of threads about ID about a month ago.
|
|
#34
10-01-2005, 04:45 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Do you believe its impossible that complexity can occur without a designer or just that no alternative that satisfies you has been given? [/ QUOTE ] I believe that there is no naturalistic explanation for information rich systems.(as of yet) I think this and many other things point to design. Maybe we should start an "Is ID Science?" thread. [/ QUOTE ] Your initial point was about the complexity of DNA. If you want to explain why you think ID is true (which I assume is the purpose of the thread) then the issue is why complexity requires a designer, not how complex DNA is. Why you think complexity requires a designer is what I am trying to understand. We've established its not for naturalistic reasons so I was exploring whether its for logical reasons. Hence the question. If I understand you, you are saying you believe in ID partly because as yet you have no heard no other satisfactory explanation (even though you accept there might be one). Is that right? What is the nature of the other reasons for your belief in ID. We've dealt with the natural and hopefully I've understood you on the logical. chez
|
|
#35
10-01-2005, 05:17 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
If I understand you, you are saying you believe in ID partly because as yet you have no heard no other satisfactory explanation (even though you accept there might be one). Is that right? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [ QUOTE ] What is the nature of the other reasons for your belief in ID. [/ QUOTE ] Actually I came to this belief through faith in January 2005. For about 2 years before that i studied string theory. Though faith in God brought me to believe in creationism, I don't feel I need to hide behind boof there's a tree either.
|
|
#36
10-01-2005, 05:31 PM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] If I understand you, you are saying you believe in ID partly because as yet you have no heard no other satisfactory explanation (even though you accept there might be one). Is that right? [/ QUOTE ] Yes. [ QUOTE ] What is the nature of the other reasons for your belief in ID. [/ QUOTE ] Actually I came to this belief through faith in January 2005. For about 2 years before that i studied string theory. Though faith in God brought me to believe in creationism, I don't feel I need to hide behind boof there's a tree either. [/ QUOTE ] So having made that clear, I can't imagine anyone has any issue with ID other than as they don't share your faith they don't agree with you. I'm sorry if I'm a pain, I just wanted to establish whether ID believers required faith to believe it, be a lot easier if they just said so straight up. chez
|
|
#37
10-03-2005, 08:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The search for E.T.
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] Biological processes are a result of the big bang. [/ QUOTE ] This sentence along with just about every other in your post is wrong. [/ QUOTE ] Oh, ok. Thanks for your thoughtful reply. LOL. I have tangled with Jerry McGuire and I have lost. Damn.
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
