gray wolf

I was not aware that I learned something by consulting a resource was non sequitur. Ok I'll give you you this: there are no creationist websites. Happy? On a serious note, is it fallacious (I'm sure it is to you) to say that a website explaining that God designed the universe is indeed creationist? What is the disconnect here? Are you offended by the term? I can use another word.

Maybe you can help me out. You're making the claim that there is this distinction. Please provide a reference that this distinction is accepted by the scientific community. I was not aware of it until I looked up some creationist sources.

Sorry I'm not going to play along and hear das alte Lied. I've seen it all before and am astounded by it, believe me. You really ought to go with the recommendation earlier that you post some of your ideas on some mainstream discussions. I would be interested with the outcome. Good night.

Ummm unsupported assertion? Historical vs operational science? Bonky is right on there. A cursory search of the internet will validate this. It would require that you look up some websites that you do not agree with, however.

Sometimes in defense of the faith (apologetics, if you will), we loose our focus. I have done this and many have as well. I used to debate with atheists and I realized my pride was more at stake than the gospel. As Alistair McGrath rightly put it: apologetics is not about winning the debate, it's about winning people to Christ. Not slamming anyone here, but sometimes we have to go back to the beginning.

You have to admire his fervor at least! But I wouldn't venture so far as to say scientists are equivocating.

I'm still laughing. You write with such flourish that I must Kratzen nach den Ohren (scratch my head) now and then.

Ha ha! thank heaven we can laugh at each other. I was going to post a reference, but you may think I'm an atheist, which I'm not. Take care

============================================================================================ No, it's accurate...unless you'd like to provide the 3rd choice? You only have 2 choices: Random Chance (Nature) or Intelligent Design (GOD). The Laws of Physics, Chemistry/Biochemistry, Information, Specific Complexity, Irreducible Complexity, and Common Sense Rule Nature out...Laughingly so. If you summarily rule one of the choices out.... where does it leave you? Based on the Law of non-contradiction--- 2 things that are contradictory can't exist @ the same time (or do you disagree?). It's better stated as: either Randomness or Intelligent Design Created us and the Universe. This is not a False Dichotomy (Bifurcation Fallacy) because there is no THIRD CHOICE. Now if I summarily refute Randomness the choice MUST BE ID. YOU MAY THEN conjure thousands of possibilities under ID; however, it has ZERO to do with the tenets of first postulate. That's an Argument from Ignorance. And, if nobody was there to "Observe" it..."it" never Existed; Validated by Experiment (SEE: QM--- Double-Slit and the Delayed Choice Quantum Eraser) from here: I don't see how the process of natural selection can be misconstrued as blind chance. Isn't this a false dichotomy? No it's not an argument from ignorance, my friend. I am not seeking to prove or disprove.; you are putting words in my mouth. You use a lot of fancy terminology, but I think it is void of substance. Ah me, was that an Ad Hominem assault? Say goodnight Gracie. .

Not random chance or design. This quandary is presented quite regularly and it is inaccurate and misleading. I don't think anyone mentioned random chance as in the case of Hoyle's Ultimate 747. There is an alternative process (although I think that is also set up by God). As for an argument from ignorance, it is good that you mentioned it in the first instance. It was placed to intentionally demonstrate an absurdity. In the second instance, we passed through a fog. You are writing off my intent as a fallacy ( and being quite ornery about it, I might add. I bet they don't invite you to many parties ). I simply meant to say that if no one was there to observe something, we cannot be sure of what happened; we only have ideas to explain it. I am not seeking to prove something by presenting a lack of evidence one way or the other.

Here's the thing. If you demonstrate that a process is irreducible, you must make a leap of faith and state, well, that proves design. That there is no other possible way for that process to come about- - we understand all of it that is to be understood. As I noted in my OP, which you seem to be criticizing, I offered some entities which could lead one to infer that design is involved as a consideration. I see the weakness in watchmaker arguments as comparing complex natural entities to human created entities. Of course there was a watchmaker, we know it to be so because we can observe it over and over. But with natural systems or objects, we have no experience in observing their emergence; we weren't there. It becomes a matter of faith unless we discover a process. The best thing to be said for teleological arguments is that they are interesting, but the verdict is not proven. I think they are more for reassurance of believers rather than convincing of outsiders.

Your definition of straw man is quite rarified, lol

Do you really think the blood coagulation process is irreducible? A cursory look at the process in another animal will confirm that this is not the case. Same with the flagellar motor. I'm not saying these systems were not designed, but I think the concept cannot be applied in these examples.

But you are talking about an analogy with manmade objects. We can observe their manufacture and know they are created. It is not so easy with natural entities; no one observed their origins. The inference is that because they are complex, they must have been designed. While I can buy into that, I don't think everybody does. Irreducible complexity didn't fare well in the Kitzmiller case of course.

I'd like to bring up a couple of aspects of nature that I think point to a Designer. One of these is long term memory as described in the following scenario: my wife informs me that a classmate I went to university with over 30 years ago has received a scientific prize for her groundbreaking work. Faster than a super computer, I comment, yes Mary was her mother. I'm sure you can think of many similar examples. This characteristic surely has no evolutionary benefit. Doesn't it surely seem a gift from the Creator? A second example is in biology/chemistry. I have for a long time been interested in the citric acid cycle. It would seem to be a system of "irreducible complexity", although I avoid that term. I have seen some theories of its development posted by evolutionists, but I am not really satisfied. Either it works or it doesn't. Maybe someone here has read in the literature a better theory of its origins. Of course these examples do not tell us about the nature of the Designer, but we can fill in the blanks. I am interested if any nonbelievers (and believers) care to shed some light on these instances. Daniel

Yes Alpha, I would agree that there really isn't a conspiracy going on. There may be a bias, but a scientist who is a believer can be published as long as it's sound science without supernatural elements. Consider Jason Lisle's case (director of research at Institute for Creation Research). A young earther can do good science as well as a Philistine!

But doesn't an occasional, well intentioned fallacy from an opponent make it ever more interesting? Nothing as devastating to one's argument as to realize one has tripped up.

Yes, too funny that you mention phlogiston as tantamount to current theories. Come up with better ones then. They would love to see them! But seriously, when you observe the results of a past event, which cannot be replicated in the lab, do you throw up your hands and say nothing is knowable? Wouldn't you rather identify results and consequences and make an intelligent "guess" as to what occurred? And cannot science inform this apprehension?

Ho hey.. . . same old stuff Scientific method, shmientific method What do we do when we cannot observe the phenomena? Make up stories?

Hey, what can I say. It must warm the hearts of nonbelievers (hopefully) to see cheerful banter amongst Christians.

========================================================================== I would never say that................out-loud It represents a dead thing. Life----Mind Boggling Specific Complexity. It surely wasn't the result of "nature" or randomness....unless somebody can show Inanimate objects (Atoms/Molecules) having Sentience and Intelligence. The End was quick and watery FLOOD. I'd like to come slap you on the back of the head! Oh wait, we're supposed to debate the subject, not make personal attacks.

oooops! Don't know what version was floating around in my head!

Did I ever say that there should be no sympathy for the Palestinians? They are just victims of Islam, like all the other Muslims in this World. They are not victims of Israel. What is being done by Muslims is not in God's name - it is in the name of the false god Allah True in part. The stop to violence must be bilateral. Thousands of years later, we still have not learned.

Oh so now you're calling me a fruitcake???? No, I meant a model for explaining what the fossil represents. What process was going on that brought about the life form that this fossil represents? What does it mean?

What you mean is that the objection you have are the hypotheses about the evidence. The evidence is what it is. When we progress and try to figure out an explanation, then we must rigorously use science to interpret and construct a robust model. Do not misconstrue this to mean blind acceptance of evolution.