Search found 48 matches

by ncooty
Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:37 am
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

Re: RE:

In case you are interested, Cooties, here is a secular organization dedicated to the ID movement: http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/ Thanks for the link. It is a little strange that the touted publication of the managing editors was published in the National Catholic Bioethics Quarterly . It ...
by ncooty
Mon Nov 14, 2005 12:08 am
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

The problem is that Dembski is projecting; he's asserting that his subjective perceptions are, in fact, attributes of the item. They are not. I do know what you're talking about...shows how much use an intro to psychology was... a chair can be used as a seat, but also as a weapon, a weight, a door ...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 11:55 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

Thanks for the response. Just a couple of really quick comments, since you've addressed something to me. You have taken a definitional sufficiency position on the role of irreducible complexity. What you wrote was that if it is irreducibly complex, then it is designed. This argument is useful for de...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 9:30 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

First paragraph reminds me of Miller's strawman (one of many) (first name wasn't Stanely, started with a K...I think). Don't have anything about that, so can't really respond...though I can say that is a problem with arguing through analogies...you'll argue using the points of the item that go for ...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 8:28 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

I was reading some other articles and commentary on ID and I've noticed something that seems central to the disagreements between ID and some alternatives: the distinction between structure and function. It seems to me that in order to say that something is intelligently designed, an observer must d...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 7:28 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

August, Thank you so much for your post. I have a couple of questions: How do you operationalize (i.e., objectively define) "too complex" for nature to have created without direction? How do you distinguish between something that appears to have been intelligently designed and something else that d...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:37 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

Dembski defined it (irreducibly complex, aka, tooo complex) in the article I posted, the one you claimed had logical fallacies-an argument you never supported, except with entry level examples of the logical fallacies you claimed exist. If the definition is not robust against "entry level examples ...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 6:03 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

As one tiny example, if you find a hominid fossil in the jurassic era (either by radioactive or carbon dating or by location in the geologic strata), that won't fit with current evolutionary theory. The goelocgical column is a fabrication, and a rock formation that contains a hominid would be defin...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:57 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

August, Thank you so much for your post. I have a couple of questions: How do you operationalize (i.e., objectively define) "too complex" for nature to have created without direction? How do you distinguish between something that appears to have been intelligently designed and something else that do...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:41 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

But ID is built off of SOME evolution proponents, therefore claiming you don't want to discuss evolution would then invalidate discussing ID. If you really are what you claim to be in the areas of study you have, why don't you research these things out for yourself instead of asking US about it, yo...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:34 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1161 Table 2. Predictions of Design (Hypothesis): (1) High information content machine-like irreducibly complex structures will be found. (2) Forms will be found in the fossil record that appear suddenly and without any precursors. (3) Genes a...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 5:18 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

. What's the objective, falsifiable hypothesis of ID? Why is this so hard to answer? Stop flailing about angrily, KMart, and just answer that simple question. What is the objective, falsifiable hypothesis of ID?) Show that irreducibly complex biological systems are evolvable, duh. Show that informa...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:58 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

OK, folks, these are the kinds of emails I'm getting: ************************************************** From: Thinker To: ncooty Posted: Sun Nov 13, 2005 10:04 pm Subject: Unofficial Warning Ncooty, we believers of this forum have done some investigation into your posts and the like, we have notice...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 4:26 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

Ark~Magic I think you missed ncooty's point. Ncooty I beleive, is looking for an empiracle way to support/disprove ID. I'm sure he has no qualms with the fact that there is no way to falsify evolution... KMart, That would be a great point, if it were true. No scientific theory is provable, but all ...
by ncooty
Sun Nov 13, 2005 3:50 pm
Forum: God and Science
Topic: Describing ourselves by HOW rather than WHAT we think.
Replies: 104
Views: 10055

The conjecture is that the physical elements of the universe ... were confined to a small space. We know these dense masses exist. That's what a black hole is. So are you saying above that the universe has always existed as a black hole and that at some point it expanded ? And that there are includ...