Huh. Well, I guess you have some explaining to do then. -- Ben's Message Board

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Saturday, May 17, 11:48:25am [ Login ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, [3], 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

Subject: Huh. Well, I guess you have some explaining to do then.

Author:
Duane
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 11/ 5/04 5:22am
In reply to: Biff 's message, "Very well then..." on 10/19/04 11:07am

Biff:

>"Within biology, intelligent design is a theory of
>biological origins and development. Its fundamental
>claim is that intelligent causes are necessary to
>explain the complex, information-rich structures of
>biology

Why are they necessary?

> and that these causes are empirically
>detectable." William A. Dembski in "Intelligent
>Design" pg 106.

I'm quite surprised at this quote. If you look at bits of Wade's and my discussion in this thread, you'll notice that Wade spends the first half of this thread arguing that the intelligent causes are NOT empirically detectable. I tend to agree with him on this, but you seem to be taking a completely different tack...

So you claim that the intelligent cause(s) are detectable? Then what are they? Give us your best hypothesis, cased on whatever observable facts you have. Doesn't have to be perfect - just what you think those/that cause(s) is/are.

Duane

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Subject Author Date

I'll try some explaining. Wade A. Tisthammer 04/ 2/05 4:02pm

But are they really? -- Damoclese, 04/ 3/05 8:55pm

All those unprovable assumtions! -- QUITTNER, 04/ 4/05 2:03pm
Are they really what? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 6/05 8:56pm

Necessary -- Damoclese, 04/ 7/05 7:20am

Trigger happy? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/ 9/05 9:15am

A baloney filter -- Damoclese, 04/ 9/05 6:07pm

And yet you can't find anything baloney with it! -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/10/05 12:36pm

heh -- Damoclese, 04/10/05 6:44pm

Tee hee -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/10/05 10:28pm

chortle -- Damoclese, 04/11/05 5:57pm

Inference to the best explanation -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/13/05 3:57pm

Inference to the explanation Wade likes -- Damoclese, 04/13/05 8:31pm

Please answer my questions regarding what Damoclese likes. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/14/05 4:08pm

Like Mike -- Damoclese, 04/25/05 7:54pm

Like philosophical preferences -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/26/05 5:10pm

Well duh -- Damoclese, 04/26/05 9:11pm

Rounding up the main points. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/27/05 5:34pm

Mainly -- Damoclese, 04/27/05 7:37pm

Primarily -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/27/05 10:55pm

Secondarily -- Damoclese, 04/28/05 7:29am

Tertiary -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/28/05 3:27pm

Pomp -- Damoclese, 04/28/05 8:45pm

Romp. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/29/05 11:41am

Circumstance -- Damoclese, 04/29/05 6:05pm

So is the answer "yes"? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 1/05 10:17pm

Double bubble -- Damoclese, 05/ 2/05 6:59am

Insert nonsensical title of the post here -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/ 5/05 2:01pm

From our sponsor -- Damoclese, 05/15/05 9:00am

Special pleading? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/15/05 2:32pm

Special Ed -- Damoclese, 05/15/05 9:34pm

How about addressing the problems I pointed out? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/16/05 3:27pm

When you present something worth solving -- Damoclese, 05/16/05 7:58pm

The problems of abiogenesis aren't worth solving? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/17/05 2:54pm

Where have I seen this before? -- Damoclese, 05/17/05 9:48pm

I know where. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 05/31/05 10:19pm

Windows Happens -- Damoclese, 06/ 9/05 7:22pm

Through the looking glass. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/10/05 1:08pm

Under the chestnut tree -- Damoclese, 06/10/05 6:41pm

Under the evidential tree -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/10/05 8:56pm

I think I shall never see -- Damoclese, 06/11/05 9:31am

...evidence? -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/11/05 10:24pm

Evidentally not -- Damoclese, 06/15/05 6:38am

ID is at least based on evidence; as for abiogenesis... -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/15/05 11:17am

Hooked on semantics -- Damoclese, 06/15/05 6:38pm

Huked awn foniks wurkt fer mee. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 06/16/05 11:50am

A correction. -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 07/ 4/05 12:26pm

Tertiary -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/28/05 3:24pm

Inference to the best explanation -- Wade A. Tisthammer, 04/13/05 3:49pm