"Who Believes What? Clearing up Confusion over Intelligent Design and Young-Earth Creationism

[Paraleptopecten (Timothy Campbell)]

@T_aquaticus

In the 18th and 19th centuries science was often practiced as a hobby by wealthy gentlemen, or perhaps supported by a patron. Science wasn’t a profession per se.

Earlier 19th century is about the transition time: Smith was among the earlier professional-type scientists, and Darwin was just about the last of the gentleman-scientist types.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

The get into your time machine and go and observe it

So irreducibly complex systems no longer exist?

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@Roy

one of the spark leads in a four-cylinder petrol engine breaks,

Oh you just have to knit pick don’t you. haven’t you anything better to do?

If you raced a car with three cylinders against an otherwise identical car who would win? (Survival of the fittest)

@T_aquaticus

So irreducibly complex systems no longer exist?

That is not what i said or meant.

If you need to observe before it can be scientific then you have no grounds for accepting any of ToE. It is not observed in real time. it is not observed in any time.

So you cannot criticise irreducibility because you cannot observe it.

Richard

[Roy]

@RichardG

@Roy

one of the spark leads in a four-cylinder petrol engine breaks,

Oh you just have to knit pick don’t you. haven’t you anything better to do?

Being able to blast whatever point you intended to smithereens because you didn’t think before putting fingers to keyboard, and hence are completely and trivially wrong, is not nit-picking.

Or knit picking.

Stop using words you don’t understand.

@RichardG

If you raced a car with three cylinders against an otherwise identical car who would win? (Survival of the fittest)

That has absolutely nothing to do with irreducibility.

[T_aquaticus]

@RichardG

If you need to observe before it can be scientific then you have no grounds for accepting any of ToE. It is not observed in real time. it is not observed in any time.

Science constructs and tests hypotheses so we can understand what we can’t directly observe. That’s the entire purpose of science. If it was just observing stuff we would call it observation. We don’t. We call it science.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@RichardG

Impossible includes via another route. There is no other route. it is irreducible

“impossible to make smaller or simpler”

Your referenced definition for irreducible is “impossible to make smaller or simpler”, which is not to say “impossible to make”. If there is a pathway to make an irreducible system, such as jaw bones integrating into a system detecting vibrations in the air, then it is possible for the ultimate irreducible system to have developed step wise. There is no burden even prove or observe that happened in real time; so long as there is a plausible natural progression, irreducibly does not present a barrier to evolution.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@T_aquaticus

Science constructs and tests hypotheses

Stop trying to teach me. I know wht science is. I also know its limitqtions, which you appear not to. And you also appear unable to understand principles without examples.

i told you that i have had enough I have been polite, Now stop.

Richard

[Roy]

@RichardG

Are you trying to be dumb or does it come naturally!

@RichardG

Just quit. You do not get it. You will never get it.

@RichardG

i told you that i have had enough I have been polite…

Hmmm…

[St.Roymond]

@Terry_Sampson

Ignoring the Plank: A Young-Earth Apologist Inadvertently Writes a Brilliant Critique of Young-Earth Creationism

Whoa – the adjusted quotes describe quite accurately the YECers who post here!

One irony is that at least one such claims theological education yet denies its value unless it agrees with him.

@Vinnie

Labels can be misleading. If asked if I believe in intelligent design I would say yes.

Ditto – I see the design not in particular instances but in the establishment of the process(es).

@Vinnie

So yes, I would put myself in a design camp but I probably wouldn’t fit in very well with most of the people around me.

Ditto also.

@knor

If the original cell is not eternal, reproduction is needed for continuing existence of the heritage (genes).

Given that things eat other things, the eaten must reproduce or go extinct.

@knor

The problem is that the offspring are all clones and vulnerable to similar environmental threats, like a disease that kills. If such a disease hits to the population, all individuals (clones) die.

As evidenced in pine forests in central Oregon; I once drove thirty miles without seeing anything but dead trees, all from one cause.

@Vinnie

a process cannot confer an advantage on an organism that is not present when it occurs.

Nonsense.

@RichardG

Evolution is much more likely to adapt away from the primary function than towards it.

Evolution knows nothing of any “primary function”, it only “knows” if something is useful.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@RichardG

Are you trying to be dumb or does it come naturally!

@RichardG

My apologies for calling you dumb, but, perhaps you need to find someone who can explain the ramifications of irreducibility to you.

And it was a long time back. (the apology was no 45!)

You appear to be quote mining

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@knor

A short period of cold that kills many individuals, an earthquake or vulcanic activity that changes the availability of food at the site, a favourable weather period that increases the breeding success of predators - there are multiple ways how even ‘chance events’ could affect which individuals produce offspring and which fail. As these events appear as fully natural phenomena, even if they would be ways how God guides the direction of evolution, there would be no scientific evidence for the acts of God.

Nice insight. It’s easy to focus on mutations as though the environment isn’t that significant!

@T_aquaticus

Glacial erosion of mountains is not a separate theory from sediment deposition in lakes. Rather, those are both mechanisms within the overarching theory of geology.

Which quite often are linked mechanisms, BTW.

@RichardG

As soon as one thing in an engine breaks the whole engine stops.
If you build an engine it does not work until the last piece is in place.

This assumes that there is a goal that is being aimed towards. Evolution doesn’t work that way.
Nor, actually, do engines: modern automobile engines have numerous parts without which they cannot function, but many of those parts didn’t even exist in earlier motors, and there are parts that were essential in earlier motors yet that don’t exist in today’s motors.

@RichardG

Irreducibility is a concept. It is not based on observation, It does not conform to the scientific method.

Then it is useless to talk about it with regards to science. One may as well use a tide table to determine the ingredients for a souffle.

@RichardG

IT DOES NOT COME FROM OBSERVATION IN NATURE

So it’s imaginary. The question then is why your imaginary things should be preferred over anyone else’s imaginary things when it comes to science.

@adamjedgar

YEC christians . . . do not get their theology from outside the bible

Yes, they do: their starting point is “what it looks like to me in English without needing any study or education is what it really means”. That can’t be found in the Bible, it comes from outside.
Another starting point is “In order to be true, the Bible has to be scientifically accurate”. That also cannot be found in the Bible, it comes from outside.

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

Stop trying to teach me. I know wht science is. I also know its limitqtions, which you appear not to.

But you are inventing limitations based on what you freely admit aren’t scientific ideas.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

But you are inventing limitations based on what you freely admit aren’t scientific ideas.

The limitations exist.

Science is not an island…

Irreducibility as a concept exists. It is not my fault that evolutionists believe they are immune to it.

Richard