Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
12-02-2002, 04:46 AM | #11 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Morris, MN
Posts: 3,341
|
Quote:
|
|
12-02-2002, 05:15 AM | #12 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
|
Quote:
|
|
12-02-2002, 05:35 AM | #13 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: na
Posts: 329
|
Quote:
However, Bubba posted asking for any real evidence for ID and that he would consider any rational and falsifiable evidence (see above). Whilst he hasn't constrained the arguement to biology it appears that he decided to post here. Only he can really answer that for you. However, at least Bubba can re-engage in the debate that he was wishing to have and knows where to look. [ December 02, 2002: Message edited by: E_muse ]</p> |
|
12-02-2002, 05:44 AM | #14 | |
Banned
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: na
Posts: 329
|
Quote:
|
|
12-02-2002, 05:56 AM | #15 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Canada
Posts: 3,751
|
What on Earth could Koons (a completely unillustrious philosopher, and for obvious reason) mean by calling the MUI "ad hoc"? It is one interpretation of the equations independently thought to describe the inflationary process. And though Koons is either ignorant of this or dishonest, the fact is that the MUI predicts certain values for certain constants, values that have been more closely approximated by recent measurements. In short, it is based on pre-existing physical theory and is empirically testable.
Whereas "Jesus wiggled his nose" is neither... And the big picture is that yet again E_muse is offering the transparent fallacy of false dichotomy. On the other thread, before you fled, I asked you to explain "the specific research programme, crucial tests, lines of experimentation, and points of consilience with other theories and disciplines" that characterize your purported ID explanation. This, after all, has been the specific point of three threads in rapid succession. But the silence is deafening. |
12-02-2002, 06:03 AM | #16 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Morris, MN
Posts: 3,341
|
Quote:
|
|
12-02-2002, 06:03 AM | #17 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
|
Even more telling was that E_muse offered to define specifically which variant of ID he is defending -- after telling both Bubba and me that specifically advocating a positive stance was beneficial. And this is what he comes up with?
|
12-02-2002, 06:04 AM | #18 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: anywhere
Posts: 1,976
|
Quote:
|
|
12-02-2002, 06:07 AM | #19 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Morris, MN
Posts: 3,341
|
Quote:
|
|
12-02-2002, 06:24 AM | #20 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: NCSU
Posts: 5,853
|
E_muse,
Do you know of any biological data, published in the mass of scientific literature, that supports a rigourously defined concept of "intellegent design" over the more familiar and established concept of evolution via mutation plus selection, drift, migration, etc.? |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|