Posts by hooberus

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

funkyderek said:

hooberus:
Before moving on to other points are you in agreement that the ID statement requires: 1.) No nesessary infinite regression of designers
From a strictly logical viewpoint, that's correct. You've declared the original designer to have characteristics that excludes him from the group "life" as defined in the sentence. Examining it in any detail leads to a whole host of problems, but in and of itself, it avoids the problem of regression.
and 2.) No necessary self-refutation ?
Agreed. As I wrote above, the sentence is internally consistent - as are all the ones I provided in response. Do you agree?

I am glad that we are in agreement on at least the logical consistency issue of the particular statement that I posted.

As far as your point that: "You've declared the original designer to have characteristics that excludes him from the group "life" as defined in the sentence." I would instead word it that the ID statement given does not also require designers to have all of the same charatersistics as the type of life in question (such as having an origin from non-life).

Regarding the issue of internal consistency of the sentences you provided- I have seen no necessary logical inconsistency problem (though of course I don't necessarily agree with them).

Furthermore, I also agree with your previous point that ". . . there is more to science than constructing sentences that are not inherently nonsensical" (In fact I may later go into other issues besides the issue of logical consistency). However, for now I hope to deal specifically with the logical consistency/non-inconsistency issue.

Since we are in agreement that the previous simple ID theory and/or statement does not necessarily lead to logical inconsistency (such as being self-refuting, etc.), I will therefore proceed to post an additional longer ID statement that I feel is not inconsistent either.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

funkyderek said:

"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."
Well done, hooberus. You managed to formulate - or at least find - a sentence that is not self-contradictory. Well done indeed. I understand it's a big step for you.

Before moving on to other points are you in agreement that the ID statement requires: 1.) No nesessary infinite regression of designers and 2.) No necessary self-refutation ?

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

kid-A said:

As it stands, this statement would not preclude the necessity for an infinite regression of "designers" if you do indeed consider your deity a "life-form", regardless of whether that being is "biological" or not.

Since it there is nothing in the statement that requires the designer to himself have an origin from non-life, the statement does not therefore require the designer to also have their own designer, ad infinitum.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

Leolaia said:

Since we are talking only within the realm of logic, I have to wonder that if the Designer TM can be eternal tho having intelligence, organization, and what not, why cannot the universe and life itself (with all its wonderful "designs") be similarly eternal? After all, if we leave out the possibility of eternity, your posited Designer would just be the last in a potentially infinite series of Designers, as you put it. If the Designer need not be designed "themself" because of having eternal existence, why cannot the universe be similarly undesigned (tho having all the apperance of design that the Designer "themself" would have) if it eternally exists as well? As I recall, Aristotle or one of the other Greek philosophers pondered this question.

The ID theory/statement that I posted does not in itself exclude the possibility of an eternal universe with no designer. It was short statement dealing specifically with the issue of the origin of life from non-life.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

hooberus: It does not also require the designer to themself also have an origin from non-life
I agree that as stated it would not require life to arise from non-life. However, you must surely be aware that it would require life to exist from nothing, whether or not it originated from nothing.

In talking about the existence of an eternal designer it is probably more accurate to use the term self-existent rather than "exist from nothing".

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life."

The above statement involves:

1.) No necessary infinite regression of designers- It does not also require the designer to themself also have an origin from non-life (and thus require their own designer, ad infinitum). For example there is nothing in the above that would also exclude the possibility of the existence of an eternally existing designer (which of course would have no origin from non-life).

2.) No required self-refutation- It does not also require the existence of some life that has an origin from non-life without a designer, since it doesn't require the designer to even have an origin from non-life at all.

If no one disagrees with the logicical status of this first simple ID statement, I will proceed to move on to list other logically consistent theories of ID.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

Oh goody. "Evidence" for a "faith". The whole problem with ID is it pretends it's science, while it completely rejects science.
The statement "An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." is not provable. What more, it is sort of an argument from personal incredulity. Basically, "I can't see how life could have arisen without an intelligent designer, ergo, ID."
ackack

For how the statement is both testable and backed up by more than "personal incredulity" see the book. As I said before this thread is about logical consistency.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

"'An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.' The Biotic Message page. 40"

"Prove it." The Parakeet Message, page 1.

This thread is specifically about the issue of logical consistenty. For evidence supporting the above statement persons can consult the book.

159

Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus in

the following is one theory that comes from the id book the biotic messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by walter remine.

"an intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life.

" the biotic message page.

hooberus

The following is one theory that comes from the ID book The Biotic Messagehttp://www1.minn.net/~science/contents.htm by Walter ReMine

"An intelligent designer is necessary for the origin of life from non-life." The Biotic Message page. 40

It should be noted that the above theory deals specifically with life that has an origin from non-life, and thus there is nothing in the above that would also exclude the existence of an eternally existing designer (which of course would have no origin from non-life).

537

evolution or creation? lets talk...

by Sam87 in

jw
friends

ok, lets have a discussion about where we all came from, evolution or creation?

(or whatever you beleive in of course) every one put down there main reasons, along with reasonable facts and backup as to why.. .

hopefully this doesnt start to many arguments, lol.. .

hooberus

hooberus, how're you doing?
I took a look at the links you provided; tell me, is the following scientific in your opinion?
"He also warned us that our thoughts are corrupted by sin. Therefore, we know that thoughts are not to be trusted when they disagree with Scripture."
This is the chemist Safarti speaking about God. I suppose you already knew that.

Dr. Sarfati was responding to a feedback letter (other persons comments in red) in which the other person initiated the subject of God and rational thought. He then went on to discuss the subject of evolution and thought processes.

_________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/feedback/2005/0902.asp

God gave us a brain with the ability for rational thought.

He also warned us that our thoughts are corrupted by sin. Therefore, we know that thoughts are not to be trusted when they disagree with Scripture.

‘ For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. ’ (Hebrews 4:12)

However, evolution cannot coherently explain rational thought, because Darwinian processes select only for survival advantage, not rationality. See my explanation to another critic.

__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

So please respond to my post concerning the above. Fossils, DNA and other evidence points to evolution as to the way in which life as we know it exists in the forms we see around us.

For a response to this claim I'll leave reader with the following brief arcticle (see also arcticles in previous links): Creation and Evolution: A Look at the Evidence: http://origins.swau.edu/papers/evol/gibson/default.html

But, you would have to reject said evidence merely because it disagrees with the Bible, wouldn’t you?

Yes, because* evolution makes my mind reject evidence if it disagrees with the DNA/environmental programming in my brain (the same as it causes you and all other evolutionists to reject evidence if it disagrees with the DNA/environmental programming in your brain).

*according to evolutionists

BTW, are you a young earth creationist? an ID-er? You've probably been thoroughly thrashed in other threads on your views but I'd rather just hear about your beliefs from you.

young earth creationist, and yourself? materialist evolutionist? theistic evolutionist?