Logically consistent theories of ID exist.

by hooberus 159 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  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).
• 

  parakeet

  "'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.
• 

  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.
• 

  ackack

  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
• 

  parakeet

  "This thread is specifically about the issue of logical consistenty. For evidence supporting the above statement persons can consult the book."
  
  You haven't said anything yet about the issue of logical consistency. What is the issue of logical consistency? If you're going to refer everyone to a book instead of discussing ideas, then this thread is pointless.
• 

  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.
• 

  No Apologies

  That's not even a theory, its an assertion. Here's another one:

  An intelligent designer would have to have a designer himself.

  Can you logically disprove my statement?

  No Apologies
• 

  ackack

  The statement is inherently untestable. A "designer" is a supernatural entity. You can't make testable hypotheses about a super natural entity.

  But let me put it to you this way. How would you test for a "designer"?

  ackack
• 

  parakeet

  "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."
  
  No, this thread is NOT about logical consistency. This thread is about your wanting us to read some book. So far the only logical consistency I've seen is your insistence about reading a book. If your real purpose is to plug a book, you've accomplished your purpose and this thread is finished.
• 

  nicolaou

  The Darwin Awards honour individuals who improve our gene pool by removing themselves from it. Similarly, creationist topics like this one support the atheistic worldview by commiting logical 'hari kari'.

  We just need a name . . .

  How about the Hooberus Awards?