<< In a message dated 9/13/2000 9:56:01 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< Nelson:
Well one of the ways design is evident is in how something is built or
assembled. If I see a group of rocks that form a sequence specific pattern
which says "Welcome to the Rockies" I eliminate natural pathways and make a
design inference. But what I was talking about above was how Irreducibly
Complex systems eliminate natural processes as a cause and offers
intelligent design as a plausible alternative.
>>
Sure. But in the case of IC that's what you have to show. We all agree that
design can sometimes be infered quite reliably. IC does not eliminate
natural
processes as a cause, it claims that it does but it has not shown this. It
does not even show that ID is a plausible and useful alternative.
You seem to overestimate the power of ID and IC. Perhaps that's caused by
the
unsupported claims like the ones you make above?
Nelson:
Can you show how what I say above is not supported? You have to first
support your claim that IC systems can evolve. You cannot evolve something
that is totally ineffective below the sum of it's parts. >>
FMA:
You are trying to switch the burden of proof again.
Nelson:
No, the burden was to produce a system that cannot arise via chance and
natural selection. There can be no functional precursor if you cannot reduce
an irreducible system since the you cannot show an effective precursor. Now
if you want to say "it could have evolved" you have to give me a pathway to
work with. I have proposed my pathway, namely intelligent design.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Sep 15 2000 - 12:39:21 EDT