In a message dated 9/15/2000 9:39:53 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
nalonso@megatribe.com writes:
<< 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.
>>
You are still arguing by assertion. I have shown how in principle with
scaffolding such a system could arise or be deconstructed. I do not have to
give you evidence that it truely happened just that it could have happened.
ID denies that it could have happened through natural forces, now that it has
been shown that IC systems can arise naturally, the ID thesis has been
falsified. Does this mean that there could not be any designed IC systems ?
Of course not. I am looking forward though to evidence to support this.
You have not proposed a pathway. I could equally well claim "natural forces"
but I have shown a pathway. But lets presume that we have both shown a
pathway, then IC is clearly not a reliable indicator of design and the design
inference fails.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Sep 16 2000 - 01:05:13 EDT