You said you had EMPIRICAL DATA to support the inference that the first cells were designed. That is plenty good enough for me. We await the link. The whole red herring about the 'designer designing' means nothing to me. If you have data which supports the inference the the first cells were designed, the whole argument changes. Those of us who question ID will be forced into a corner because the central claim this whole time has been that there can never be any such data. As I said, I knew you wouldn't provide it, because you 'already know that we won't accept it'. How convenient for you. I believe the real reason you won't provide it is that no such data exists. If it exists, post it here. (tick-tock, tick-tock....)
http://www.spacedaily.com/reports/The_Delicate_Trails_Of_Star_Birth_999.html The Delicate Trails Of Star Birth by Staff Writers Mauna Kea, Hawaii (SPX) Mar 23, 2007 An image released today by the Gemini Observatory brings into focus a new and remarkably detailed view of supersonic "bullets" of gas and the wakes created as they pierce through clouds of molecular hydrogen in the Orion Nebula. The image was made possible with new laser guide star adaptive optics technology that corrects in real time for image distortions caused by Earth's atmosphere. The Orion Nebula is a star-forming region located relatively near to us, about 1,500 light-years away. It's a young stellar nursery and shows many unusual features related to the effect of massive stars on the dense birth environment of gas and dust. The Orion bullets were first seen in a visible-light image in 1983. By 1992, images taken at infrared wavelengths led astronomers to conclude that these clumps of gas were ejected from deep within the nebula following an unknown violent event connected with the recent formation of a cluster of massive stars there. The bullets are speeding outward from the cloud at up to 400 kilometers (250 miles) per second. This is more than a thousand times faster than the speed of sound. The name "bullet" is somewhat misleading since these objects are truly gigantic. The typical size of one of the bullet tips is about ten times the size of Pluto's orbit around the Sun. The wakes shown in the image about are about a fifth of a light- year long. ...
It wasn't so much that scientific inquiry guided scientists as much as it was that it bound scientists to a certain view. Science simply cannot take into account the actions of some ineffable entity like God. Yet the world was aching for a scientific "explanation" of life on earth so materialistic science provided it. Now, I happen to think it is a good explanation, it is a sturdy -- as far as I can tell -- scientific explanation. But is it true? Must we all accept it? Can it brook no dissent, even for irrational reasons? Scientifically, respectively, yes, yes and no. But philosophically, not necessarily, no and yes. I don't know the incident you refer to, but why would a lack of complete familiarity with a work prevent one from citing it? Unless one cites a work in favor of one's argument when the work's conclusions in fact argue against one's position, what is the problem? [quoteID/Creation is a faith-based rebranding of traditional Creationism. It belongs in churches and at Scientology gatherings. [/QUOTE] You'd think it belongs in the philosophy classroom, too, wouldn't you? And, of course, the reference to scientology is there in order to suggest exactly what the tone of virtually every axe-grinding Darwinist wishes to convey -- that anyone skeptical of a completely materialist explanation of life is an idiot. I don't know, Nik. I had hoped you yourself might have changed tack by now, that rather than seek to belittle those you disagree with, you might simply disagree amicably. I guess old habits die hard.
spect8or, howz your loins been treating u lately... u still having problems with 'em non-white folks?
to summarize: Z-ID = anti-Darwinism Z believes not necessarily in First Cause (aka God etc) but beyond all the vedantic noise etc, definitely in Ultimate Causality. Randomness, chance etc have no room in Z's world. Z has problems understanding how people can even function without postulating Ultimate Causality... Z believes that what he doesn't understand - science, evolution etc {insert long list} - is necessarily wrong... if it weren't, he would understand it Z votes in the united states of america... your problem guys ))))))))
TraderNik: Data can be interpreted from either a teleological or non-teleological perspective. That I can interprete certain data as supporting a design inference doesn't stop you from interpreting the same data from a non-teleological perspective. The only thing that would back you into a corner would be some kind of extraordinary evidence that couldn't possibly be interpreted from a non-teleological perspective. And what would that be other than seeing the designer designing?
Lol...thanks for proving me right once again. I knew you wouldn't cite your 'empirical data'. The reason is - no such data exists. ID/Creation continues to be a fatih-based belief system with no empirical data to back it up. ----------------------------------------------- Teleologist: I infer that the first cells were designed and I have empirical data to support the inference. The Rationalist: Really? Wow, that is remarkable! What is the data? Teleologist: I won't provide the data because if I do you'll just interpret it in such a way that it supports your argument.
TraderNik: Of course the data exists. Richard Dawkins says: These "complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose" are data from the natural world. The only isssue here is how to interprete this data. You interprete the data from a non-teleological perspective and I interprete the same data from a teleological perspective. I submit that the only thing that would cause you to give up on your non-teleological interpretation of the data would be seeing the designer designing. Am I wrong? If so, tell me what else would do the trick.
According to this logic, appearance of guilt equals to proof of guilt. This guy doesn't know what is critical thinking.