RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

  Topic: Journal of Creation online!, Go and giggle< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Bob O'H

Posts: 2132
Joined: Oct. 2005

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2007,00:29   

Via ERV, we learn that the Journal of Creation is now available online, with a 12-month delay.  Lots of pdf fun for all the family!

There's even an ID prediction pdf) (in a review by Walter ReMine of Simon Conway Morris' book):
Message Theory claims life was reasonably designed: (1) for survival, (2) to look like the product of one designer (or group of designers acting together as one, rather than multiple independent designers), and (3) to also resist evolutionary explanations. This theory explains
and predicts: (a) the vast unity of all life-forms, including their astonishing unity at the biochemical level (which
is not predicted by evolution). It also predicts the system-wide, large-scale patterns exposed by Gould and Morris, (b) the large gaps between life-forms that defy Darwinian gradualism, © the absence of clear-cut ancestors and lineage ? in other words, (d) the abundance of diversity (i.e. in Gould?s words, ?indecipherable bushiness?), plus (e) the abundance of ?convergence?
(which cannot be explained by common descent, by atavism, or by Transposition). Also, there is, (f) the
substantial absence of a Transposition pattern (particularly in the fossil record, the multicellular life-forms). Plus (g)
the origin-of-life is such an intractable problem for naturalism. Life is unified as the work of one designer, while simultaneously designed to resist evolutionary explanations. These are the major patterns of life, and
Message Theory explains them all in a coherent, scientifically testable (i.e., empirically risky) manner. I claim the entirety of Morris?s book?and its documentation of life?s abundant ?convergence? pattern?as evidence for
Message Theory.

Go on folks, start digging....

It is fun to dip into the various threads to watch cluelessness at work in the hands of the confident exponent. - Soapy Sam (so say we all)


Posts: 1
Joined: Aug. 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 17 2007,01:07   

I was reading the "Grist for the EF mill" on The Panda's Thumb web site and thought of a great test for Dembski's Explanatory Filter (EF) and Specificity argument. ?The folks at the collapsed coal mine in Huntington, Utah would like to know if Dembski's EF can determine if a series of underground spikes detected on geophones was designed (by one of the trapped miners trying to communicate with rescuers) or was due to natural causes. According to assistant U.S. labor secretary Richard Stickler, he saw spikes "about every second and a half that lasts for five or six minutes." In this tragic example, Dembski should find plenty of background information is available to determine whether the sound spikes are designed or not and if they demonstrate specificity.

Erasmus, FCD

Posts: 6349
Joined: June 2007

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2007,11:17   

I just read two of the articles in the most recent issue, one about gravel deposits in the west rockies and the other 'does logic need faith'.

i've been dueling with some presuppositionalists (well actually they suck to talk to) but there are some other fundies who keep quoting Plantigna and Polyani and yammering about 'warrant' and how there is no such thing as objective knowledge (i agree with that but it doesn't mean what they think it means).  

does anyone know enough about plantigna or polyani to give me a cliff's note back of the book cover review of their respective philosophies?  given that the fundy interpretations are consistent with the authors, i'm not so sure that they support the young earth position as well as these guys think.  but i have not read much of them.  any help?

You're obviously illiterate as hell. Peach, bro.-FtK

Finding something hard to believe based on the evidence, is science.-JoeG

the odds of getting some loathsome taint are low-- Gordon E Mullings Manjack Heights Montserrat

I work on molecular systems with pathway charts and such.-Giggles

Wesley R. Elsberry

Posts: 4807
Joined: May 2002

(Permalink) Posted: Aug. 18 2007,11:23   


Plantinga: Atheism/Materialism/Naturalism is unwarranted. These fifteen pages of philosophical probability talk proves it.

Skeptic: Those probabilities don't work; consider X.

Plantinga: OK, my previous argument is busted. But Atheism/Materialism/Naturalism is unwarranted. Here's another fifteen pages of philosophical probability talk that proves it.

Lather, rinse, repeat.

Hope that helps.

"You can't teach an old dogma new tricks." - Dorothy Parker

  3 replies since Aug. 17 2007,00:29 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  


Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]