Replies

No ~ you got it wrong. If you claim your argument has universal application, all I have to do is find a single exception and your argument is garbage.

That's simple logic.

Claim something less than universality and you're OK.

I certainly never claim universality on anything ~

I certainly never claim universality on anything ~

Oh?? ;^)

Sorry to be so horribly late in responding. Interesting day yesterday.

Here is my post:

To: CarolinaGuitarman; muawiyah; Fester Chugabrew

M: No, just one ID somewhere doing one thing does the trick in knocking down your use of Occam.

CG: Nonsense. Nobody is saying that an intelligent designer doesn't exist (man). That in NO way is evidence that Man is the intelligent designer of the universe. There is simply no evidence for a designer of the universe, or of life as we see it on Earth, that isn't easier explained with natural means.

M: He doesn't have to create the Universe ~ just one new lifeform is sufficient, and it doesn't even have to be all that different ...

This appears to be Fester's oft-stated (and oft-denied) formulation that anything anywhere intelligently designed by anyone is evidence that everything everywhere was intelligently designed.

Fester tells me that's not what he means, but his posts can be somewhat murky. Mmuawiyah, on the other hand, seems to mean exactly that. Perhaps they can get together and sort it out for us.

698 posted on 04/06/2006 10:12:33 AM EDT by Gumlegs

To which, you responded:

To: Gumlegs

No ~ you got it wrong. If you claim your argument has universal application, all I have to do is find a single exception and your argument is garbage.

That's simple logic.

Claim something less than universality and you're OK.

I certainly never claim universality on anything ~

734 posted on 04/06/2006 11:40:46 AM EDT by muawiyah

I'm certainly relieved to hear you never claim universailty on anything. But here are the two posts of yours that prompted my post:

To: CarolinaGuitarman

Now, back to Occam ~ the argument was made that Occam's Razor demands that ID be rejected because, obviously, it's simply an extraneous, added component to an otherwise simpler system.

All that's needed to knock down that argument is to find a single Intelligent Designer who has managed to create only one marginally different lifeform.

ADM qualifies as the Intelligent Designer.

They aren't the only one either, but they exist and do that stuff.

So, cranking that into your dichotomy forces us to believe that ID is correct, or that Occam is wrong.

No doubt you didn't anticipate Occam being at stake in the debate or you wouldn't have done that, but you really have to keep in mind that in an everchanging Universe, with recombinant DNA technology being used and under further development, we cannot fail to INCLUDE the existence of at least one ID in the pot.

644 posted on 04/06/2006 9:11:42 AM EDT by muawiyah (-)

and

To: CarolinaGuitarman

No, just one ID somewhere doing one thing does the trick in knocking down your use of Occam.

He doesn't have to create the Universe ~ just one new lifeform is sufficient, and it doesn't even have to be all that different ~

663 posted on 04/06/2006 9:32:52 AM EDT by muawiyah (-)

Your posts appear to say that one example of something designed completely disproves the idea that anything can be “not designed.” If that’s not it, what is it you do mean?