Search results

  1. C

    Criteria for IBE

    Well good luck with your criteria, I believe that I will move on.
  2. C

    Criteria for IBE

    Can't we just use the criteria already built into IBE by Lipton and others who more qualified in its use than anyone here. And what good is criteria if you have nothing to eliminate? The only theory that claims to have an explanation for abigenesis is ID - there are no others. So you have no...
  3. C

    Criteria for IBE

    On a side note, abiogenesis is not a theory but rather the event that needs explaining. The law of biogenesis states that life only proceeds from life but we all know that this was violated at least once since we have organic life and it had to have had a beginning and therefore a cause. We are...
  4. C

    Criteria for IBE

    In the context of abiogenesis, there is no contention between evolution and ID. Evolution does not explain or even claim to explain abiogenesis but rather starts with life already in place and leaves abiogenesis for some other discipline.
  5. C

    Criteria for IBE

    That's good, explanatory scope, I like that.
  6. C

    Criteria for IBE

    If it can't explain then the theory can't be on the list - this makes it a vital criteria for any theory. For instance, a theory can be eliminated by further researched information that it is unable to explain. This falls outside falsifiability because the new information may not have been foreseen.
  7. C

    Criteria for IBE

    I would add, explanatory ability of the event which would be foremost on the list.
  8. C

    Criteria for IBE

    You list the criteria and show me where I'm deficient.
  9. C

    Criteria for IBE

    Read the second paragraph, I already did. Now let's see yours. My criteria avoids much of the jargon but it pretty much summarizes IBE.
  10. C

    Criteria for IBE

    l try to limit my responses to a few to posts to avoid the piranha effect which cuts into my golf time. But if you insist. First you have as unobserved event let's call it E. Then you have a series of possible explanations say H1 thru Hn. You then attempt to eliminate each of possible...
  11. C

    Does Tree-Like Data Refute Intelligent Design?

    But then it could have does not mean that it did happen. The fact that such phenomenon have not been observed makes them an addendum to evolution for the purpose of circumventing IC. IC qualifies as evidence for ID. First off this is not a macroscopic deviation from your original color. Your...
  12. C

    Does Tree-Like Data Refute Intelligent Design?

    They have not been shown to do anything. They have come up with possible pathways around direct evolution and backed it up with computer simulations. That falls under the heading of theory while IC's are direct physical evidence which is observable. As a physics professor once said in my QM...
  13. C

    Does Tree-Like Data Refute Intelligent Design?

    I have never heard any credible source ever claim that IC were shown to be "not IC". If this were true, then why would there be a need to develop pathways that circumvent the IC argument through non direct evolution? As far as changes accumulating to create radical changes goes, experimentation...
  14. C

    Does Tree-Like Data Refute Intelligent Design?

    I believe that most people don't have a problem with evolution per se. Let's face it, natural selection is a viable force. We have seen it. If there is artificial selection (methodical selection according to Darwin) then there is natural selection where changes in the environment makes the...
  15. C

    Does Tree-Like Data Refute Intelligent Design?

    I see your point. But I still don't think the pegasus is a valid falsification criteria. If one were to be found, those darn darwinists would fit it in the tree somehow. It's like the gradualism debacle with IC where Darwin claimed a falsification criteria but as soon as one was found, they...
  16. C

    Does Tree-Like Data Refute Intelligent Design?

    You can't use an impossible event as your falsification criteria or else it's not falsifiable by that criteria. You pick the criteria and if you chose to pick one that can't possibly happen then your theory remains safe from fear of falsification. It's a little like searching for a ring under a...
  17. C

    Does Tree-Like Data Refute Intelligent Design?

    You falsify as theory by its predictions or at least gather evidence for or against. ID has made plenty of predictions among which was the future discovery of functionality in the now debunked "junk DNA". The trouble with Darwinists is that they can't accept defeat. A victory for ID would mean...
  18. C

    Does Tree-Like Data Refute Intelligent Design?

    Read the link. I don't believe you actually had a question on IBE, just complaints.
  19. C

    Does Tree-Like Data Refute Intelligent Design?

    For a long time before ENCODE and other sources, many in your group believed that the vast sea of "junk DNA" falsified ID while ID predicted that further research would discover more function in DNA. New functions for DNA are coming in almost on a weekly bases. I have already given an excerpt...
  20. C

    Does Tree-Like Data Refute Intelligent Design?

    The ability to fit a set of data into a “treelike” pattern is not necessarily incompatible with intelligent design. Nonetheless, it’s clear that a lot of data does not fit a treelike pattern. Computer scientist Winston Ewert applied the concept of “common design” to propose a “dependency graph”...
Top