Re: Intelligent Defign as feene through a Microfcope
- From: "Von R. Smith" <traklman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 17 May 2006 08:00:01 -0700
Seanpit wrote:
Von R. Smith wrote:
<snip>
Right, but given the same limitations of materials, force, and time,
deliberate processes can outdo non-deliberate processes every time. ID
is limited only by the limits of the agents who have access to
intelligence and deliberate potential. ID therefore has no theoretical
limits.
Non-intelligent processes are limited with respect to certain materials
and certain aspects of these materials, like symmetry, regardless of
the degree of power employed. Turn up the intensity of the
non-deliberate force, what do you get as far as symmetry in a granite
rock or a French-style garden? No improvement at all - that's what.
Therefore, non-intelligent processes are limited along their entire
range of powers to the very same level of certain features, like
symmetry. ID is not limited like this along its range of creative
powers. Add additional knowledge and access to more energy that can be
directed in deliberate ways, and intelligence gains creative power
indefinitely.
See the difference? ID has no theoretical limitation with respect to
any feature imaginable in any material imaginable. Non-ID does have
limitations that cannot be crossed regardless of the non-deliberate
process or the power behind it.
The reason that ID has no theoretical limitations is because it has no
actual theory about the nature of intelligent designers, apart from
some vague belief, without apparent foundation that they can
potentially do anything. Now explain to me again how, given an
observation that exceeds your "known limitations of non-deliberate
processes", one actually *tests* whether or not the process involved is
actually intelligent design, as opposed to some unknown non-deliberate
processes, or a known one whose limitations you may have mistaken.
.
- References:
- Re: Detecting Symmetry - for Richard Forrest
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Detecting Symmetry - for Richard Forrest
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Detecting Symmetry - for Richard Forrest
- From: john . 19071969
- Re: Detecting Symmetry - for Richard Forrest
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Detecting Symmetry - for Richard Forrest
- From: john . 19071969
- Re: Detecting Symmetry - for Richard Forrest
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Detecting Symmetry - for Richard Forrest
- From: john . 19071969
- Re: Detecting Symmetry - for Richard Forrest
- From: Seanpit
- Intelligent Defign as feene through a Microfcope
- From: Von R. Smith
- Re: Intelligent Defign as feene through a Microfcope
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Intelligent Defign as feene through a Microfcope
- From: Von R. Smith
- Re: Intelligent Defign as feene through a Microfcope
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Intelligent Defign as feene through a Microfcope
- From: Von R. Smith
- Re: Intelligent Defign as feene through a Microfcope
- From: Seanpit
- Re: Detecting Symmetry - for Richard Forrest
- Prev by Date: Re: Science of choices falls out of research
- Next by Date: Re: Science of choices falls out of research
- Previous by thread: Re: Intelligent Defign as feene through a Microfcope
- Next by thread: Re: Detecting Symmetry - for Richard Forrest
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|