tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21846966.post2751173415340568647..comments2024-03-27T00:21:29.005-07:00Comments on Northstate Science: The Antikythera Mechanism And Intelligent Design: A Response To EgnorChristopher O'Brienhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10264443443156321749noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21846966.post-79951259474440718432012-01-14T17:39:26.580-08:002012-01-14T17:39:26.580-08:00Dr. Obrien:
I teach an environmental science couse...Dr. Obrien:<br />I teach an environmental science couse at Watervliet Jr./Sr. HS and went to use an article you had written for Safari Magazine entitled "Turning the Tables on Animal Rights: A View From Prehistory" that I obtained from Dr. David Samuel through a wildlife management course at West Virginia University. However, my copy is unreadable and i would like to see if it is possible to obtain a copy from you. I can be reached through my own blog at www.blog.timesunion.com/wildlife or at jcea@nycap.rr.com.<br /><br />Thank you in advance<br /><br />Sincerely,<br />Joseph R. CeaAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21846966.post-49314517241416343942008-04-06T09:52:00.000-07:002008-04-06T09:52:00.000-07:00Anonymous - in regard to your first comment: you m...Anonymous - in regard to your first comment: you missed the point entirely, which is typically of the desperate need for creationists to prove their creator exists. We know it was designed BECAUSE we understand the nature of the designer and can investigate the methods and processes that led to its creation. Detecting design is only useful in the context of understanding the designer; if you want ID to supplant Darwinian evolution then you need to precisely define when and where and under what circumstances the designer intervenes; how does the designer intervene?; why does the designer intervene?; by what methods does a designer, design?<BR/><BR/>As for your second comment...learn to fucking read! If you understood the nature of "context" you'd know I was referring to Egnor's insistence that archaeologists detect design. My point is that archaeologists DO NOT detect design...for Christ's sake, stop taking things out of context.Christopher O'Brienhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10264443443156321749noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21846966.post-89530283025972981172008-04-06T06:23:00.000-07:002008-04-06T06:23:00.000-07:00Obrien needs to get his story straignt:He states:"...Obrien needs to get his story straignt:<BR/><BR/>He states:<BR/>"It was clear to Price that the bronze gear fragments were part of a machine apparatus, the purpose of which was not well established although Price’s reconstruction suggested it was used as an astronomical calculator. Egnor of course wants his audience to see the “detecting design” part of the story: here IS A CASE OF ARCHAEOLOGISTS DETECTING intelligent DESIGN and making no illusions about it. Egnor then wonders why biologists can’t accept(LIKE THEIR ARCHAEOLOGIST BRETHREN)that design exists in the natural world and move on. . . "<BR/><BR/>Then later he states:<BR/>"Archaeology DOESN'T detect design; .. ."Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21846966.post-51629778467936775542008-04-06T06:03:00.000-07:002008-04-06T06:03:00.000-07:00The fact remains that EVEN IF the Antiketheria mec...The fact remains that EVEN IF the Antiketheria mechanism WASN'T found in in association with known possible human designers (e.g. what if it was found on Mars) that it would STILL be accepted by everyone (including anti-creationists) as evidence of intelligent design by an intelligent designer. Hense the point point by Egnor that<BR/>design can be inferred from an object alone, regardless of the obscurity or the implausibility of a designer is still a valid one.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21846966.post-17074960420304220142007-05-25T15:29:00.000-07:002007-05-25T15:29:00.000-07:00Lemme understand this. The Antikythera mechanism ...Lemme understand this. The Antikythera mechanism was (a) found in association with a known human structure (a sunken ship); (b) contains parts that humans are known to produce (gears, etc.); is made of a material known to be available to humans of the time (bronze); and (d) appears to perform a comprehensible function that would be useful to the humans of the time who were in the vicinity (and for whose existence in the vicinity there is independent evidence). In addition, there is background knowledge that allows hypotheses, or at least conjectures, about the specific humans who designed and made it. And for Egnor that process resembles ID's "design detection"? In a pig's eye. He is literally worse than the dumbest creationist.RBHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13562135000111792590noreply@blogger.com