|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,913 Year: 4,170/9,624 Month: 1,041/974 Week: 368/286 Day: 11/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The I in ID | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mammuthus Member (Idle past 6505 days) Posts: 3085 From: Munich, Germany Joined: |
quote: I totally agree. I think the problem is that pure memorization of facts, like memorizing the periodic table or the Krebs cycle, occurs prior to learning the fundamentals of methodological naturalism. If the principles of science and logic were taught before the rote learning begins, there would be more students with a better grasp of the subsequent material. Even if they did not continue in the sciences. Coupled with comparisons with pseudoscience (I had some teachers myself who did this effectively) one would be pretty well prepared to evaluate what the media spews out. But you are right, there is no way to make every student a capable scientist and there is no reason to hinder those who are gifted from moving ahead of the curve.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
applecore Inactive Member |
I like to cut to the chase... this topics sounds alot like the Complexity = Creation topic... In other words, I am pretty much going to ramble now...
My assessment is that Since the universe is absolutely dependent upon everything else why not??? SJ Gould refers likens history to evolution, "Second, this restricted phenomenon arises as an incidental consequence [...] of causes that include no mechanism for progress or increasing complexity in their main actions." In other words sometimes things happen and sometimes they don't... Meaning, in his opinion, history like evolution, should not be discounted from moving foward adaptively, just because change doesn't happen immediately or significantly... eventually incidental consequence will eventually win out and rule the day... Apparently scientists must always become philosphers too... Why not!!! For me a having a creator - is very logical - See evolutionists cannot understand that it could just be a prime mover, period!! Because something had to create the prime mover... Yes questions, must begot questions... But we are just the right distance from the sun, and life is to fragile to have it any other way - is this by chance - come on Ev's - use some reason - just a little...But since you cannot see feel or touch this prime mover - We got to have a better explanation then - well - a creator... Even that reasoning is flawed - We hate Paley because his simple analogy was incredibley simple, yet correct... Mathematically it seems very impossible for evolution to happen - LET'S DISCUSS THAT!!! And our distance away from the sun, by chance or not!!! To paraphrase Mrs. Foster "what if just one of planets out of a million have life and what if, another one out of a million have life and so on..." Sounds pretty lame to me... Reason rules the day... Yet, People will do anything not to believe in God... Because if there is a Creator - then - gasp! I could be accountable for my life... Done rambling...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
"Every time we observe an IC system an intelligent agency is ALWAYS the cause."
If you take the above as a hypothesis, then it can be refutedby any feasible sequence that could lead to the IC system without the intervention of intelligence (in a common understanding of that term). If one can imagine ADDING components to an IC system that do notimpair it's primary output, but allow interaction with other sub-systems to provide secondary outputs, then one cannot rule out that those additions did not exist in the past, and were lost. If the system can then be broken into separate sub-systems(neither of which perform the final task) then IC can be seen as illusory at best. Even in human design (where 'intelligence' is involved) somedesigns are a matter of combining existing designs and then removing some parts that are not required for the project in hand. The result is IC, the route wasn't atomic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
applecore writes: For me a having a creator - is very logical - See evolutionists cannot understand that it could just be a prime mover, period!! Because something had to create the prime mover... Yes questions, must begot questions... I am glad for you, but upset that you think all evolutionists are of no faith. Very myopic, and contradicted by fact rather than assertion.
But we are just the right distance from the sun, and life is to fragile to have it any other way - is this by chance - come on Ev's - use some reason - just a little... But since you cannot see feel or touch this prime mover - We got to have a better explanation then - well - a creator... Ahhh yes the anthropic principle. From a data set of 1 you conclude that the universe is designed just for us and us alone. This is the logical fallacy of hasty generalization. Forbidden
Even that reasoning is flawed - We hate Paley because his simple analogy was incredibley simple, yet correct... I’d be interested in that proof that he was correct, rather than just the assertion of it.
Mathematically it seems very impossible for evolution to happen - LET'S DISCUSS THAT!!! And our distance away from the sun, by chance or not!!! Now it’s mathematics, I’m guessing one of the inevitably flawed probability arguments that fail to address all the issues in the rush to make the number look as improbable as possible. Yawn. See: http://EvC Forum: the old improbable probability problem NEXT! {added by edit} and btw -- you might want to answer those questions here before starting a new thread on them: show that you have something to bring to the table, as it were. http://EvC Forum: Information not necessary IMHO. Enjoy. This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-31-2004 09:26 AM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Loudmouth Inactive Member |
quote: Actually, most evolutionists have no problem with God or gods setting up natural laws that result in natural evolution. In fact, humans are now using evolution-like algorithms to design everything from radios to airplane wings. All they do is set up the selection process and allow the computer to randomly create variation in design. What results is a very functional but unguided process. However, once you move away from natural laws to supernatural events you start to move away from science.
quote: As scientists get on in years they do tend to right books about philosophy (and they usually make for a decent read as well). However, their philosophy never enters into their science.
quote: So would you say that in every puddle the water was designed to fit perfectly into the depression in the ground? Or, did the water adapt to the depression? Evolution states that organisms adapted to fit the pre-existing environment, not the other way around. You might want to use a little reason yourself. Also, there isn't one organism that I can think of that is capable of living in every environment on Earth. Therefore, Earth was not made for any one organism or species.
quote: If you can't sense the prime mover how do you know it exists? In science this doesn't work, but it does work with religious faith. This is why religion and science are separate endeavors.
quote: Chance. Is it chance that you born in the city you were born in? Let's pretend that there are 1 million hospitals in the world. Therefore the chances of being born in any certain hospital is 1 in a million. Also, there were probably about 4 billion people at the time you were born, so the chances of being born to you parents were 1 in [4 billion * (4 billion - 1)]. These are very low probabilities, so low in fact that I could claim that you weren't born. Take this analogy to all of the possible planets in the Universe that would be hospitable to earth like life. It really isn't that improbable.
quote: It might be worth mentioning that therre are thousands of christian scientists that work within evolutionary biology.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
1.61803 Member (Idle past 1534 days) Posts: 2928 From: Lone Star State USA Joined: |
applecore writes: You are held accountable for your life irregardless of a creator. Just try commiting a crime and find out how accountable you really are for your deeds. Because if there is a Creator-then-gasp! I could be accountable for my life... "One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Peter Member (Idle past 1509 days) Posts: 2161 From: Cambridgeshire, UK. Joined: |
Apparently scientists must always become philosphers too... Why not!!! Wow!! 'Natural Philosophy' now THERE's a good name for a discipline!!
But we are just the right distance from the sun, and life is to fragile to have it any other way - is this by chance - come on Ev's - use some reason - just a little... Have you ever considered that life may have developed to fit theenvironment that existed? Mathematically it seems very impossible for evolution to happen - LET'S DISCUSS THAT!!! Did you mean evolution or abiogenesis?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Did you mean evolution or abiogenesis? yep. shoot at the forest and miss the tree. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
A warning to all. Applecore has not followed the topic of this thread but has stuffed in a lot of different things.
Please disregard those which are not on topic. Applecore, welcome to EvC. However, you would do well to read the forum guidelines before continuing. In addtion, you should read over existing threads. Everything you have posted is old news. It would be nice of you not to waste peoples time. If you wish to discuss any one of your issues in detail you may propose a new topic for them. Thank you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
But we are just the right distance from the sun, and life is to fragile to have it any other way - is this by chance - come on Ev's - use some reason - just a little... This is just untrue, and you can prove it by inspection. On this very planet living things inhabit every range of temperatures, from the frozen deeps of polar seas to super-boiling magma vents at the ocean floor. It is true that the majority of living things are adapted to the specific climate that they inhabit, and therefore are dependant on the Earth's temperature being roughly what it is now. But suppose we were a little closer to the sun, and that the Earth was 40 degrees hotter. The life that would evolve on that Earth would be adapted to that temperature, obviously. The existence of life adapted to those temperatures proves it. There's no requirement that the Earth's distance from the sun be exactly what it is now. Use some sense, and learn about life before you make these foolish pronouncements.
And our distance away from the sun, by chance or not!!! Simply chance. If it had been any other distance, life would have been adapted to that distance. This message has been edited by crashfrog, 09-01-2004 12:52 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Simply chance. If it had been any other distance, life would have been adapted to that distance. Or that is why it evolved on earth instead of on Venus or Mars. If mars was the right distance people there would be saying "But we are just the right distance from the sun, and life is to fragile to have it any other way - is this by chance - come on Ev's - use some reason - just a little... " {added by edit}This argument is a logical fallacy of the false dilemma. Forbidden sheesh. This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-01-2004 12:58 PM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
probably your typical newbie who thinks ID = creationism in school
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
applecore Inactive Member |
And where do you suppose those laws of accountability came from... hmmmm.... what principal are they founded upon, when from who and why???
Geez I get nailed for rambling.... okay I will stick to the original post here... Which I thought was lacking just a little in it's postulate re: ID...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2200 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: From collective human society.
quote: That living in groups is safer and better for survival than living alone. that's not really a "principal", but a biological reality.
quote: From us.
quote: Because when you show yourself to be untrustworthy, the group/society you live in determines that there are consequences.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
applecore Inactive Member |
I'll pretened that I am flying in the Death-Star trench - Thus, I will try to stay on target...
1. Mt. Rushmore comparison - really don't care - Yet this is the only part of his topic post that makes sense - I agree - ID compared to Mt. Rushmore is kinda so so... 2. My parameters are going to be the same and different... The same meaning we all live on earth - subject to the same laws... Creation part - A creator... 3. Creating the parameters of life - yes loggically takes ID to do so... i.e. right distance away from sun... Just a fact... my point all along - the parameters - some things do evolve, but only to a point... a) comparisons - should be more logical not abstract - I am talking about the sun and it's proximity to the earth... So when you post back - do not talk about puddles or a bunch of leaves piled high by apes/gorillas - termites and ants - that is a basic form of structure - to support that system/enviornment, but nothing over millions of years has moved beyond that... randomness can produce many things, but nothing compared to creation of life, and the parameters that preceded it to come into existence... 4. Then it is pure subjectivity when we define intelligence, geez...street smarts, fashion smarts, God should have given us wings, If he were intelligent - then why don't all ants have wings - It's the way they were made/ and yes evolved per se... All in all - we need things as we go, that's all - are adapting yes - but never to a higher state of being/physologically and ontologically speaking... Did God make or arrange the matter so ants, and humans could exists, absolutely... How this was done, I don't know??? Insects are intelligent - but just for insects and there systems - there is no rocket science in that... they do communicate in complex ways - but that's what they need to do... anyway 5. As he has shown regarding design and intelligence that the two should not equal one another = He has shown nothing, but abract concepts, and vague ones at that - Design is when - The earth orbits the sun, what caused this to happen for us to happen... Chance and our consciences to realize we just one of those lucky planets - Hard for any one to believe - our reason - causes us to look for something else beyond just cosmology - theology - yes maybe - science and the two I believe are intransically bonded together - and reveal the watchmaker... Go ahead scold me some more...
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024