|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Are creationists returning to their YEC roots? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Let me begin by saying I admire your collective knowledge and have a respect for many of your varied abilties and willingness to share information. That is of great vallue. You are an amusing bunch. You are all indeed intelligent enough to understand the nature of the argument.The cliche that resides here has an agenda to point out technical errors in peoples thinking on this subject. The implications of why you are obsessed with this is disturbing. Those that believe in ID or creationism do so for reasons that have nothing to do with science. Even though you are aware of this and know that no matter what you say it will not change thier view, you still foolishly persist. You are all aware of the role religious teaching has taken in societies.Yet you revel like little children in the pointless arguments you make. Debate for debates sake is just a foolish game. So tell me in your own words what exactly is the point or purpose of getting technical on the bible or any other religious teachings? Your aproach has not led to an uderstanding of any kind.Now if this sight were to encourage a technical look at religious writings while recognising the solid social values they all have in common I might have some respect for the lot of you. This tells me that what motivates you is disturbing or you are truly highly educated fools. This message has been edited by 2ice_baked_taters, 03-04-2006 10:37 AM This message has been edited by AdminJar, 03-04-2006 09:41 AM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
You'll often hear evolutionists clarify that they are presenting an argument not because they believe it will convince the other person, but because they believe it is important for the rest of the audience who, it is assumed, include some not so wedded to the creationist viewpoint. They feel this way because an informed public is science's best weapon in the battle against frippery, pseudo-science and true nonsense There are many here who use "science" to argue thier philosophical views. In fact most here I have seen have manifested such behavior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
The problem with ID, buz, is that it is based entirely upon a lack of positive evidence. All of the proposed evidence for ID has already been falsified, All evidence must be interpreted. Some bring a straight foreward conclusion. Much does not.
or is simply not falsifiable in the first place since it involves the actions of the supernatural. This is the case only for this group of people. It is not the case for the concept itself. The concept itself simply looks into the question of intelligence in the process. It is an idea quite worthy of scientific pursuit. Up there with the SETI project.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
How can we tell the difference between a Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we do not currently understand or may never understand? What difference? They are the same. Things are what they are. It is all in how we look at them. Since when does natural exclude design? How is it separate from nature? We have this misconception that we are not natural? Nature has the ability to design. We are natural. We are not the only life form that designs. Intelligence and design are natural. They are a property of the process.We are not even sure where a boudary for intelligence or intelligent design exists or if there even is one. All things learn in some form or another. Cells learned to replicate. We simply learn on a different level. How you look at things makes all the difference in what you can find. Evidence of countless things are all around us. It is asking the right questions...to do this one must look at them differently. Hence philosophy.
It thus far has only done so through philosophy. Yes. It's where it belongs at this time. I do not think the world is ready for "scientific" proof of such a thing. However my above statements are pretty natural.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I think you have misunderstood. What physicists show is that the flow of time is an illusion. It doesn't change any of the calculations; they remain concerned with the four dimensions just as always. Time is a concept.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
No, the ID supporters say that we can, indeed, tell the difference. There is no difference.
If you are saying that we can't tell the difference, then OK. No, I am saying there is no difference.
Sure. But now you have moved ID away from science even further. I do not see it that way.
It doesn't. The "designer", however, is natural selection. Or wind and water or glaciers or sandstorms, etc Design is part of evolution. How large a part we do not know. These are very accurate scientific statements. Evolution is a process of adaptation...this whole process may in fact be a learning process.
Many things in nature do not learn. And many things that happen in nature are mindless and random. Neither of these are scientific statements. You have drawn mental boundaries where they do not necessarily exist.
shortened linkhttp://www.biology.arizona.edu/Cell_bio/cell_bio.html Top Health News and Guidance for the 50+ http://www.nimr.mrc.ac.uk/millhillessays/1996/morphgen.htm Try googling "how cells learn"
How do organic molecules learn? http://www.worsleyschool.net/science/files/virus/page.htmlError These links simply show how incomplete our knowledge is in this area. Is there a line? If we are to look scientifically at the whole process then we must realise we are not the benchmark.We are but a step in the process. The earth is not the center of the universe as surely as we are not. Thinking so does not make it so and is not scientific. That kind of philosophy sounds an awful lot like religious spin-doctoring apologetics to me. It is philosophy of a purely scientific nature. You have placed a boundary on what it means to learn. Nature is what it is. Our mistake is placing limits upon a process we are a product of. One needs to consider the entire process as a whole. In doing so, where does intelligence begin? Has it always been present in some form? These are scienctific questions. Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given. Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : typo's Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : Romoved bad link
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Yes, there is. One is designed by an Intelligent Designer, and the other is not. There is no other. There is only one.
One has a designer, and one does not. Quite incorrect. Both views acknowledge design and intelligence relating to the process. How they relate is the question.One makes no claim, the other claims these aspects are driving the process. How does a species of fern "learn"? Through chemical signals like we do.
They are obviously factual statements. They are not.
Viruses do not learn. Plants do not learn. The organic molecule caffeine does not learn. Really? what proof do you have to counter the evidence I provided in my links?
Where a raindrop lands on the ground is mindless and random. How the wind carves out a stone bridge is mindless and random. How a river erodes it's banks during the spring thaw is mindless and random. Where a rock bounces on it's way down a mountainside is mindless and random
What evidence do you have that supports this? Science has no answers here.
Demonstrate the learning ability of a fern and I'll redraw my "mental boundries".
I need not. These are sufficient to support my statement.'Minds' of plants - Washington Times Learn to shorten your links http://ard.unl.edu/rn/0397/fungi.htm http://home.hccnet.nl/v.kleven/engels/allelo.shtml You wish to use a rather broad, vague definition of the word "learn" that is not appropriate for a scientific discussion, nor for what we were discussing. This is an incorrect statement. We are discussing the entire process not your narrow view. One must look at it as a whole and not from one view to be scientific. We are but one small step in the process. Animals in general are another ect... To ingnore this is being very ignorant of the facts. Edited by AdminJar, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
Naturalistic explanations for biological systems do no such thing. Really? So intelligence is not natural? What evidence supports such a claim?
You are using an inappropriate and vague meaning for "learn". On the contrary. My definition is much more meaningful to evolution as a whole.
My definition is this: 1. to acquire knowledge of or skill in by study, instruction, or experience. You need to adjust your definition to include all of the process. Things have evolved. We are but one step in hundreds of millions of years.
Plants, viruses, and organic molecules can't do this. Do tell.
Why not provide your definition? The passing along of information.It is a natural process. All living things do it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5881 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
I disagree. Computers are far better than we of passing along information. Yet they appear unable to learn. Considering we were discussing things within the framework of evolution your statement does not apply. Unless of course you want to include computers within the realm of the evolutionary process. Perhaps to be considered in another topic.
Maybe try some of the writings of Piaget. An interesting look at the "mechanics" of thought.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024