|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: A Designer Consistent with the Physical Evidence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Are such useless speculations meant to be falsely profound or are they merely and simply antithetical to knowledge and wisdom?
I guess unlike Jesus and science, ignorance, poverty, starvation, and disease are OK with you since "all life is illusion." Read not to contradict and confute, not to believe and take for granted, not to find talk and discourse, but to weigh and consider - Francis Bacon The more we understand particular things, the more we understand God - Spinoza
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Tony writes: Life is not natural - but you can't tell that to a child or most people. Even in a science forum like this some just can't get it. Can you qualify what you mean by "life" and "natural" and then provide evidence that supports this assertion. Otherwise, this is just undefined, meaningless conjecture.
Tony writes: Life is a masterfully created illusion - and it does not depend on what you belief or not. It does not care if you can understand that fact ever within you life time or not. You were created to Believe in the illusion, designed to see the illusion as a "fact of reality". ==Tony Again, unsubstantiated conjecture. Back up your assertions with evidence.
Tony writes: Most of us can't even know what life truly is as a starting point of understanding, never mind the great creator of the whole universe. Yawn. Stop preaching. Can you provide any real substansive scientific evidence to back your beliefs? Otherwise you are just regurgitating the Discovery Institute's PRATTS and no one will take you seriously on this board. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phage0070 Inactive Member |
Bio-molecularTony writes:
So your argument here is that you, and by incredibly arrogant extension everyone else to exist, is so moronic as to be incapable of comprehending the reality they experience. Because of this astounding stupidity you conclude that your viewpoint is superior to all others. To show our mental lack of ability to estimate God, we can't even agree on what is natural, what is life, what is design, what is reality.... Even in a science forum like this some just can't get it. ... Being such fools as we are - by design of course - how could we effectively know the mind of God and his true potential? Excuse me if I don't find this train of thought particularly compelling.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Just a simple question.
In a thread dealing with "Intelligent Design" how is it that you are posting so much about religious belief? I haven't followed the whole thread, but I pop into a thread in "Science Forums" and in "Intelligent Design" subforum and find nothing but statements regarding religious belief. Is this all that intelligent design really is? Religion in disguise? If not, how is it that the proponents of intelligent design always seem to fall back upon religious belief as their support? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
Being such fools as we are - by design of course What a shitty designer. Being that you are a fool - by admitance - all of what you said should be ignored. "I smoke pot. If this bothers anyone, I suggest you look around at the world in which we live and shut your mouth."--Bill Hicks "I never knew there was another option other than to question everything"--Noam Chomsky
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Blue Jay Member (Idle past 2728 days) Posts: 2843 From: You couldn't pronounce it with your mouthparts Joined: |
Hi, Bio-molecular Tony.
Welcome back! ----- Why are you so willing to conclude that understanding is impossible? The message of Christ is not one of nihilism, is it? "We'll never fully understand it" is hardly a reason not to try, especially when the only reason you have to believe that we'll never understand it is that you can't make the evidence match your worldview. Maybe we'll never learn everything, but we can learn somethings, and we're more likely to do it by trying to learn everything than we are by giving up; so, why should we stop trying? -Bluejay/Mantis/Thylacosmilus Darwin loves you.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fallen Member (Idle past 3903 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
quote:Sadly, it would seem that many people are attracted to the label of intelligent design without fully understanding what it means.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
Sadly, it would seem that many people are attracted to the label of intelligent design without fully understanding what it means.
Unless it can be shown otherwise, the evidence suggests that intelligent design is an evolution of creation "science" designed to get around the U.S. Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard. One of the best examples of this is the book Of Pandas and People and their famous cdesign proponentsists. In reality, there is no scientific study of intelligent design. It is a religious Trojan horse "designed" to get creationism back into the schools after being booted out by the courts. If you have evidence to the contrary, I would like to see it. Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fallen Member (Idle past 3903 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
Unless it can be shown otherwise, the evidence suggests that intelligent design is an evolution of creation "science" designed to get around the U.S. Supreme Court decision Edwards v. Aguillard. Why exactly does this imply that the intelligent design movement as a whole is derived from creationist roots? I can perhaps agree that FTE changed from a creationist organization to advocating ID. However, this hardly implies that the movement as a whole is creationist. Michael Behe was a christian both before and after he rejected evolution. In fact, he currently advocates a set of beliefs that are very anti-creationist. Berlinski was, and still is, an agnostic. One of the best examples of this is the book Of Pandas and People and their famous cdesign proponentsists. Edited by Fallen, : changing the quote tags
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22506 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 5.4 |
I don't think that a thread about the physical evidence for the designer is the right place for a discussion about the foundational underpinnings of the intelligent design movement, but it would be a great topic for a new thread. See [forum=-25].
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Coyote Member (Idle past 2136 days) Posts: 6117 Joined: |
The reason I cited Of Pandas and People is the following (this is the textbook going through editions and revisions):
quote: Note that these last two versions span the Edwards v. Aguillard decision of the U.S. Supreme Court banning creation "science" in schools. That is what led to the invention of "intelligent design." This is a clear case of a creationist text being cut-and-pasted, changing "creationists" to "design proponents" -- except for the one place they missed and ended up with "cdesign proponentsists." So yes, I believe that intelligent design was invented to masquerade its religious background, and to replace creation "science" after it was banned by the court. If you want more documentation, look back at the history of "intelligent design" and see where it began to be widely used -- in relation to the Edwards v. Aguillard decision. It seems pretty dishonest doesn't it? Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Fallen Member (Idle past 3903 days) Posts: 38 Joined: |
I posted a new topic.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
DevilsAdvocate Member (Idle past 3132 days) Posts: 1548 Joined: |
Fallen writes: Sadly, it would seem that many people are attracted to the label of intelligent design without fully understanding what it means. Fallen, what is there to understand? I am not sure which side of the issue you fall on but can anyone (pro or against) provide a single coherent SCIENTIFIC theory that "intelligent design" proposes? The very idea of "intelligent design" aka supernatural intervention falls outside the realm of acceptable science theory therefore one cannot use this as a valid underpinning of a SCIENTIFIC theory. This is not to say that supernatural intervention is philosophically impossible, just that science cannot directly address it, because science itself is defined as describing predictable natural phenomena not unpredictable, capricious supernatural phenomena. IMHO, the idea of intelligent design belongs solely in philosophy and religion classes not in legitimate science classes (both in high school and college). Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given. For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring. Dr. Carl Sagan
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5409 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
Sorry I'm late getting back, lost the link/ address..
Can you qualify what you mean by "life" and "natural" and then provide evidence that supports this assertion. Otherwise, this is just undefined, meaningless conjecture. In playing mind games with some friends of mine, I would ask the question "what is life", and after giving the Text book definition, I point out what Respire / respiration does sound a lot like a mechanical device. You know like a car, the Gas goes in, the machine turns and compresses the gas and air the it ignites the fuel, and pow the work is done, the pistons arm pushes out. So in the same way respire sound so much just like that. If that turns out to be all that "life" is then we are all fools and life is not real and we are just machines "THINKING" are "living". Can anyone (dare try) really find the magical difference between man and machine. Is there any real magic in life that machines can never have. Give me that kind of definition of life if you can. Basically is the function of metabolising a mechanical act or something magical only to life? I say there is no life here, no magic, just basic mechanical functions of a machine. Dare to bet on this one???
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Bio-molecularTony Member (Idle past 5409 days) Posts: 90 Joined: |
Phage writes: So your argument here is that you, and by incredibly arrogant extension everyone else to exist, is so moronic as to be incapable of comprehending the reality they experience. Because of this astounding stupidity you conclude that your viewpoint is superior to all others.Excuse me if I don't find this train of thought particularly compelling. If you did a public survey of what is life and why is it different from a machine. It becomes painfully apparent that this is beyond the human emotion and imagination too. At lest at the start. Just saying such things requires a whole lot of faith, that’s faith in modern science just because we are not self-aware of this fact our selves
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024