|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
but I will operate as though it is not, because I have not seen the evidence, I wonder how far you actually take that approach. Let's say that you're walking down a dark alley in a big city at night. Are you really totally fearless of being mugged, or do you still kinda get scared a bit? What if you hear the sound of a can being kicked? Do you still operate as if you're alone, because you don't have evidence that you're not? And when a guy jumps out and says "I have a gun, gimme your money?" Do you really tell him that you don't believe him unless you actually see the gun? I'd bet that you don't really operate under the approach that something doesn't exist until you have evidence for it, but rather, it is just a point to make for the question of god's existence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I would be scared (with a liberal definiton of scared, of course) because I would know that someone who looks like him or be in his situation might definitely carry a gun, but I would resist until I was shown the gun. Of course you'd be scared. And that fear of the unknown that we all get from time to time, is us not operating as though something does not exist until it is shown that it does. We just don't work that way. When considering gods in online discussions, people like to act like they disbelieve stuff until it's shown to them, but out in the real world we just don't act like that. We've evolved such that a "noise in the bush" generates a response rather than not, because running away from a bird that sounded like a lion kept our ancestors alive and sticking around and waiting to see that it was actually a lion left people dead.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
In the big city, I would have evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that there was a person nearby, as I detailed in my post before. Well its my scenario so I get to make up the details. It was actually a cat that knocked the can off a trash bin.
What is your point? You don't really operate as though something doesn't exist until you've seen the evidence for it. That position works in an online discussion about the existence of god, but out in the real world people just don't behave that way.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The details of the scenario are irrelevant. Its beside the point.
The point is that people don't always operate as though something doesn't exist until they've seen the evidence for it.
The point is how you find your answer, based on reason and math and science or based on "well it could go either way..." We don't always have the luxury of having good data.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You're right we don't. ABE: wait, upon re-reading I think that you might be saying that I was right that we don't have the luxury of good data, rather than saying I was right that we don't always operate as though things don't exist until shown otherwise. That's why its a good idea to use the quote function. That's all I was trying to get you to acknowledge. You said that you operate as if something does not exist until you have evidence that it does. That's all fine and dandy for online discussions about the existence of god, but I was trying to get you to see that it doesn't really apply that well out in the real world.
I think what you are saying is that i had no evidence to think that there was a man behind me, but I acted as such. I've already outlined the evidence for why it was a good guess that a man was behind me. What is the problem, again? A good guess isn't evidence. But the details of the scenario don't really matter. I was just trying to get you to see that sometimes we act on little to no evidence in ways that are counter to disbelieving that something is there until shown otherwise. I thought if I could walk you through a scenario where you'd be afraid of the unknown, then you would see what I was talking about. Edited by Catholic Scientist, : see ABE
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Well, I can't think of any language I could use to more explicitly state my point, and I don't feel like you've actually addressed it. So I guess I'll just try to state it again:
Out in the real world, people don't operate as though things don't exist until they are shown that they do. That position is used in online discussion about the existence of god, but that's not how people actually behave.
Acting on little or no evidence...do you mean like our fight-or-flight instinct? I mean like when you get scared in a dark alley even though you don't have any evidence suggesting that there is something there. Nobody walks around like a boss without any fear. People behave as though there may be something there despite the lack of evidence that there is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I understand your point. What my point is is that, whether we are aware of it or not, there are underlying and rational reasons for what we think. Even for the belief in god? Too, there's underlying irrational reasons.
And where did the whole "no evidence that someone was there" come from? What about the can? The can was part 2. Part 1 was just:
quote: .
Even without the can, our culture and our movies have so ingrained in us the eerieness and terror of a dark alleyway that we begin to feel it in the real world. Our culture also has ingrained in us the belief in god. Would you say that belief in god is an evidenced postion as well then? I suppose you wouldn't. Why then does it count for the dark alley? Seems contradictory to me. I mean, sure, there's reasons for being scared of an empty dark alley, but in that sense there's reasons for believing in god. Given that there's no evidence for god, and thus you have disbelief in its existence, then given that there's no evidence for anything in the alley, you should be free from fear because you'd disbelieve that there's anything there. But you won't be free from fear, because people don't operate under the position of disbelieving that something is there until evidence shows otherwise. That's my point.
I am only saying that, whether I am aware of it or not, I don't feel unwarented fear. So now its a questions about how belief is warranted, regardless of the evidence. So are you saying that you will believe in something without evidence if it is warranted?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
the arrangement of nucleotides on DNA/RNA molecules IS a design plan for the organism. It is a 'recipe' written in base-4 digital code (because of the 4 possible bases in each position, as opposed to binary, which has only 2). Like any recipe, this one had to have an intelligent source, as it was 'written' some time BEFORE life started. Evolution could not have an effect until life began as a whole phenomenon. You berate people for just writing assertions and you ask people to cite their sources when they tell you something, and then you go and crap out a bunch of unsupported assertions. And then you have the gall to ask us to provide some intelligent comments. Tsk tsk. You have no idea what you are talking about with DNA. Its just chemistry. There is no code. There is no need for intelligence to design it. Did you see my post about growing salt crystals?
Its just chemistry.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It doesn't look very alive to me... DNA isn't alive either. Its just chemicals. No less than the calcium in your bones is just a metal.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Here's some other stuff from that page:
quote: quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
A segment of ATCG specifies the details of a cell-building program, No, it doesn't. They cause RNA to build proteins by making amino acids. All the reactions occur spontaneously according to the laws of chemistry. There is no specification, no details, no program... its all just chemistry.
Ringo, do you really not understand that the code embedded in the DNA is the instructions for building the cell? There is no code, and there are no instructions. Its a series of spontaneous chemical reactions and the compounds in those reactions are notated with letters. When you look at them from afar, as a string of letters, its easy to think that there is a code in there. But there isn't.
You say the code in DNA is "NOTHING THAT EVERY OTHER MOLECULE DOESN'T CARRY?" Well, he didn't shout. And you should use bolding instead of retyping peoples' stuff in caps. Type [b]bolding is easy[/b] to get bolding is easy. Anyways, we can notate any chemical with letters and make a "code". DNA is no different. Check it out: NaOH + HCl --> NaCl + H2O Would you say that sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid contain a code for the production of salt? ATCG are just notations for the compounds involved in the chemical reactions, just like the Na represents sodium. Sodium hydroxide and hydrochloric acid are not a code for creating salt, its just a chemical reaction that happens spontaneously. The same goes for the compounds in DNA.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
frako writes:
The same place Watson and Crick saw it, silly. Where do you see the code? I don't believe you. And you didn't actually answer the question. Where, exactly, did you see it? And how do you know that this is where Crick saw it, specifically? You've quoted them using the same words as you, but you seem to be using them in a completely different manner. I honestly don't see you saying the same thing as them. If you could be more specific about how you think you're saying the same things, then you might make more sense.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
If you don't believe that, He testified in court, under oath, that ID is not science. How can you think he's seeing the same thing as you?
there's nothing i can do for you. Try writing a coherent argument that explains what you mean.
If you can't make sense of what I've said so far, nothing I say will make sense to you. So you've reached your limit? Honestly, you've been very unimpressive. Its like you're hardly trying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If it has the elements that make it designed, it is logically designed. Yeah, animals have all kinds of awesome designs that they evolved into. Natural Selection provides a great pressure on the ever-changing genomes that results in all kinds of ingenious adaptations and niche-fillings that makes all kinds of cool designs. But the design that this thread was asking about, was intelligent design. And animals don't show any evidence of that. Neither does identifying your "logically" designed stuff suggest that the designing was done by intelligence.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I say there is not a legitimate argument for design. 3% of humans are born with a major defect. Toyota has a better QC program than this. If that number was 0%, would you then think that was evidence of design?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024