|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: the variety and evolution of reproduction methods over time. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
My point was to start a discussion about the actual evidence that is the variety of reproduction methods found as well as the characteristics of those methods. Designers are utterly irrelevant and simply fantasy. The whole point of your thread is to refute the idea of a designer and so if the concept is fantastically irrelevant then what's the point of denoting any evidence?
But what question? Why is it valid? There are already explanations available and so no designer needs to be considered. Why add some unnecessary and untestable entity? The age old question of 'where did we come from?'. It is valid because we want an answer and the explanations that now exist, exist because we asked the question. I don't see sufficient reason to stop asking the question or to stop seeking refinement of the answer. You claim that the entity is untestable. Can we not hypothesize her existence in a way that is falsifiable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
but I think you might be missing a part: Yes there always seems to be something missing when looking for a designer.
When talking about the Christian god as the designer, the would-be nature of his design wouldn't fit with his claimed characteristics because his design would be pretty stupid and he's supposed to be pretty smart. I think that the would-be nature of his design detracts more from the Christian narrative then it does from the concept of a designer. edit or put another way, that our assessment of the design objective is wrong. Edited by ProtoTypical, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
PT writes: The whole point of your thread is to refute the idea of a designer and so if the concept is fantastically irrelevant then what's the point of denoting any evidence? No, the whole point of the topic is to discuss and educate folk on just how complex reproduction is and the reality of the different methods. Designers really are so fantastically irrelevant that they are only useful as examples of how silly the concept of ID really is.
PT writes: The age old question of 'where did we come from?'. It is valid because we want an answer and the explanations that now exist, exist because we asked the question. I don't see sufficient reason to stop asking the question or to stop seeking refinement of the answer. That's fine. You can even propose a topic on the subject.
PT writes: You claim that the entity is untestable. Can we not hypothesize her existence in a way that is falsifiable? LOL. Not when nonsense like "the objective of the designer is unknown" gets introduced.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
No, the whole point of the topic is to discuss and educate folk on just how complex reproduction is and the reality of the different methods. Designers really are so fantastically irrelevant that they are only useful as examples of how silly the concept of ID really is. Well then you have totally moved your goal posts from msg 1 where you said
...classic sign of evolution and the fact that life is not designed...
Then we also find that "male and female he created them" is actually the exception to the rule.
When we add in the fact of infant mortality where even successful reproduction does not mean a critter lives long enough to reproduce it seems clear that there is neither plan or design to reproduction and in fact entirely different models and methods have evolved where none are really reliable or effective and all simply barely good enough to continue. or perhaps I just misunderstood, carry on.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yes, you did understand. But you are experienced it seems in quote mining and taking parts out of context.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I think that the would-be nature of his design detracts more from the Christian narrative then it does from the concept of a designer. Don't kid yourself; the concept of a designer comes from the Christian narrative.
our assessment of the design objective is wrong. Could be, who knows?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
ProtoTypical writes: If we are contemplating the possibility that GOD exists then we should realize that we are not capable of critiquing anything that THEY might have done. You need a GOD's view to do that. That is also a rather large and unevidenced assertion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
ProtoTypical writes: That captures my point exactly. If they are the same argument then they are both faulty. Ultimately, the argument we are using is that if the evidence is consistent with natural processes, then we conclude that natural processes did it. We observe that natural processes (e.g. natural selection and random mutation) produce matching molecular and morphological phylogenies in living species. We then find that larger species groups also fall into these same phylogenies, which means that the evidence is consistent with natural processes. Now, you could argue that some tricksy deity just made everything look like it occurred through natural processes, but what would be the point? You might as well argue that since God can plant DNA and fingerprints at crime scenes that we can't use forensic science in courts. As soon as the physical evidence doesn't matter, then the conversation is over.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
ProtoTypical writes: The whole point of your thread is to refute the idea of a designer and so if the concept is fantastically irrelevant then what's the point of denoting any evidence? Actually, the whole point is for ID/creationists to once again demonstrate that ID/creationism is a dogmatic religious belief that can never be falsified by any evidence, no matter what that evidence is. The claims that we can't "judge design" just further support that conclusion.
I don't see sufficient reason to stop asking the question or to stop seeking refinement of the answer. When you make ID/creationism unfalsifiable, as you have done, then you have ceased asking questions and are refusing to refine the answer.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
When you make ID/creationism unfalsifiable, as you have done, then you have ceased asking questions and are refusing to refine the answer. The whole concept of God is falsifiable. It was meant to be that way. Belief is a valid approach, however. Evidence in and of itself was never meant to be a slam-dunk answer to every question in life.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Now, you could argue that some tricksy deity just made everything look like it occurred through natural processes, but what would be the point? Exactly. If God exists and is as powerful and far reaching as some believe, He would have no need to trick anybody.Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18348 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
jar writes: Keep in mind, folks that jar believes that GOD, if GOD exists, expects us to think, reason, and learn without falling back on Her as a copout....in regards to anything in our known reality. Designers really are so fantastically irrelevant that they are only useful as examples of how silly the concept of ID really is. He will, of course, argue that I am misrepresenting what he means. Perhaps there really is little reason to bring up GOD in a Science thread. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1
|
Phat writes: Belief is a valid approach, however. When has a dogmatic belief ever been a valid approach to any question? When you start with the answer, why even ask the question?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10084 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
Phat writes: Exactly. If God exists and is as powerful and far reaching as some believe, He would have no need to trick anybody. We were told that we couldn't judge what the designer would or wouldn't do, or why. Therefore, a trickster deity is on the table.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dogmafood Member (Idle past 376 days) Posts: 1815 From: Ontario Canada Joined: |
Don't kid yourself; the concept of a designer comes from the Christian narrative. Sure it is there too but I think there is evidence that it existed in many cultures long before the Christians wrote it down. A designer or god is a posited answer for the so far unanswerable question of origin and that question has been around for about as long as we have been asking questions. I just mean that if the Christian narrative is inconsistent with what nature reveals that doesn't detract from the idea of a creator that is perhaps different from what is described in the bible.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024