Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The design inference
Jeff
Inactive Member


Message 92 of 121 (7836)
03-25-2002 6:38 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by LudvanB
03-15-2002 10:14 PM


quote:
Originally posted by John Paul:
ZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzz Yawn shrug, sigh ZZZzzzzzzzzz
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by LudvanB:

Well at least,that explains a lot about your obvious ignorance about everything,the Bible included...do wake up from time to time and make your education easier on us plz...that would be so nice.

Saddly enough, this was the most substantive and accurate post that John Paul has shared with us in the past 2 years. It also explains his activities when the rest of us were awake and learning in science class.
Well JP, shall we conclude that you have no suggestion as to HOW science would include the supernatural in its explanations ?
Sorry to wake you during your most productive hours.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by LudvanB, posted 03-15-2002 10:14 PM LudvanB has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 93 by Joe Meert, posted 03-25-2002 9:56 PM Jeff has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 93 of 121 (7840)
03-25-2002 9:56 PM
Reply to: Message 92 by Jeff
03-25-2002 6:38 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Jeff:
Sorry to wake you during your most productive hours.
JP claims to be an engineer and concluded that that one fact makes him an expert on design in biological systems. He's read a book by Dembski that confirmed what he firmly believed in the first place and now there is no turning back. I have been convinced that JP doesn't truly understand the religious agenda that is the sole focus of ID because that's his focus as well. I will say this, the ID folk have convinced a Moonie and an atheist to join their ranks so they can claim that the whole thing is unrelated to religion. Look deeper and you'll see these guys are being used like stage help in revival tent.
Cheers
Joe Meert
[This message has been edited by Joe Meert, 03-25-2002]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Jeff, posted 03-25-2002 6:38 PM Jeff has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-28-2002 10:01 PM Joe Meert has not replied

  
The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 94 of 121 (7850)
03-26-2002 1:05 AM


JP's an odd guy. He claims to be a Muslim. But he insists that the Bible is the Word of God.
I'm starting to suspect he's just a poseur.

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by Peter, posted 03-26-2002 9:41 AM The Barbarian has not replied

  
Peter
Member (Idle past 1478 days)
Posts: 2161
From: Cambridgeshire, UK.
Joined: 02-05-2002


Message 95 of 121 (7863)
03-26-2002 9:41 AM
Reply to: Message 94 by The Barbarian
03-26-2002 1:05 AM


quote:
Originally posted by The Barbarian:
JP's an odd guy. He claims to be a Muslim. But he insists that the Bible is the Word of God.
I'm starting to suspect he's just a poseur.

You'll probably find that it's because Islam views itself
to be an elaboration of christianity. God provided us
with MORE of his grand design through Mohamad (forgive the
spelling). It's kind of like an onion, with judaism in
the middle, surrounded by christianity, surrounded by
Islam ... sort of religous evolution really

This message is a reply to:
 Message 94 by The Barbarian, posted 03-26-2002 1:05 AM The Barbarian has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by gene90, posted 03-26-2002 10:24 AM Peter has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 96 of 121 (7867)
03-26-2002 10:24 AM
Reply to: Message 95 by Peter
03-26-2002 9:41 AM


Except of course that in Islam, Jesus Christ is only a prophet, not the Son of God, and he died on the cross and didn't come back. In the last days, according to Islam, Jesus will be reborn and will break the crosses, re-educate the surviving Christians, and then die (for the last time).
It does seem to me rather remarkable that the two dominant monotheistic religions of the world share common parentage. Why is that?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by Peter, posted 03-26-2002 9:41 AM Peter has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 97 by joz, posted 03-26-2002 10:33 AM gene90 has replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 97 of 121 (7868)
03-26-2002 10:33 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by gene90
03-26-2002 10:24 AM


quote:
Originally posted by gene90:
Except of course that in Islam, Jesus Christ is only a prophet, not the Son of God, and he died on the cross and didn't come back. In the last days, according to Islam, Jesus will be reborn and will break the crosses, re-educate the surviving Christians, and then die (for the last time).
It does seem to me rather remarkable that the two dominant monotheistic religions of the world share common parentage. Why is that?

Actually they don`t think that Jesus, or Isa as they call him, died. They believe he was taken up to "heaven" still alive and at their "day of judgement" Isa will return to fight the "antichrist" (and as I remember it become king and father a line of kings before dying and returning to heaven)...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by gene90, posted 03-26-2002 10:24 AM gene90 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by gene90, posted 03-27-2002 11:13 AM joz has replied

  
compmage
Member (Idle past 5152 days)
Posts: 601
From: South Africa
Joined: 08-04-2005


Message 98 of 121 (7891)
03-27-2002 12:31 AM


As soon as the IDer's manage to find this designer, please let me know. There are many people who would like to pettition to have his creationist license revoked
------------------
I have conquered worlds...
[This message has been edited by compmage, 03-27-2002]

Replies to this message:
 Message 99 by Joe Meert, posted 03-27-2002 6:53 AM compmage has not replied

  
Joe Meert
Member (Idle past 5679 days)
Posts: 913
From: Gainesville
Joined: 03-02-2002


Message 99 of 121 (7896)
03-27-2002 6:53 AM
Reply to: Message 98 by compmage
03-27-2002 12:31 AM


quote:
Originally posted by compmage:
As soon as the IDer's manage to find this designer, please let me know. There are many people who would like to pettition to have his creationist license revoked

JM: The funny thing is that for all the claims that ID is not religious, it's the only group that is arguing for a political mandate to change science. I don't know if that strikes any other scientist as 'very queer', but it does me. You don't see the superstring theorists arguing to have their views share equal time in the high school classroom with Einstein and Newton. You don't see the non-plumists (a plume is a hot mantle upwelling) arguing to have plumes removed from the classroom. YOu don't see mathematics groups seeking to remove "Fermat's Last Theorem" from the textbooks because it hasn't been proven! It's only because ID touches on our humanity that people argue about it. The ID'ists see no value to humanity unless it was intelligently designed and make no mistake about it, the intelligent designer is none other than God (there are a few token non-religious folk in the movement). This movement tries very hard to masquerade as legitimate science, but there is no scientific research aimed at biological ID (not a single paper---even by Behe! and please save the lame conspiracy excuses for someone who doesn't understand peer review).
Cheers
Joe Meert

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by compmage, posted 03-27-2002 12:31 AM compmage has not replied

  
gene90
Member (Idle past 3822 days)
Posts: 1610
Joined: 12-25-2000


Message 100 of 121 (7905)
03-27-2002 11:13 AM
Reply to: Message 97 by joz
03-26-2002 10:33 AM


Thanks for correcting me on that point. Don't they believe he was a product of virgin birth?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 97 by joz, posted 03-26-2002 10:33 AM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 101 by TrueCreation, posted 03-27-2002 11:38 AM gene90 has not replied
 Message 102 by joz, posted 03-27-2002 11:48 AM gene90 has not replied

  
TrueCreation
Inactive Member


Message 101 of 121 (7907)
03-27-2002 11:38 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by gene90
03-27-2002 11:13 AM


"Don't they believe he was a product of virgin birth?"
--Yes.
------------------

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by gene90, posted 03-27-2002 11:13 AM gene90 has not replied

  
joz
Inactive Member


Message 102 of 121 (7910)
03-27-2002 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 100 by gene90
03-27-2002 11:13 AM



This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by gene90, posted 03-27-2002 11:13 AM gene90 has not replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 103 of 121 (7949)
03-28-2002 10:01 PM
Reply to: Message 93 by Joe Meert
03-25-2002 9:56 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Joe Meert:
I will say this, the ID folk have convinced a Moonie and an atheist to join their ranks so they can claim that the whole thing is unrelated to religion. Look deeper and you'll see these guys are being used like stage help in revival tent.

Are you even serious here? Come on man, you HAVE to realize this statement is AT LEAST as ludicrous as a creationist claiming the "grand evolutionist conspiracy" thing that you are fond of laughing at.
By the way, I don't see why exactly this topic has turned into a free-for-all bashing of John Paul. This kind of behavior is patently childish. Also, just because John Paul does not follow a naturalistic view as you may, does not make him ignorant or stupid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 93 by Joe Meert, posted 03-25-2002 9:56 PM Joe Meert has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 108 by nator, posted 03-30-2002 9:23 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Cobra_snake
Inactive Member


Message 104 of 121 (7950)
03-28-2002 10:08 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by joz
03-20-2002 8:22 PM


"1)Only if you assume that on another planet the natural laws we observe in the rest of the universe are completely meaningless..."
No, it assumes that there are natural laws that we don't know yet.
"2)And given that Intelligentdesigner is semanticaly equal to God that leaves us with Goddidit....."
I'm obviously not going to convince you on this matter, so I have a different question. So what? What if God DID do it?
"3)a)So if its a scientific theory rather than a religious belief in a lab coat why has the dear Dr not published his work in any form other than a popular press book? Its been 6 years, if he hasn`t published yet the chances are that he has nothing that validates his claims..."
I believe he attempted to publish in a scientific journal. He is also involved in books other than Darwin's Black Box.
"With no proof it is a belief, and by dragging in an intelligent designing entity, for which there is no evidence for the existence of, it becomes a religious belief..."
Really? So, you're saying that belief in a theory that has no supporting evidence makes it a "religous" theory? Actually, IDers do claim to have evidence, and that is the apparent design of living things in nature. It's rather unfortunate that detecting design generally tends to imply a designer, making ID "religous" in your view.
"c)Athiests driven by religious conviction????? Que?????"
Yes, the religion of humanism.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by joz, posted 03-20-2002 8:22 PM joz has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 105 by Brachinus, posted 03-29-2002 8:36 AM Cobra_snake has replied
 Message 107 by joz, posted 03-29-2002 10:35 AM Cobra_snake has replied

  
Brachinus
Inactive Member


Message 105 of 121 (7977)
03-29-2002 8:36 AM
Reply to: Message 104 by Cobra_snake
03-28-2002 10:08 PM


quote:
Originally posted by Cobra_snake:

"With no proof it is a belief, and by dragging in an intelligent designing entity, for which there is no evidence for the existence of, it becomes a religious belief..."
Really? So, you're saying that belief in a theory that has no supporting evidence makes it a "religous" theory? Actually, IDers do claim to have evidence, and that is the apparent design of living things in nature. It's rather unfortunate that detecting design generally tends to imply a designer, making ID "religous" in your view.
"c)Athiests driven by religious conviction????? Que?????"
Yes, the religion of humanism.

A theory with no supporting evidence may not be religious, but it certainly isn't scientific. In fact, it's not a "theory" at all, but a hypothesis. And even most hypotheses have some supporting evidence (a hypothesis is usually formulated as an attempt to explain evidence).
As for the "apparent design" in nature, it seems to me that that's a matter of interpretation. Also, natural selection has been shown to create the appearance of design (e.g. antibiotic resistance in bacteria).
And what divine being does "the religion of humanism" worship?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Cobra_snake, posted 03-28-2002 10:08 PM Cobra_snake has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 111 by Cobra_snake, posted 04-05-2002 2:00 PM Brachinus has not replied

  
The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 6238 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 106 of 121 (7979)
03-29-2002 9:42 AM


[b]I can understand how a Muslim can have reverence for the Bible (although most of them consider the Bible to have major factual errors). But to call the Bible the Word of God is to admit the divinity of Jesus. Which is something no Muslim would do.
And John Paul never cites the Q'uran. Ever. And he either ignores me or throws a tantrum when I ask him about it.
I'm pretty sure he's a fundamentalist Christian, who's posing as a Muslim, for reasons at which I can't guess.

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024