Jump to content

"Intelligent" Design


JHAQ
 Share

Recommended Posts

So this whole time you weren't treating it as science, when you were posting about it in the evolution forums? How did you want us to percieve it? :rolleyes:

 

1. I didn't start the ID thread, in the evo forum. Someone else did, so as to bash ID creationism. Somebody needed to refute, so I showed up.

 

2. Not at all. It's that I got my first warning negatives soooo easily and frankly, I'm quite paranoid about getting more. :eek:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 242
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But it is dogma. "God did it" has no scientific merit whatsoever.

 

I've posted how it has some scientific merits, such as compatibility with certain laws of science, et al. Did you read that? Did you check out my EvC debate with admin Jar?

 

Please remember, I'm not claiming theory status, but an hypothesis, Would you regard creationism as an hypothesis?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

oo, it is compatible with some laws of science. it must be science itself then.

 

Look up "science" in your dictionary and I believe you'll see that there are scientific aspects of creationism. That creationists interpret much of what is observed scientifically and geologically differently than you people,

doesn't mean we don't do science. Would you agree to that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sayonara³

All creationists are evil and everything they say is a lie.

.

 

You like that quote don't you, bud? How many more warning points do you think that would get me if I posted it repeatedly, slandering evolutionists? Hmm?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

did you even read the links? showing creationist claims to be false is not being biased. the second one is a specific thread, so i don't see how you think nothing was specified.

 

Post precisely what you want me to focus in on and we'll talk another time. Bed time for me. So long.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. So much of what we observe in life seems to require most of the functions of the complex organism to be in place and complete for the survival and propagation of the species........things like imune systems' date=' sexual propagation, antioxidants........on and on we could go.

 

 

2. Add to the above, the positions and solar system distances, gravity, earth atmosphere and such must all be precisely in place for the above to even begin to happen.[/quote']

In 1 and 2, you are merely asserting that if things had been different, things would be different, which is hardly anything more than vacuous. For 1 and 2 to convincingly imply teleology, you need to demonstrate that we are "special" in some way; that is, that if the parameters of the universe had been different, then whatever evolves or comes to be as a result of these different parameters are somehow inferior or less desirable than what came from the parameters of our universe, namely us. Good luck with that, since you, as well as I and everyone else, have no clue what a different universe would be like.

 

I think it is rather silly to say that unlikelihood implies "fine-tuning" from a designer. Every event can be made to seem "unlikely" by attaching a large string of contingencies to it. For instance, if Hitler's parents never met, if Hitler hadn't been rejected from art school, if Hitler had been killed in World War I, if Hitler had been more openly criticized by his opponents while he was politically weak, then the Holocaust never would have happened. But since all of these contingencies taken together constitute a startling unlikelihood, the Holocaust must therefore be the result of a grand Divine design. Convinced? I hope not. If "unlikeliness" of this sort implies design, then everything is designed and the very word design loses all meaning as a contradistinction to non-design.

 

3. Add to the above, imo, even ID must meet the first law of thermodynamics, in that all energy existing must needs have had to have eternally existed. My buzsaw hypothesis calls for an eternal almighty designer having eternally existed and having been eternally creating, destroying, changing and managing things in a boundless spaced universe according to his will and desire. (PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT BUZSAW IS NOT A YEC!!) It also calls for a host of intelligence existing in the universe, beings which are not visible by the human eye just like other energy which has been discovered to have always existed, which mankind has been unaware of until the scientific capability has been achieved to detect this energy. We who are convinced that we have discovered the existence of this energy the spiritual realm if you will cannot prove to someone not connected and who has not experienced it personally. It being intelligent has the power to reveal it's existence to those who are willing to receive it. That's all I want to say about the higher ID dimension here. I've said it in as near of a scientific way that I know how.

We, as human designers, design things within the bounds of natural law to effect our ends. It is rather dubious to turn this around and say that things in nature mesh so well with natural law that they must in turn be designed for some end. What end is being effected by the Designer? To have natural systems strive toward equilibrium? That's a decidedly unintelligent goal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How many secularists believe in creationism?

How many fundamentalists are creationists? Oh, 100# dang.

Though some creationists are evolutionists,

You mean some christians are evolutionists. This means that biological evolution theory is accessible to everyone, not just atheists.

my understanding is that evolution arose from secularist thought.

no it didn't. It came from scientific thought.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In 1 and 2, you are merely asserting that if things had been different, things would be different, which is hardly anything more than vacuous. For 1 and 2 to convincingly imply teleology, you need to demonstrate that we are "special" in some way; that is, that if the parameters of the universe had been different, then whatever evolves or comes to be as a result of these different parameters are somehow inferior or less desirable than what came from the parameters of our[/i'] universe, namely us. Good luck with that, since you, as well as I and everyone else, have no clue what a different universe would be like.

 

Your comments here, as I understand them, miss my point, concerning what we observe here and now about, for example, the human being's physiology or that of any given animal species. We know that certain organs, brain and nervous system functions, glandular systems and sexual complexities, et al, must be in place and functioning simultaneously together for the body to live and do what we observe it to be doing. Whether we are special or teleologically designed for a purpose, or whatever, a whole lot of complex stuff must be in place, functioning simultaneously for the propagation and survival of the species. Imo, ID fits the ticket nicely.

 

,

we still can't I think it is rather silly to say that unlikelihood implies "fine-tuning" from a designer. Every event can be made to seem "unlikely" by attaching a large string of contingencies to it. For instance, if Hitler's parents never met, if Hitler hadn't been rejected from art school, if Hitler had been killed in World War I, if Hitler had been more openly criticized by his opponents while he was politically weak, then the Holocaust never would have happened. But since all of these contingencies taken together constitute a startling unlikelihood, the Holocaust must therefore be the result of a grand Divine design. Convinced? I hope not. If "unlikeliness" of this sort implies design, then everything is designed and the very word design loses all meaning as a contradistinction to non-design.

 

It's an illogical, unfair and, imo, unscientific analogy to compare the relatively simple possible senarios of a living human's life events to how a highly complex living being came to exist.

 

 

We, as human designers, design things within the bounds of natural law to effect our ends. It is rather dubious to turn this around and say that things in nature mesh so well with natural law that they must in turn be designed for some end. What end is being effected by the Designer? To have natural systems strive toward equilibrium? That's a decidedly unintelligent goal.

 

We human designers usually design and make/create things for our purpose, will and/or pleasure. So with the Biblical designer in creation according to the Biblical record.

Revelation 4:11 "Worthy are you, our Lord and our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power; for you did create all things, and because of your will they were and were created."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I beg to differ.

Really. You think that Evolution came from secularist thought?

 

The basis of Genetics was Gregor Mendel:-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregor_Mendel

 

It was his studies, which show Darwin's work, which proved Natural Selection and Evolution to occur. He was an Augustinian monk, not a secularist.

 

Darwin himself was a Christian, and remained so for a considerable amount of time after publishing his theories.

 

You'd like to think that it's dirty 'secularist' thought that's tainting the world, but it's not. It's just scientific progress, which occurs without Religious bias. No matter how much you hate it, Evolution is a fact. It's supported by almost all churches, and you can either live with it or bury your head in the sand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Imo' date=' ID [i']fits the ticket[/i] nicely.

 

That is a necessary but insufficient condition. The lowest possible hurdle on the path to knowledge.

 

"God did it" as an answer is tantamount to saying, "Shut up and stop asking questions."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Imo, ID fits the ticket nicely." - Buzsaw

 

Imo - in my opinion, science is not about opinion hence this comment is invalid.

your opinion is also not fact or evidence for a fact.

 

example: Imo, tomato soup tastes like crap.

This does not automatically mean that tomato soup is, or tastes like, crap. it is merely my brain percieving the soup to taste bad and then lumping it into the category of "crap".

 

I actually really don't like tomato soup, or tomatoes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.