Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
bob_gray
Member (Idle past 5013 days)
Posts: 243
From: Virginia
Joined: 05-03-2004


Message 16 of 396 (138121)
08-30-2004 1:37 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ID man
08-30-2004 11:23 AM


Re: RAZD you don't have an argument
quote:
OK. Your first statement is false. Deism is not a religion.
OK. Hold on just one minute. How can a belief in god not be a religion? What definition of religion are you using?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 11:23 AM ID man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:47 PM bob_gray has replied

  
MrHambre
Member (Idle past 1393 days)
Posts: 1495
From: Framingham, MA, USA
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 17 of 396 (138122)
08-30-2004 1:38 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ID man
08-30-2004 11:23 AM


And Newton Was Into Astrology Too
ID man asserts,
quote:
IC falsifies Darwinism/ gradualism. You HAVE to try to smear it or down play it. And yes it is in the details. Materialistic gradualism for all too long has enjoyed the luxury of riding vague generalizations under the guise of scientific explanations.
And what sort of specific, testable, falsifiable hypotheses has the IDC camp produced? If it's vague generalizations we're talking about, the fellows at the Discovery Institute lead the pack. If trying to figure out how IC went from meaning parts-work-together to magic-designer-exists is "downplaying" the concept, so be it. You've never answered the question: If we don't know anything about the designer, how do we know what his designs should look like? You assume IC is the fingerprint of the designer without telling us why that's a valid inference in the first place.
This thread shows that ID creationism withers when any sort of harsh light is thrown on its logic, assumptions, or methodology. For all your bleating about "evidence," we've seen no positive evidence to support ID except the fact that Newton, Pasteur, and Aristotle believed in God.
regards,
Esteban Hambre

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 11:23 AM ID man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:46 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 18 of 396 (138123)
08-30-2004 1:39 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by ID man
08-29-2004 11:27 PM


Re: the only problem is the anti-IDists
ID man
Perhaps you can clarify something for me concerning evidence.{Forgive if I am slow}Exactly what experiments have been performed to establish evidence to show that Intelligent Design has actually occured? May I also inquirer into the nature of the ?{I do not know what to put here since ID does not specify} that implemented the design and how is intelligence defined by the ID point of view?
We humans are intelligent by dint of our physical brain which,by the interplay of electromagnetic forces,allows us to percieve the world.How does the ? do so without access to the same gray matter that we possess?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by ID man, posted 08-29-2004 11:27 PM ID man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:46 PM sidelined has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 19 of 396 (138128)
08-30-2004 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ID man
08-30-2004 11:23 AM


Still no answer to the OT ... it is still valid.
ahhh. Attempt #4, what fun: lets see if it is any better at addressing the logical construction of the OT.
ID man writes:
And I am saying that we don't try to unvoid it. We accept the fact that it has no relevance to what ID is about.
The problem is yours. IDists understand what they are trying to do with ID. You are trying to force it to do something it was never intended to do.
IDists are not saying you can't ask that question. If we can't answer the "who made it?" question about the artifact does that mean it becomes a product of nature acting alone? No. It is still an artifact. We didn't have to see the agent making it. We didn't have to know anything about that agent.
Still complaining about having to deal with the question while claiming that you don't try to avoid it (especially by saying it is irrelevant). I love it.
All of this section is just arguing the legitimacy of the question instead of addressing the issues addressed in the OT. This is just more style over substance logical fallacy.
Forbidden
And we don’t have to assume any supernatural ability on the part of the agent, we assume a natural answer until proven otherwise. That is the Occam sharp razor thingy part of the job. If we don’t know the answer we go looking for it instead of saying wait a minute — if we assume god did it our job is done! That would be like a surgeon getting into a really complex operation with life hanging in the balance and getting to a point where he was unsure what to do and saying Well, we can close up now, god will finish it for me.
It's like this RAZD. It is not a belief if it is based on evidence. And because Del Ratzsch has already trumped your flailing attempts, you would lose in court.
One more thing:
YOU made the claim. I HAVE read most websites and if you had read Behe's responses you would see those rebuttals have been refuted.
Still no evidence given here, this gets tiresome. Now we have another appeal to authority (Del Ratzsch), only this time nothing is shown for it. With nothing to judge the validity of this claim it is logically incomplete, and as such does not challenge the validity of the OT.
Forbidden
And btw, those refutations are just more same-old-same-old, like your arguments here, and don’t really address the issues in the rebuttals.
This still does not address the issue that IC is not a falsification test of ID, only of IC (which is non-scientific, imho, as much as by it’s lack of discipline as by the failure of its examples — where is the theory stated and terms defined in precise terms? Where is the falsification test given in precise terms?). The main problem with IC is that all it is, however dressed up and put on stage, consists of a failure of imagination: I can’t imagine how that came to be (said with expression of shock on face).
Let me put this to you: evolution is 100% correct because it was designed that way to allow for the evolution of more complex organisms and mechanisms, including the cilia things.
That statement (if true) means that IC is false but ID is not. This shows the logical fallacy of using IC to prove ID.
ID man writes:
No, we can explain it and that explanation is a designer was involved.
Quotes given from here to the end are taken from one or two other topics and have been (or should be) addressed there. This has no bearing on the OT and is another attempt to deflect the argument away from the OT rather than answer it. This is a form of strawman argument, as it attempts to redefine what the issue is about. It is also a form of composition fallacy as it attempts to show {what you think ID is} as an argument that shows {what it isn’t} — that what you present is all of what ID is, exclusively.
Forbidden
Thus once again the validity of the OT is left unchallenged on its logic, and the conclusion that ID is a form of faith is still valid on the logical basis given.

I will address two points you raised in the remainder of your {off-topic strawman\composition fallacy section} just for clarity:
Allowing for ID this is how it is: Scientific investigation of the evidence says there was a designer. Religions try to tell you who that designer was. You have faith that the designer of your religion is THE designer.
And if you are an Atheist or an Agnostic? What does it tell you then? That there is a god? That’s assuming that your statement Scientific investigation of the evidence says there was a designer can be validated, of course: as noted, this has not occurred yet.
OK. Your first statement is false. Deism is not a religion.
By what reasoning and evidence do you conclude this? The dictionary definition is The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation. The definition of religion is Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe. And one of the definitions of god is A being of supernatural powers or attributes — so:
(A) Deism is a belief in a god that created the universe, by definition.
(B) Any belief in a god or gods that created the universe is a religion, by definition.
Therefore deism is de facto a religion, by definition. QED (again).
Claiming something is false is not the same as showing it is false. Because you have not substantiated your claim your syllogism was incomplete, but because your claim has been shown to be false itself, it is actually logically false and invalid.
Once again you have failed to address the OT in any way that challenges the logic of the argument presented there. As such the validity of the conclusion of that argument stands unchallenged: ID is a form of faith.
It seems that what you do not understand is that the logical structure requires the conclusion to be absolutely true whether you like it or not, if the syllogisms have not been invalidated and the structure itself has not been shown to be invalid. You have not done that.
Without addressing that issue the validity of the conclusion will continue to stand and show that ID is a form of faith.
You are 0 for 4.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 11:23 AM ID man has not replied

  
PecosGeorge
Member (Idle past 6873 days)
Posts: 863
From: Texas
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 20 of 396 (138132)
08-30-2004 1:59 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by RAZD
08-29-2004 5:24 PM


Re: A form of logic and reason - or just more shinola?
Wow, this is long.
Of course it equals faith in an 'intelligent designer'.
Didn't know you could be so long-winded.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by RAZD, posted 08-29-2004 5:24 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 22 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:10 PM PecosGeorge has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 21 of 396 (138137)
08-30-2004 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 13 by ID man
08-30-2004 11:23 AM


Re: RAZD you don't have an argument
quote:
The problem is yours. IDists understand what they are trying to do with ID. You are trying to force it to do something it was never intended to do.
I think we all know what IDists are trying to do. This became very apparent when the Wedge Strategy came around:
Discovery Institute's Center for the Renewal of Science and Culture seeks nothing less than the overthrow of materialism and its cultural legacies. Bringing together leading scholars from the natural sciences and those from the humanities and social sciences, the Center explores how new developments in biology, physics and cognitive science raise serious doubts about scientific materialism and have re-opened the case for a broadly theistic understanding of nature. The Center awards fellowships for original research, holds conferences, and briefs policymakers about the opportunities for life after materialism.
The goal of ID is to cast doubt on evolution so that non-naturalistic theories (see creationism) can be inserted into public classrooms. To IDists, the veracity of ID theory is not important but inserting god into public classrooms is very important.
quote:
IDists are not saying you can't ask that question. If we can't answer the "who made it?" question about the artifact does that mean it becomes a product of nature acting alone? No.
No, it becomes a product of a natural being. No one finds a pottery fragment and proclaims "God Made It!!". Therefore, we would have to conclude that if ID was in fact responsible for life on earth then it would be due to a natural being acting through natural laws. This then brings us to who designed the designers. Is there an endless string of designers? Obviously not. Life HAD to originate SOMEWHERE naturally to give rise to the first designers. If the natural laws are sufficient to create the first designers, then design being necessary for life is falsified. Without inserting supernatural beings not affected by natural laws, then ID fails as a pre-requisite for life. This is why ID is a faith.
quote:
Allowing for ID this is how it is: Scientific investigation of the evidence says there was a designer.
No, scientific investigation of the evidence says that there is design. The question is whether or not blind algorithmic processes like evolution can result in the design. Given that evolutionary mechanisms are used currently by man to create design, I would say that it is very possible. What ID says is that we HAVE to conclude that there is a designer in the absence of a complete understanding of natural mechanisms. What science says is that we can only theorize mechanisms that we have evidence for, which invalidates an unobserved designer and leaves us with an observed design process (evolution).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 13 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 11:23 AM ID man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:46 PM Loudmouth has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 396 (138138)
08-30-2004 2:10 PM
Reply to: Message 20 by PecosGeorge
08-30-2004 1:59 PM


Re: A form of logic and reason - or just more shinola?
I warnded you before ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 20 by PecosGeorge, posted 08-30-2004 1:59 PM PecosGeorge has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 32 by PecosGeorge, posted 08-30-2004 5:44 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 23 of 396 (138148)
08-30-2004 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by ID man
08-30-2004 12:54 PM


playing at logic without knowing the rules
ID man is now proving that he does not understand logic (as if that wasn’t already obvious).
(Note: his material was taken from a different topic again, and is not part of the OT, nor does it challenge it.)
You forgot a word: ID demands more assumptions than Deism, therefore ID is actually a less substantiated subcategory of Deism -- correction of your premise to include omitted word changes your conclusion by default.
Strawman and fallacy of accent, a new one to throw in the mix.
Forbidden
Deism is reason based, therefore your conditions given do not preclude ID from being reason based;
I do not give conditions for Deism to be reason based. You gave conditions that you thought showed ID to escape from being faith, and I showed those conditions to be insufficient in that endeavor. Deism is reason based by definition. ID claims to use reason up to the point where it says oops, gotta be a designer involved at which point it steps aside from reason based evaluation of the evidence, also by definition. Equivalence not established by your claim, and refuted here. Note that it is impossible for something to be more reason based than something that is purely reason based, hence the concept that ID could have more "substance" than deism is false from the get-go.
A (Deism) is reason based
B (ID) is a A with substance
Therefore B is the logical inference
(Q.E.D.)
This is almost humorous if it weren’t so pathetic.
There is no relation of premise (A) to premise (B) and no relation of the conclusion to either premise. This is like saying:
(A) 1 + 1 = 2
(B) Mammals have 2 sexes
Therefore elephants can fly.
You might want to look up what QED means before you misuse it so gratuitously again.
And to recap, your (B) is invalidated, and a false premise invalidates your sillygism.
and btw, just for the record ... this does not invalidate the OT, so the conclusion that ID is a form of faith is still valid.
Making it 0 for 5 ... and counting. What fun.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:51 PM
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:54 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by ID man, posted 08-30-2004 12:54 PM ID man has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 24 of 396 (138150)
08-30-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by Loudmouth
08-30-2004 2:09 PM


lets get back to the topic
This issue is off topic
the issue is that ID is a form of faith.
thanks
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by Loudmouth, posted 08-30-2004 2:09 PM Loudmouth has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Loudmouth, posted 08-30-2004 3:21 PM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 25 of 396 (138151)
08-30-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 18 by sidelined
08-30-2004 1:39 PM


lets get back to the topic
This issue is off topic
the issue is that ID is a form of faith.
thanks
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 18 by sidelined, posted 08-30-2004 1:39 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by sidelined, posted 08-30-2004 3:43 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 26 of 396 (138152)
08-30-2004 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by MrHambre
08-30-2004 1:38 PM


lets get back to the topic
This issue is off topic
the issue is that ID is a form of faith.
thanks
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by MrHambre, posted 08-30-2004 1:38 PM MrHambre has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 27 of 396 (138153)
08-30-2004 2:47 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by bob_gray
08-30-2004 1:37 PM


lets get back to the topic
This issue is off topic
the issue is that ID is a form of faith.
thanks
This message has been edited by RAZD, 08-30-2004 01:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by bob_gray, posted 08-30-2004 1:37 PM bob_gray has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by bob_gray, posted 08-30-2004 4:56 PM RAZD has replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 28 of 396 (138175)
08-30-2004 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by RAZD
08-30-2004 2:46 PM


Re: lets get back to the topic
quote:
This issue is off topic
the issue is that ID is a form of faith.
thanks
How are these off topic?
"The goal of ID is to cast doubt on evolution so that non-naturalistic theories (see creationism) can be inserted into public classrooms. To IDists, the veracity of ID theory is not important but inserting god into public classrooms is very important."
"Life HAD to originate SOMEWHERE naturally to give rise to the first designers. If the natural laws are sufficient to create the first designers, then design being necessary for life is falsified. Without inserting supernatural beings not affected by natural laws, then ID fails as a pre-requisite for life. This is why ID is a faith."
"What ID says is that we HAVE to conclude that there is a designer in the absence of a complete understanding of natural mechanisms. What science says is that we can only theorize mechanisms that we have evidence for, which invalidates an unobserved designer and leaves us with an observed design process (evolution)."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:46 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 4:20 PM Loudmouth has not replied
 Message 35 by Brad McFall, posted 08-30-2004 7:30 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 29 of 396 (138181)
08-30-2004 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by RAZD
08-30-2004 2:46 PM


Re: lets get back to the topic
RAZD
Sorry old man. I was hoping to goad him into answering since he has dodged a simmilar question from me at
http://EvC Forum: The I in ID -->EvC Forum: The I in ID
But you are correct I shall not persue this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by RAZD, posted 08-30-2004 2:46 PM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 30 of 396 (138188)
08-30-2004 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Loudmouth
08-30-2004 3:21 PM


Re: lets get back to the topic
your post addresses why it is an issue, but not the issue directly.
ID man seems to go off in the manner of {FIRE, COCK, AIM} so it is hard not to get dragged off course by his responses, especially as they do not address a single point of the OT (yet).
thanks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Loudmouth, posted 08-30-2004 3:21 PM Loudmouth has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024