|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: ID as Religion | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
Nature acting alone didn't bring my computer into being. quote: Where did the laws of physics come from? However my computer being constructed according to the laws of physics (if that is the case) does NOT equal nature acting alone bringing my computer into being. Even elementary school kids know the difference. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: In the absence of reason one must go with the authority. Seeing there isn't any reasoning with evolutionists the court ruling stands as testimony to their moving the goalposts.
quote: Not according to the judge I quoted.
In concurring with Edwards v. Aguillard, Justice Lewis Powell wrote, [A] decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’. quote: What is psdeudo-science? Especially in light of this:
As a result of such contradictions, most contemporary philosophers of science have come to regard the question What distinguishes science from nonscience? as both intractable and uninteresting. Instead, philosophers of science have increasingly realized that the real issue is not whether a theory is scientific according to some abstract definition but whether a theory is true- that is, based on evidence. As Laudan explains, If we would stand up and be counted on the side of reason, we ought to drop terms like ‘pseudo-science’theydo only emotive work for us. As Martin Eger summarized,[d]emarcation arguments have collapsed. Philosophers of science don’t hold them anymore. They may still enjoy acceptance in the popular world, but that is a different world." pg. 77 of "Darwinism, Design and Public Education ID does not push religion into schools. ID is science so it isn't pushing science out either.
ID does not attempt to address fundamental and ultimate questions having to do with deep and imponderable matters. ID attempts to address the same question Darwin tried to and biologists still do: How did biological organisms acquire their appearance of design? quote: Your confusion is that what ID does is separate from what IDists do. You keep confusing the two. Just because IDists ponder such questions that has no bearing on ID. Does Dawkins' atheism have a bearing on the theory of evolution? Is that theory an atheistic theory?
quote: Ask Dawkins. He said the appearance of design was illusory. Even Crick commented that we must always keep in mind that what we are observing was not designed rather it evolved. (paraphrasing) IOW the appearance of design is obvious.
quote: That is nothing but an unsupported assertion. You can say it all you want but it is still meaningless.
Yes ID could be used as/ to support one’s religious beliefs, but it could also stimulate theological questions in agnostic and even atheistic people. quote: IDists have already posited that aliens could be the designers of life on Earth. This supports my premise that you don't understand ID.
[A] decision respecting the subject matter to be taught in public schools does not violate the Establishment Clause simply because the material to be taught ‘happens to coincide or harmonize with the tenets of some or all religions’. quote: It is only an opinion that the theory of evolution has greater weight than ID. Why is it that the vast majority of people in the USA are Creationists, IDists or theistic evolutionists? If the theory of evolution has such great weight then how do you explain biologists, genetists and other scientists saying the weight isn't so great and questioning its validity? as for IDIOTs, you fit that to a tee. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
Where did the laws of physics come from? quote: That doesn't answer the question. Where did "nature" come from?
quote: Can you suport that claim?
quote: Nature acting alone did not create my computer. Period, end of story. You can twist that fact all you want but it doesn't change the fact. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
We knew that the cause of Stonehenge was people.
quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How do we know that? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: That doesn't mean that people made Stonehenge. We can use the same logic with genetic engineering as our backdrop with respect to biological organisms.
There's only one Stonehenge, but given that we know that humans have, for millennia, built massive and elaborate structures, it is a reasonable assumption that humans built this one, too. There are also buried human remains close by and burial mounds, etc. But how did the humans acquire the knowledge to do this? Maybe aliens designed and built Stonehenge and then humans came along and thought it was something to be worshipped. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- And what kind of expalnation is "nature did it"? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: Tell that to forensics and archeologists.
quote: OK what is the positive evidence from life arising from non-life by nature acting alone? What is the postive evidence that by nature acting alone metazoans can arise on a planet that didn't have metazoans? quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Why go against what we do know to posit something else? -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: No but according to you we can infer it from the evidence. That is what we did with Stonehenge.
quote: I insert a designer because I see the evidence for one. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By your logic when an archeologist comes upon an inscription in the wall he should assume it was put there by nature acting alone. We don't want him to commit a "scribe-of-gaps" fallacy. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: But how do they know what is a natural event and what is an artifact? That is the point. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- We do not need to know who designed my car to know it was designed. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: Just because human design cars now does not mean they always did. Humans make paper now, but if it wasn't for the observance of wasps we may not have been doing so. Or at least it would have taken us longer to figure it out. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- OK the evidence is the bacterial flagellum exhibits irreducible complexity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: Please explain. quote:-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is a multi-part system that functions because of the parts that make it up. We can be assured of its design as we can with any other multi-part system that a;so exhibits IC- getting seperate components together in such a way to achieve a function that depends on the components. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote: Never say never. However there isn't any evidence that shows it could or did. The evidence points to a designer. We have knowledge of designers designing IC. To falsify ID just show how the BF arose from nature acting alone. Period, end of story. Science works from our current level of understanding. Science does not work by waiting what may or may not come in the future. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
Nature acting alone didn't bring my computer into being. Nature acting alone didn't build the cities archeologists study. quote: Living organisms are far more complex than the aforementioned non-living components. My point was to show MrHambre was again wrong in what he posted.
OK MrHambre please show us the evidence that nature, acting alone, brought forth life from non-life. Right now all we do know is that life only comes from life. YOU are going against our knowledge. quote: The only thing I realize is that you don't know what you are talking about.
quote: Do YOU have ANY evidence that nature acting alone can bring life from non-life?
quote: Both viruses and prions require life to already be in existence.
I also understand the many failings of materialistic naturalism. It's not your fault. It is time to admit it is all just a belief system. quote: I no longer believe what you post. Show me where Del says otherwise. I will send him an email to see if he consurs.
quote: I don't have to agree with someone 100%. That is not how it works. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
That doesn't answer the question. Where did "nature" come from? quote: Again I see that you can't even follow along. The question was where did the laws of physics come from and you said "nature". Does this ring a bell?
quote: Again nature acting alone did not create my computer. That IS the point. Your continued twisting of this is a sure sign of desperation.
quote: Then "nature" couldn't have given rise to those laws. That contradicts what you posted earlier. So where did the laws of physics come from?
Nature acting alone did not create my computer. quote: I know no reasonable person would believe you. You are a typical evolutionist- twist and spin. Misrepresent and lie. Oh well.... "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
Both viruses and prions require life to already be in existence. quote: Show us one prion that arose outside of life by nature acting alone. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
Both viruses and prions require life to already be in existence. quote: Viruses need a host.
Prions are proteins that occur in the brains of all mammals so far studied. Henry Gee reporting in Nature "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
Both viruses and prions require life to already be in existence. quote: Viruses need a host.
Prions are proteins that occur in the brains of all mammals so far studied. Henry Gee reporting in Nature "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
There is nothing left for me to do. So go play with yourself.
But Doesn't Intelligent Design Refer to Something Supernatural? From an ID perspective, the natural-vs.-supernatural distinction is irrelevant. The real contrast is not between natural laws and miracles, but between undirected natural causes and intelligent ones. IOW it doesn't matter if I disagree or agree with the definition given. It is irrelevant. Whay can't you understand that? This message has been edited by ID man, 09-30-2004 06:11 PM "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024