|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,908 Year: 4,165/9,624 Month: 1,036/974 Week: 363/286 Day: 6/13 Hour: 1/2 |
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. 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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Both viruses and prions require life to already be in existence. Well, prions don't, exactly - they just need a steady source of polypeptides of a certain sequence. Certainly living things are currently the most prolific source of those but they are by no means the only possible source.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Both viruses and prions require life to already be in existence. Why? Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
The question was where did the laws of physics come from and you said "nature" Inventing things that I said isn't going to win you the argument.
Again nature acting alone did not create my computer. You believe that your computer was created supernaturally? Do you believe that, when you take a picture with a camera, a little man inside makes a painting of what he can see out of the lens?
So where did the laws of physics come from? Who gives a fuck? Point not under discussion. Is it the laws of physics that you believe were created by intelligence, or certain biological structures? When you ask things like this, it's obvious that you don't even know.
I know no reasonable person would believe you. You don't think most people, or most reasonable people, believe that computers operate via the laws of physics instead of supernaturally? Would you care to conduct a survey on this subject? Isn't ascribing supernatural origin or operation to completely natural phenomenon the precise definition of "unreasonable"? Is it possible that the reason that you continually misrepresent my posts and then accuse me of doing it to you is because your terms are impossibly vague, but you refuse to specify them, out of a desparate need to avoid grounding your arguments in reality, where they would certainly be refuted instantly?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Show us one prion that arose outside of life by nature acting alone. quote: This prion was created subject to the laws of physics, non-supernaturally, but it has never existed in any living thing before.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
This article from the Scientist seems to indicate that viruses may even have preceded other forms of life.
This suggests that this type of coat protein arrangement preceded the split of the three domains of life over 3 billion years ago, Mark A. Young, the team's leader and coauthor of the paper, told The Scientist. In addition, this article on RNA binding ATP seems to show that RNA can produce a molecule that will do work, a motor. It is only a short step from a motor to a computer. While we have not yet shown a computer forming from inert materials, it is only a very short period of time until we do so. Research in creating organic machines, and in nano-technology is simply very young. If we look at history though, there can be little doubt that perhaps in my lifetime, certainly in the lifetime of some of the younger posters on this board, we will see life coming from non-living materials. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nator Member (Idle past 2199 days) Posts: 12961 From: Ann Arbor Joined: |
quote: While technically true, science doesn't operate as though all explanations are equally valid. The explanations that are accepted in science are those which: 1) have the most positive evidence to support them2) agree the most, in degree and quantity, with previous observations 3) require the fewest assumptions The idea that people built Stonehenge is considered the most valid because 1) and 2) there is a great deal of positive evidence that people have and do create massive structures out of stone and other materials for religious or ceremonial uses. There are other "henges" in the same general area, as well as burial mounds. People have and do practice ceremony and ritual when burying their dead. 3) We need not assume any other agent other than people constructed such henges, as there have been successful attempts to transport and erect such stones using only the technology of the times.
quote: Genetic engineering is a minor change within a preexisting genome. We know for a fact that genetic engineering is a recent historical development and therefore it cannot explain anything piror to the late 20th century.
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. quote: Yes, and maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt. While it is technically true that aliens could have done what you suggest, it is a less valid explanation than humans acting alone, as per the three requirements: 1) There is no positive evidence that aliens were involved2) The "aliens" explanation does not take into account all of the other evidence. 3) The "aliens" explanation requires a great many assumptions which have no evidenciary support. Just because you can imagine it, doesn't make it either plausible, probable, nor supported by evidence.
Because, so far, that {Nature did it} has been the only answer we have ever gotten when inquiry is allowed to progress. quote: I was talking about Biology. Neither of those fields that you mention rely on non-natural explanations, either.
quote: These are good questions, but they are questions that completely miss my point. The point is that you have yet to show any positive evidence for a designer. All you have done is use analogies to human-constructed, non-living artifacts instead of self-replicating biological structures and gaps in our knowledge as if these things constitute positive evidence.
quote: Really? Explain to me, using my three criteria above, how you would do that.
We only have gaps in our understanding, into which you inexplicably insert a Designer. quote: I've been through this with you already. You point to mechanism X, say there's no current naturalistic explanation for it, then claim that an Intelligent Designer didit. That means that you do not have positive evidence, only a lack of a naturalistic explanation. ...which leads me to my question: How do I tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we 1) Do not currently understand but will in the future, or 2) one that we do not have the capacity to ever understand?
quote: Accumulated positive evidence that takes into account the most past observations and makes the fewest assumptions. See my three criterion above.
quote: Correct. We have voluminous positive evidence of both pre- and post-automobile construction by humans.
quote: Yes, and we have voluminous positive evidence of wasps making paper.
quote: So does a stone arch. quote: A stone arch is an irreducably complex structure. If you remove any one of the stones in an arch. the entire arch collapses. Does this mean that stone arches are a complete mystery and require supernatural forces for them to exist? Of course not. During the building of a stone arch, support structures are put in place as the stones or bricks are laid. When those support structures are no longer needed, they are removed. The problem with the argument from IC is that it depends upon the premise that evolution can occur ONLY by the sequential addition of parts. If, on the other hand, parts can be lost along the way, the deduction is no longer valid. Since there is no positive evidence of the designer, this logical argument is the only argument IDers have. But nobody thinks that evolution occurs only by sequential addition of parts. So IDers have neither evidence nor logic on their side.
How do you know that these IC systems cannot evolve naturally? quote: Let's assume that you are right and that there is no evidence to show that IC systems could or did evolve naturally. Where is your evidence that they were designed by an IDer? This goes back to my question about how to tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural system we just haven't figured out yet, or possibly will never figure out. Just because we can't figure something out doesn't mean it did not occur naturally. It just means that we do not know how it happened. You have no positive evidence for your IDer, only gaps in our knowledge, but yet you go another step and baselessly conclude a supernatural entity was reponsible.
quote: How can I tell the difference between an Intelligently Designed system and a natural one that we either do not currently understand but will in the future or that we will never understand? Seriously, will you completely give up on ID if a naturalistic mechanism for the BF is understood? I doubt it. Behe claimed the blood clotting cascade couldn't have evolved, but various evolutionary pathways for it have been discovered in the last several years. I don't see Behe or the ID folks talking about it much anymore, but neither do I see them making any changes in their original claim, either. This leads me to think that IDists are just "yeahbut"ers. Behe claimed the blood clotting cascade was evidence of ID, it was shown to have a natural evolutionary pathway, and the IDers all sad "Yeah, but what about the Bacteria Flagella?" The BF evolutionary pathway will probably be figured out at some point, and the IDers will say "Yeahbut what about blah blah blah." It's called moving the goalposts, and it inevitable when you base your argument upon a current lack of positive evidence in science. There will always be some unsolved mystery of nature that IDers can point to, but, exactly like the idea that Apollo pulls the sun across the sky in his firey chariot, it will be no more than the God of the Gaps fallacy.
quote: Science also does not claim to know about something for which there is no positive evidence. We say "we don't know, let's work on figuring it out." We do not say "We don't know today, therefore an Intelligent Designer must have done it" The following is the most important part of my whole post to you, but you left it out of your reply to me. Please address it.
But how do you know that a naturalistic explanation will not be found 100 years from now to explain whatever you say is unexplainable by naturalistic means? quote: EXACTLY! WE DON'T. That is the whole point. You cannot say "The Designer didit. No need to look for a naturalistic explanation now, we know that there is no way anyone anywhere could ever, for ever and ever, discover a naturalistic explanation for X phenomena.", and expect it to be treated as science. Science doesn't work by edict. This message has been edited by schrafinator, 09-26-2004 01:08 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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. Moving what goalposts? And so am I to believe that if a court rules that ID is a form of creationist mumbojumbo you will support that authoritative ruling?
Not according to the judge I quoted. That didn't answer what I wrote. I pointed out that rules change, even court "tests". It may be that tests become extended to include programs which go beyond simply "coinciding" to having as their "purpose" harmonizing with tenets of religion.
What is psdeudo-science? Especially in light of this:.. ID does not push religion into schools. ID is science so it isn't pushing science out either. Pseudo science has been described elsewhere. Your quote is not the definitive answer in what is or is not pseudo-science. If it will help debate I will not argue about whether to call it pseudoscience. It is clear that the purpose of ID was to remove a specific scientific theory or "model" from being taught in schools, at least exclusively and unchallenged, since it had metaphysical implications theists did not like. If ID is a scientific program you may wish to explain why it is interested in not having evolutionary theory models taught in school, indeed "teach the controversy" is the watchword. This is not a proper scientific attitude, and odd since even Behe admits ID is not a completed model. Why would it be important to challenge the teaching of a major scientific model, and push a specific new one that is not yet a complete model?
Your confusion is that what ID does is separate from what IDists do. You keep confusing the two. I am not confusing anything. Please address Dembski's book which ties ID theory and theology together. I agree and have stated it could be pursued in a purely scientific fashion. The fact that it is not by the major leaders of ID and is pushed in a direction opposite of pure science by these same people, is not my fault.
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. You missed my point. Noting that some parts of life look like they could have been designed, is not the same as trying to figure out why they appear that way. Evolutionary theory does not attempt to answer that question.
IDists have already posited that aliens could be the designers of life on Earth. This supports my premise that you don't understand ID. I realize you are under fire from many different posters, but please try to keep this straight. My name is Holmes and my position that pure ID can be scientific and have pointed out (in defense of this) that aliens and other advanced technologies can be used to explain the design. Given this, your premise that I don't understand ID has been disproven. Now to address my point against your position. It is clear that some members of ID are pushing for religion and not aliens as the answer. Your own statements keep defaulting to supernatural origins of design. How can ID be said to support anyone's religious beliefs? Especially if you honestly grant aliens and superior technology? Shouldn't you be saying that ID has no further metaphysical implications beyond noting that some features have been designed and so there may have been modifications of living organisms in the past?
It is only an opinion that the theory of evolution has greater weight than ID. Only an opinion? Evolutionary theory, even if all mechanisms have not been explained, does present a model for speciation and the fossil record. ID theory has no model at all, much less an explanation of mechanisms. Even Behe admitted it is not complete. What he was discussing was mechanisms hidden within the overt macroscopic evolutionary model, and so clearly evolutionary theory is quite weighty. Of course on the other side of ID are Wells and Dembski that have no model at all and deny common descent. Where is the model? Without a model and with some within ID supporting evolutionary models, how can ID be said to be have more weight? Oh by the way, that is also against what Ratzsch said.
Why is it that the vast majority of people in the USA are Creationists, IDists or theistic evolutionists? I have no idea. What does it matter? Over 70% of the US believed that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 and that is 100% false. Popularity does not mean something has scientific weight. Besides I might note that theist evolutionists actually agree with evolution.
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? You are confusing differences over mechanisms with evolutionary theory itself. Might I ask how many of these have said that ID is the actual theory? How many scientists question the validity of ID theory? Oh yes that would include worldwide scientists.
as for IDIOTs, you fit that to a tee. Why? I do not believe in Intelligent Design Inference and Organic Teleological theory. I'm what would be called an evo, or evilutionist, or popular by IDIOTs: Darwinist. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1496 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
In the absence of reason one must go with the authority. You've betrayed yourself, ID Man. Only a creationist would say something so stupid.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Silent H Member (Idle past 5849 days) Posts: 7405 From: satellite of love Joined: |
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. But this makes no sense. How does showing that complex nonliving systems are built by more complex living things, indicate that those living things must be built by living things?
Do YOU have ANY evidence that nature acting alone can bring life from non-life? I'm uncertain what you are asking for... nor why that would be necessary for evolutionary theory. I certainly have evidence of biological organisms using nonliving material in processes that create other living organisms. This process includes alterations to the secondary organisms. That is all that is necessary for evolutionary theory to be correct. Are you talking about abiogenesis? That is separate from evolutionary theory. I have no evidence for that. Nor do I have evidence that this is impossible. Too little evidence exists, including info to make accurate mathematical predictions regarding the probability of abiogenesis. I am loathe to say that a creator of some kind formed the first life. On top of the natural mechanisms necessary to turn nonliving into living material, I'd also need evidence that creators exist at all.
Both viruses and prions require life to already be in existence. I have no idea where you got this idea. I see others are already dealing with it so I will let you handle them for a bit on this issue.
I no longer believe what you post. Show me where Del says otherwise. I will send him an email to see if he consurs. I have already posted his own words. What is there to doubt? I will repost the pertinent details again... message 35 from ID is NOT creationism
Following Del Ratsch quotes taken from this linked open Q&A session transcript at ISCID. {The position that ID is scientifically sound} is... not equivalent to the view that current design proposals have demonstrated scientific fruitfulness, that opponents of design theories are of necessity confused, irrational, blinded by naturalistic upbringings, or anything of the sort. I think a lot of Bill's work, and certainly do not mean to denigrate it. But I suspect that to the extent that specified complexity captures the right domain (and it is certainly in the right area) that it does so because it is assuming some of the very materials in question... I think that one can be honestly convinced that design offers no significant scientific promise and that it represents significant scientific risk... Boyle, for instance - thought that it was a serious mistake to mix "final causes" with "efficient causes" I think that ID may very well have things to offer science, but I think that it is too early for ID to claim that it has done so. I don't think that it is just obvious that ID will contribute substantively to science... All of the above are contradictory to your claims that evolutionary theorists are inherently biased and that ID theory has accomplished anything as a replacement theory, much less has more weight. By all means write to Ratzsch and ask him if he wants to change his mind, or if you need to change yours. I have nothing to fear as I have pointed out twice now, these were his words from an ISCID online chat session.
I don't have to agree with someone 100%. That is not how it works. You said Ratzsch was the person I and others should read as his book proved how design could be detected. I have shown that this is not so, according to his own words. In addition, you keep making claims that he specifically rejects. Not agreeing with someone 100% is one thing, disagreeing with someone on the most important aspects of something, is something else entirely. holmes "...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
IDman writes: On the supernatural: ID says nothing of the supernatural. ID does say that if the evidence leads us to the metaphysical then so be it. Why are people afraid of that? Objective science lets the evidence lead. Therefore I can conclude that people like RAZD are afraid of objective science. So: is the definition OKAY? Nice ramble over irrelevant territory you have already covered while still failing to answer the question. ARE YOU INCAPABLE OF ANSWERING THE QUESTION? Do you or do you not agree with this definition:
Supernatural adj. (Dictionary.com definition): 1. Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.2. Attributed to a power that seems to violate or go beyond natural forces. YES or NO. NOTE -- I will (and do) take failure on your part to answer the question as evidence that you do understand the logical consequences of the argument in the original post and the inevitable result. enjoy. This message has been edited by RAZD, 09-29-2004 08:09 AM we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024