Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 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:   A proof against ID and Creationism
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 16 of 300 (245986)
09-23-2005 4:34 PM
Reply to: Message 15 by bkelly
09-23-2005 4:15 PM


Re: The Blank Stare
Can you present a supportable position?
No.
Your proof is flawed because the Wonderful Theory suggests creation and if god is not created, but is eternal, then the Wonderful Theory is not applied to him.
God is indeed too wonderful and complex to have evolved by itself or his-self if you prefer.
According to the wonderful theory, god had to have been helped along by his own god. Well where did that god come from?
This is were you go wrong. The WT does not require a creation of god if god always existed.
.....
why do you think god has always existed?
That's what I was taught.
If you hold that god could have always existed, they why is it not possible for the universe (in some form or another) to have always existed?
It is not impossible for the universe to have always existed.
there is only one answer that makes any logical sense. There is no god.
Logical? Of course the belief in god is illogical.
Your answer kind of falls into the blank stare group. Blank as in the response has no significant content.
Oh well, I was just trying to respond to the question in the OP:
Are there more possibilities that I have omitted?
Yes. see above.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 15 by bkelly, posted 09-23-2005 4:15 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by bkelly, posted 09-23-2005 6:37 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 17 of 300 (246008)
09-23-2005 6:37 PM
Reply to: Message 16 by New Cat's Eye
09-23-2005 4:34 PM


Dazed and Confused
quote:
quote:
Can you present a supportable position?
No.
I have read some of your posts and I am happy to state that you are more honest and straightforward that many who share your beliefs. Take that as a compliment to you rather than a knock at them.
However, it seems as though that answer should bother you. How can people base a major life controlling decision on unsupportable beliefs? To put this in other words, how is it that so many otherwise intelligent people who tend to be skeptical and analytical throw away all logic and reason when it comes to religion?
quote:
quote:
why do you think god has always existed?
That's what I was taught.
On many occasions I have found that what I have been taught is not always true. In particular, my parents were not always correct. Changing a belief that I have held all my life is rather difficult. But, the courageous person must look the facts in the face and be willing to say, “Oops, that was wrong and therefore I was wrong. I need to change my belief”
When you cannot find a solid reason to believe something, then that the belief is due for a re-examination.
quote:
Oh well, I was just trying to respond to the question in the OP:
You have confused me now. Hmm. Maybe I should eat some crow and change positions. From some of your posts I have read (certainly not all, and some rather rapidly), and from your moniker “Catholic Scientist” I concluded that you were in the ID/Creationist camp and out of the ToE camp. Please give me the short story of your position on ToE, ID, and Creationism.
BTW: Does OP mean Other Person?
I edited my post to change the title.
This message has been edited by bkelly, 09-23-2005 06:40 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 16 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-23-2005 4:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 18 by jar, posted 09-23-2005 6:49 PM bkelly has not replied
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-23-2005 7:06 PM bkelly has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 18 of 300 (246011)
09-23-2005 6:49 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by bkelly
09-23-2005 6:37 PM


OP means Original Post (or poster)
If you look at any of the many court cases and legislative challenges relating to ID or Classic Creationism, you'll find that a major supporter of teaching TOE and in opposition of teaching Creationism or ID has been the Christian Churches.
It's only a small but vocal subset that sees any credibility at all in ID or Classic Creationism.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by bkelly, posted 09-23-2005 6:37 PM bkelly has not replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 19 of 300 (246013)
09-23-2005 7:06 PM
Reply to: Message 17 by bkelly
09-23-2005 6:37 PM


Re: Dazed and Confused
How can people base a major life controlling decision on unsupportable beliefs?
Faith. It can even allow someone to blow themself up. I like how System of a Down describes it as 'the most potent element of human existance'. Like, it can give you a lot of strength and taking an unsupported belief is pretty easy compared to other things.
To put this in other words, how is it that so many otherwise intelligent people who tend to be skeptical and analytical throw away all logic and reason when it comes to religion?
Because logic and reason fail to provide all the answers I seek.
I concluded that you were in the ID/Creationist camp and out of the ToE camp.
Please give me the short story of your position on ToE, ID, and Creationism.
I accept the ToE. I'm not a creationist, by definition. I do believe that people are special though. I believe in the soul. I'd fit in the Theistic Evolution group.
Here's my story:
Message 13
OP is the opening post where you asked a question that I tried to answer.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 17 by bkelly, posted 09-23-2005 6:37 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by tsig, posted 09-23-2005 7:36 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 22 by bkelly, posted 09-24-2005 1:58 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

tsig
Member (Idle past 2908 days)
Posts: 738
From: USA
Joined: 04-09-2004


Message 20 of 300 (246022)
09-23-2005 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
09-23-2005 7:06 PM


Faith, too dangerous
Faith. It can even allow someone to blow themself up
Or to drink purple kool-aid in the jungle.
It sounds far too dangerous for me.
Because logic and reason fail to provide all the answers I seek.
Maybe you're asking the wrong questions or you didn't like the answers.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-23-2005 7:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2492 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 21 of 300 (246034)
09-23-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by New Cat's Eye
09-22-2005 1:40 AM


Re: Sadly the answer is quite easy
DEfinitely blank stare

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-22-2005 1:40 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 22 of 300 (246111)
09-24-2005 1:58 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by New Cat's Eye
09-23-2005 7:06 PM


The rewards of faith
quote:
Faith. It can even allow someone to blow themself up. I like how System of a Down describes it as 'the most potent element of human existance'. Like, it can give you a lot of strength and taking an unsupported belief is pretty easy compared to other things.
Discussing faith is a mine field at best. First, what is faith? While there are more, I start with two categories. If someone has shown me how they behave and live their lives and how they treat me, I may have faith that that will continue to behave in that manner whether I am there or not. For example, my wife loves me and thinks well of me whether we are together or not.
Faith is also to believe in something with no evidence to support that belief. Religion not only provides no support, it provides overwhelming evidence to not believe it. I do not mean to insult you, but starting with the Catholics is an ideal choice. How well did faith serve the people that followed the church in the inquisitions? Do you have any idea how many people were tortured and murdered in the name of god? The people of the church were extraordinarily inventive with regards to cause extreme pain and suffering in the name of god. Church leaders forced their people to falsely implicate neighbors and family to avoid torture.
Have you read Malleus Malificorum, The Hammer of the Witch? Pope Innocent the 8th is said to have initiated its writings because witches might be giving him problems with his illegitimate children. Some say the end result was that as many as 900,000 people, mostly women, were tortured and murdered for being witches, all in the name of god. Here is one of numerous references: http://www.macha.free-online.co.uk/...lleus-malificorum.html
Tell me, how well did faith serve the people that followed the teaching of the church and its doctrine expressed in Malleus Malificorum? How well did faith server those that were murdered?
Let us skip enormous amounts of equally repugnant catholic history and move up to modern times. The pope (and the Catholic religion in general) tells us how homosexuality is a sin. They tell us that those who practice this behavior should not be allowed to attend mass. They must not be absolved of their sins. On the other hand, there are some major contradictions here. What should the church do when a priest is not only a practicing homosexual, but is pedophile predator? (Any male that has sex with boys is by definition a homosexual).
I will remind you of what the church does. It says, in effect, “Oh dear, the congregation has discovered that you are a homosexual and have been molesting their young boys. Oh what ever shall we do? Oh, we know, we will move you to another congregation that does not know you and will you have a whole new crop of young boys to molest. And we will ignore the rules we impose on the flock. We will not only allow you to participate in mass, we will allow you to conduct mass.”
So tell me, how did faith serve the people that believed in their priests?
quote:
Faith. It can even allow someone to blow themself up.
You seem to think this is good. My reply is already too long, but I cannot resist responding.
What will be your position when some Muslim detonates a nuclear weapon killing tens of thousands and maybe millions because he has faith that his god wants him to destroy the infidels? Will you applaud his faith? Is this something we should eagerly look forward to?
There are a significant number of Muslims who are working hard to get their hands on a nuclear weapon and do just that. And some of them have a lot of money.
And they are doing it because of, . , FAITH.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-23-2005 7:06 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 23 of 300 (246197)
09-24-2005 11:22 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


how to test a theory
Hi bkelly,
bkelly writes:
As I understand the concepts of IDs and Creationist, they say that life (to include all of the universe, atoms, quarks, etc) is too WONDERFUL and complex to have evolved by itself. Just to provide an easy reference, call this the wonderful theory.
Okay. That is easy.
bkelly writes:
One method of testing a theory it to see how it holds up when applied to others subjects.
Really? You mean we should test theories by seeing how they hold up when applied to subjects they were not formulated to explain? Interesting.
bkelly writes:
I see two possibilities:
I see a third possibility: misapplication of a good theory can lead to wrong conclusions.
-- Jason
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-24-2005 11:22 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by bkelly, posted 09-19-2005 7:56 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2005 11:26 PM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 39 by bkelly, posted 09-25-2005 9:15 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 24 of 300 (246199)
09-24-2005 11:26 PM
Reply to: Message 23 by TheLiteralist
09-24-2005 11:22 PM


Re: how to test a theory
Really? You mean we should test theories by seeing how they hold up when applied to subjects they were not formulated to explain?
Er, I'm sorry? Wasn't ID formulated to explain the existence of complex beings? In what way is bkelly misapplying your theory?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-24-2005 11:22 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 26 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-24-2005 11:58 PM crashfrog has replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 25 of 300 (246203)
09-24-2005 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by bkelly
09-20-2005 10:11 PM


ignoring origins
Hi bkelly,
bkelly writes:
The fact that he (some guy) will not even address the question of the origin of god is an indicator that his creationist beliefs have a problem. We can no longer allow people to blithely ignore positions they cannot support.
Your last sentence is confusing. Does it mean "We can no longer allow people to blithely ignore facts that contradict their positions?" Or does it mean "We can no longer allow people to blithely propose positions they cannot support?"
Either way, I presume you are living in a democratic society. It sounds like you'd rather live in a dictatorship or something.
{tongue in cheek}
It is just horrible to allow people to say or believe whatever they want to, I guess.
{/tongue in cheek}
By the way, just how did life come into being? What is your position on that subject? And what empirical evidence do you use to support your position?
I have in my possession a high school biology text that was published in 1990 -- Heath's Biological Science: A Molecular Approach. That book spends all of Chapter 4 -- The Origin of Life -- detailing several speculations as to how life may have first began from nonlife. Buried deep in the appendixes (appendix 16A, Spontaneous Generation, pp. 747-8 ), the book declares that Pasteur's experiments help biologists unite "in accepting the idea that 'all organisms arise only from others of their kind.'" The book calls this principle biogenesis.
I wish the tax-payer-funded system wouldn't make abiogenesis (an idea against the beliefs of many who pay taxes) appear to be some empirical-evidenced-based reality to very impressionable young minds (the children of those who do not believe in abiogenesis and who pay the taxes).
But I guess we all got our rants.
--Jason

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by bkelly, posted 09-20-2005 10:11 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by nwr, posted 09-25-2005 12:19 AM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 40 by bkelly, posted 09-25-2005 10:00 PM TheLiteralist has replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 26 of 300 (246204)
09-24-2005 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by crashfrog
09-24-2005 11:26 PM


Re: how to test a theory
Wasn't ID formulated to explain the existence of complex beings?
ID is a theory about how the complexities of physical life came into existence, isn't it? (Based upon things like how DNA works right?) If ID was an attempt to explain the existence of spiritual beings, I was not aware of this aspect of the theory.
--Jason

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by crashfrog, posted 09-24-2005 11:26 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2005 12:04 AM TheLiteralist has replied
 Message 41 by bkelly, posted 09-25-2005 10:09 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 27 of 300 (246205)
09-25-2005 12:04 AM
Reply to: Message 26 by TheLiteralist
09-24-2005 11:58 PM


Re: how to test a theory
If ID was an attempt to explain the existence of spiritual beings
What spiritual beings? I'm not aware that ID makes any sort of distinction between physical and "spiritual" life. It's just a theory that explains complexity, right? That the only origin of complexity is intelligence? Complexity is complexity. Doesn't the designer have to be complex as well?
Sounds like there's a lot about your own theory you're not aware of. I don't see how bkelly is misapplying the theory at all.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-24-2005 11:58 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 29 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-25-2005 12:45 AM crashfrog has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 28 of 300 (246206)
09-25-2005 12:19 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by TheLiteralist
09-24-2005 11:44 PM


Re: ignoring origins
That book spends all of Chapter 4 -- The Origin of Life -- detailing several speculations as to how life may have first began from nonlife.
Let's suppose that the first life was created by an act of God. In what way would it look different from one of those speculations? Would someone appear in white robes, waving a magic wand -- then a puff of smoke, and poof?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-24-2005 11:44 PM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 31 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-25-2005 1:24 AM nwr has replied

TheLiteralist
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 300 (246207)
09-25-2005 12:45 AM
Reply to: Message 27 by crashfrog
09-25-2005 12:04 AM


it's not my own theory
Hi Crash,
Doesn't the designer have to be complex as well?
I don't think so.
The theory is based on the study of physically complex systems (such as the processes involved in DNA replication). I think it is fair to assume that it is intended to be a theory about the origin of physical beings and phenomena associated with physical beings -- possibly physical beings limited to this planet -- since those are the only ones we've studied so far.
It makes no presuppositions about WHO the designer or designers are or HOW the designer or designers came into being. IIRC, it only states that there is a designer or designers and that the designer or designers are intelligent. I don't think the theory equates intelligence with complexity.
--Jason
This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-25-2005 12:46 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2005 12:04 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by crashfrog, posted 09-25-2005 1:02 AM TheLiteralist has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 30 of 300 (246210)
09-25-2005 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 29 by TheLiteralist
09-25-2005 12:45 AM


Re: it's not my own theory
I don't think the theory equates intelligence with complexity.
The entire theory is the equivocation of complexity with intelligence. If intelligence is the source of complexity how can intelligence not be complex?
Surely it's not lost on you that, among ID's defenders, the example of the complexity of human intelligence is a common example of something evolution is not supposed to be able to complain? If intelligence isn't complex why are all the ID guys telling me that it is?
Like I said there appears to be a whole lot about this "theory" that you're not aware of. Are you sure you want to hang your hat on a theory you don't seem to know much about?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-25-2005 12:45 AM TheLiteralist has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-25-2005 1:55 AM crashfrog has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024