Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9163 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,419 Year: 3,676/9,624 Month: 547/974 Week: 160/276 Day: 34/23 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 300 (246818)
09-27-2005 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Omnivorous
09-27-2005 8:17 PM


Re: Aye
Aye, there's the rub...the rub that exposes the ID agenda. The ambiguity is deliberate and dissembling.
If it isn't ambiguous then it quickly becomes religion but the problem is that the ambiguity is causing the self-refutation.
We can narrow the ID implications further. Not all gods are described as eternal: only the God of the Book can put a stopper in the infinite regression of designers; a god could be a Younger God, a Lesser God, an elevated mortal, all subject to queries about their designers.
Yes, the OP was pretty general about god when refering to him but specifically mentioned creationists. And then asked if it ommitted a possibility. An eternal god is this possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Omnivorous, posted 09-27-2005 8:17 PM Omnivorous has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 62 of 300 (246824)
09-27-2005 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by New Cat's Eye
09-27-2005 8:20 PM


Re: It is a direct application
My conclusion was that if a complex entity has always existed then it can exist without being designed (and still not falsify ID's initial premise).
And, again, there's nothing in ID that suggests that the designer is eternal, or that an eternal designer can even exist; so this doesn't really do anything for me as an answer to the challenge in the OP.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2005 8:20 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2005 9:13 PM crashfrog has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 300 (246825)
09-27-2005 9:13 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by crashfrog
09-27-2005 9:06 PM


Re: It is a direct application
But the OP is about the Wonderful Theory and its application to god.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2005 9:06 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by crashfrog, posted 09-27-2005 9:21 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1488 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 64 of 300 (246826)
09-27-2005 9:21 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by New Cat's Eye
09-27-2005 9:13 PM


Re: It is a direct application
But the OP is about the Wonderful Theory and its application to god.
But it doesn't ascribe to that god any more properties than ID implies; that is, the intelligence to design.
If you think that god has additional properties than that, then I'd like to know how you're getting those out of ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2005 9:13 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 65 of 300 (246829)
09-27-2005 9:39 PM
Reply to: Message 49 by New Cat's Eye
09-27-2005 12:34 PM


Do you believe in ID?
As this thread continues, I see evidence that we are arguing points where neither of us, (well at least me) are certain of the other person's position. My interpertation of some of your posts leads me to contradictory conclusions.
Lets go back to message 16 of this thread that you posted:
quote:
why do you think god has always existed?
Catholic Scientist writes:
That's what I was taught.

This says you believe in god. But you give no reason, no justification.
quote:
there is only one answer that makes any logical sense. There is no god.
Catholic Scientist writes:
Logical? Of course the belief in god is illogical.

But you state that your belief is not logical.
Let me see if I understand: You believe in god, you know it is illogical, you believe because someone told you to, and you seem to think this is good. This is a life defining philosophy, but with no substantiation.
There must be something I am missing.
From message 17 I ask:
How can people base a major life controlling decision on unsupportable beliefs?
And in 19 you respond:
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.
Here is where I draw some conclusions. You have justified your belief with the concept of faith, and in the context of the conversation, this means faith in a religious context; to believe in something without any evidence to do so.
This implies that you believe that religious faith is a good thing.
From this point I claimed that religious faith is not good, and is indeed quite bad. I listed several instances of people behaving very badly because of heir religious faith. But they were (and are) convinced that:
1. Their behavior is in the best interest of god
2. That god wants them to commit these acts
3. Therefore there really isn’t any choice in the matter
4. Therefore they are obligated to behave in this manner (torture, killing, ect)
By virtue of religious faith, there are many Muslims, and not just extremists, that believe all infidels should be killed. (Read the Koran, it is quite clear.) Read Exodus and you will find that Christians should kill all those that are not Christian. It is very explicit and clear.
In message 47 you state:
anyway, I didn't even say faith was good. I do think that it can be good, and i think it can't all be good.
Well, yes you did say religious faith is good, implicitly, but clearly. You supported your belief in god by faith. This means that you think faith in god is good.
I have shown a tiny fraction of the evidence that faith in god and faith in god's word (in the form of the bible, the Koran, etc) leads people to truly evil actions.
How is this within the limit of this thread? Creationism and ID are thinly disguised efforts to bring religion into government, for example, public school. (BTW: In my not so humble opinion, both sides of the ID debate know damn well that ID is a religious position, but the IDist continue to pretend that if they deny that position enough times the public will begin to separate ID and religion.) Creationism and ID require, nay, demand a god pulling the strings. I have proposed that their Wonderful Theory is easily falsifiable. (And I am far from alone in this position) Their argument, in some cases, boils down to having faith in god. And now I have presented a very tiny faction of history that shows faith in god is evil.
So, do you support ID or not? If so, why?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-27-2005 12:34 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2005 3:02 PM bkelly has replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 300 (246831)
09-27-2005 9:57 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by jar
09-26-2005 9:31 PM


Re: Really silly question
jar writes:
Come on. That's a really stupid question. Would it make you feel better if the nuke was exploded by a Godless atheist?
Not in the slightest. (to both questions) Regarding the first question, allow me to sumarize and paraphrase the relevant theme:
Do you believe in god?
Yes.
Why?
Because I was taught that I should.
Can you support that position?
No. But I believe anyway.
Why?
Religious Faith.
Is that logical?
No, but I believe anyway.
(Please note: The above is how I interpret the meaning of previous posts. I do not imply that others said these particular words and my interpertation is subject to error.)
quote:
Extreme and horrendous actions are taken by many people.
Yes, quite true. But in the context of this thread, so what? That is irrelevant. The point is the evil people do in the name of religious faith.
The core question: Is religious faith good or bad?
The answer: Religious faith is evil. It is the greatest cause of harm this world has ever known.
Maybe some day I will regret that position. But in the meantime can you refute the logic?
I again refer to the book "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by jar, posted 09-26-2005 9:31 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 09-27-2005 10:03 PM bkelly has replied
 Message 71 by nwr, posted 09-27-2005 10:17 PM bkelly has not replied
 Message 76 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2005 4:25 PM bkelly has not replied
 Message 298 by kuresu, posted 08-09-2006 5:31 PM bkelly has not replied

jar
Member (Idle past 415 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 67 of 300 (246832)
09-27-2005 10:03 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by bkelly
09-27-2005 9:57 PM


Re: Really silly question
But in the meantime can you refute the logic?
Only by pointing out that there is no logic or reason to the question.
I'm sorry but it is a really, really stupid question and frankly not worth comment.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by bkelly, posted 09-27-2005 9:57 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by bkelly, posted 09-27-2005 10:15 PM jar has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 300 (246833)
09-27-2005 10:10 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by TheLiteralist
09-27-2005 4:21 PM


Re: facts vs. speculations (what should we teach)
TheLiteralist writes:
I appreciate your honesty in your answer. So, instead of the "ah-ha" attitude I began with (which I should probably apologize for)...let me ask why should abiogenesis be treated as anything other than the interesting speculations of scientists. Put THAT deep in the appendices.
No appology necessary at all. You position is quite understandable. I am a bit opinionated and am becomming more forceful and agressive lately. (Not all bad, but certainly not all good.)
I wish to think about and respond to your question, but am wore out from a long day and the emotions I now have on the religious topic. I need to calm down. Thanks for your thoughts.
BTW: To all, I submitted a feedback asking why my signature does not show up. Having received no reply, will someone help me here?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by TheLiteralist, posted 09-27-2005 4:21 PM TheLiteralist has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by AdminAsgara, posted 09-27-2005 10:14 PM bkelly has not replied

AdminAsgara
Administrator (Idle past 2323 days)
Posts: 2073
From: The Universe
Joined: 10-11-2003


Message 69 of 300 (246834)
09-27-2005 10:14 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by bkelly
09-27-2005 10:10 PM


signature problem
We have no formal feedback setup. If you post the problem it generally can get handled faster. Email is an option that can take longer.
As to your signature problem. You need to check or not check the "Show Signature" box below the textbox in the reply window for each post.

AdminAsgara Queen of the Universe

http://asgarasworld.bravepages.com http://perditionsgate.bravepages.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by bkelly, posted 09-27-2005 10:10 PM bkelly has not replied

bkelly
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 300 (246835)
09-27-2005 10:15 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by jar
09-27-2005 10:03 PM


Re: Really silly question
quote:
Only by pointing out that there is no logic or reason to the question.
So you don't like the question, but you don't have an answer and you really cannot say why.
That, and I hate to use the cliche but it fits so well, is the wrong answer.
If you cannot do better than that, you really should not have posted.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by jar, posted 09-27-2005 10:03 PM jar has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6409
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 71 of 300 (246836)
09-27-2005 10:17 PM
Reply to: Message 66 by bkelly
09-27-2005 9:57 PM


Re: Really silly question
Do you believe in god?
Yes.
Why?
Because I was taught that I should.
Can you support that position?
No. But I believe anyway.
Why?
Religious Faith.
Is that logical?
No, but I believe anyway.
I'm not sure why you have a problem with that. It is consistent and honest. I can respect someone with those beliefs.
If everyone thought and believed exactly as I do, then this would be a pretty boring world. Cheers for diversity.
The core question: Is religious faith good or bad?
The answer: Religious faith is evil. It is the greatest cause of harm this world has ever known.
I'm inclined to think you are jumping to conclusions.
My conclusion would be:
Evil people are evil. Evil people who are religious will use their religion as a force for evil.
But it still remains a fact that there are some very decent people who are religious.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by bkelly, posted 09-27-2005 9:57 PM bkelly has not replied

david12
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 300 (246864)
09-28-2005 2:01 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by bkelly
09-19-2005 7:56 PM


My interest in the case of evolution vs creation has been sparked by the
upcoming trial. Ive taken the argument of
creation, and I had a few questions i wondered if you could answer. Before
I start I wanted to make one thing clear. I am arguing for creation, not
for any religion in particular. I just want to put to test the creation by
God, or the evolving of everything we see today. Also, I am not taking the
position that the world was created in 7 actual days.
1. Where is the "actual" fossil evidence of creatures in-between species?
Microevolution is accepted among both creation and evolution. I am not
asking for differences on lets say, a horse, that has a different number of
toes. A horse with one toe and a horse with two are both horses. Where is
the evidence that there can be any evolution from one species to another?
2. If we are talking science, which most evolution based men do, how do you
justify evolution when the Law of Entropy and the Law of the conservation of
matter have been scientifically proven?
The law of entropy states "The second law of thermodynamics states that in
any isolated system, the degree of disorder can only increase. Our universe
is an isolated system, so the degree of disorder is always increasing. How
is this possible?"(http://me.essortment.com/entropylawssc_recn.htm) If this
is true, which science says it is, how can a random assortment of "stuff" or
"soup" turn into an ordered society like ours today? Furthermore, the law
of the conservation of matter states "The total quantity of matter and
energy available in the universe is a fixed amount and never any more or
less"shortened link
If this is true, how would a chemical reaction occur between some elements
to produce cells, who somehow multiplied?
3. How did the first components that "created the first cells" get there?
Lets just say that it was scientifically sound to say that certain gases and
other materials when present together can react(I am not very educated on
the effects of such a thing). How did those gases, and those materials get
there? By combinations of other gases and things? Well then how did they
get there?
4. The evolution of the eye.
Every component in the eye needs to be present and alligned for it to work.
If they eye is evolving(a fishes eye is different than ours) then how come
everything isnt blind?
5. (this is just a point if you want to contradict it you may) Everything
in the world has a creator. Look around. The computer im looking at was
put together in a factory somewhere, and the pieces to make it were formed
by a creator as well. Is it not feasable to conclude that the earth and its
inhabitants have a creator too?
6. How do you explain the emotions, passions, love of human beings?
You may say because it is an evolving tool that helps us be the fittest.
There is a sense of justice amongst human beings. One such emotion, that I
do not see has a "natural selection" value is love.
I am not here to say "you know what, I am right, and you are wrong." All I
want is answers. One thing I would like you to think about though, is this.
When you get off the computer, look into your wife's eyes. Look at your
mother. Pick up your child. Can you look into their eyes and tell me that
they were just some mistake? That the people that you hold dear to you are
just random assortments of chance and stuff and it is just from apes to man
that they are who they are? Can you think of a loved one who you has passed
away and say "Well, they are dead. And because They were just some random
combination of stuff, I will never see them again because they are gone
forever?"
This message has been edited by AdminJar, 09-28-2005 09:18 AM

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 73 by Nuggin, posted 09-28-2005 3:24 AM david12 has replied
 Message 78 by bkelly, posted 09-28-2005 6:25 PM david12 has not replied

Nuggin
Member (Idle past 2514 days)
Posts: 2965
From: Los Angeles, CA USA
Joined: 08-09-2005


Message 73 of 300 (246867)
09-28-2005 3:24 AM
Reply to: Message 72 by david12
09-28-2005 2:01 AM


Welcome David12
Welcome to the boards.
You raise a lot of questions which have been raised elsewhere on the boards several times (and will be raised again several more).
You may be able to find the answers to all your questions by simply looking a little deeper. However, I for one know how daunting that task is. The boards are pretty expansive and it's often hard to find what you're looking for.
I'll try to point you in the right directions.
I am arguing for creation, not for any religion in particular. I just want to put to test the creation by God, or the evolving of everything we see today. Also, I am not taking the position that the world was created in 7 actual days.
We call this possition - Old Earth Creationist
1. Where is the "actual" fossil evidence of creatures in-between species?
Here's the most recent thread about Macro/Micro
EvC Forum: When micro = macro ...
how do you justify evolution when the Law of Entropy and the Law of the conservation of matter have been scientifically proven?
These laws deal with closed systems. The earth is not a closed system. Sunlight beams down on earth 24/7/365. That energy into the system. There can be no entropy in a system which experiences constant input of energy. Likewise, conservation of matter.
3. How did the first components that "created the first cells" get there?
This topic is abiogenisis - life from not life. It's an interesting topic, but it's not really important to Theory of Evolution. Evolution takes over once life exists. How life got there, not important to the Theory.
4. The evolution of the eye.
This is the Irreducably Complex argument. "How can something have evolved if the pieces need to work together?"
The problem is that this argument doesn't fit the eye. Flatworms have eyes which are simply light sensitive cells, no lens, no pupil, no orb, etc. Many many creatures have eyes less suitable than our own, many many have eyes better than our own. The eye as an organ varies greatly. Not all the components are needed for an eye to work. The eye is not irreducably complex.
Is it not feasable to conclude that the earth and its
inhabitants have a creator too?
Your computer has a creator, but that doesn't mean that the rock in your garden has one. You may believe that the rock was created by God, but it can not be deduced from looking at the creations of man.
One such emotion, that I do not see has a "natural selection" value is love.
There is one goal of Evolution which is more important than any other - Produce Offspring. Everything else is secondary.
"Love" as a human emotion is very much a part of natural selection.
Can you look into their eyes and tell me that they were just some mistake? That the people that you hold dear to you are just random assortments of chance and stuff and it is just from apes to man that they are who they are?
There's no reason to see evolution as a mistake. It's not logically inconsistant to believe in God and ToE or even that God set up the rules that govern ToE. You could further draw from that that God set up the rules that govern ToE with the supreme knowledge that it would all eventually lead to you, your wife, your child, etc.
God's existance isn't really a "scientific" question. Science can't answer it, therefore science doesn't try.
What science can do is look at the data and describe the rules. And, what the data describes is Evolution through natural selection.
Hope that helps you get the wheels turning, and welcome aboard.
(by use "Peek Mode" to see how people do quote boxes)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 72 by david12, posted 09-28-2005 2:01 AM david12 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by david12, posted 09-28-2005 10:28 PM Nuggin has replied

New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 300 (246998)
09-28-2005 3:02 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by bkelly
09-27-2005 9:39 PM


Re: Do you believe in ID?
I see evidence that we are arguing points where neither of us, (well at least me) are certain of the other person's position. My interpertation of some of your posts leads me to contradictory conclusions.
You have misunderstood me and misquoted me and added false implications.
You definately are not certain of my position and I have been straighforward and honest and have not contradicted myself.
This says you believe in god. But you give no reason, no justification.
I do believe in god but not because I was told to or because I was taught that way. My reasons are too long to type right now and it is off topic anyways.
But you state that your belief is not logical.
Of course the belief in god is illogical. Can you think of a logical reason to believe in god?
Let me see if I understand: You believe in god, you know it is illogical, you believe because someone told you to, and you seem to think this is good.
You don't understand. I don't believe because someone told me and I never said anything about what is good.
This implies that you believe that religious faith is a good thing.
I've said that faith can be good but it can't all be good.
Well, yes you did say religious faith is good, implicitly, but clearly.
I'm sorry you misunderstood me. I never typed "religious faith is good". You seem to think I implied it but that was not my intention.
From this point I claimed that religious faith is not good, and is indeed quite bad.
You supported your belief in god by faith. This means that you think faith in god is good.
Sure, faith in god can be good.
And now I have presented a very tiny faction of history that shows faith in god is evil.
You've shown that faith can be evil. This doesn't show that all faith is evil.
Pointing out where evil is commited in faith is very easy to do.
So, do you support ID or not?
I think the philosophy is just ok, not my cup of tea, but it is ok. They are certainly putting in a lot of effort. I know it isn't scientific and I don't think it should be taught as science. Baically, its just another religion, except they purposfully keep the designer ambiguous so it doesn't look like a religion.
Creationism and ID are thinly disguised efforts to bring religion into government, for example, public school.
This is the ID Movement part and I do NOT support this.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by bkelly, posted 09-27-2005 9:39 PM bkelly has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by nwr, posted 09-28-2005 3:29 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied
 Message 77 by bkelly, posted 09-28-2005 5:55 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6409
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 75 of 300 (247008)
09-28-2005 3:29 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by New Cat's Eye
09-28-2005 3:02 PM


Re: Do you believe in ID?
Of course the belief in god is illogical. Can you think of a logical reason to believe in god?
I think you would do better to say that it is alogical (outside of logic), instead of illogical (contrary to logic).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-28-2005 3:02 PM New Cat's Eye 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