|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is my rock designed? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Admin Director Posts: 13014 From: EvC Forum Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
Hi IamJoseph,
Please stop posting to this thread. Thanks.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Each time I made a post it would seem that I would also attract "a lot of people" to my conversations. So, Whats wrong with asking to have a conversation with one person? SavageD, I am also a creationist/IDst. The best way I have found to respond to the numerous responses in various posts, is simply extract out of each one what is important and worthy of attention If you see the same arguments you have already addressed in a previous post, reproduce that reference or simply remind them it has been addressed It is also helpful to remind them of what they have failed to address, which happens quite often. Stick with it and dont get frustrated. The usual MO of these fellas is to berate, belittle and pretend they have addressed all the issues at hand. Ignore those tactics and press forward
Regardless, I see no point in revealing why "something" could be the product of an intelligent agent...It would only fall on deaf ears. However did you notice the place up top where it points out how many visitors are on the site. Your words may not be falling on deaf ears Keep going, dont give up Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
DB writes: Great!
I am also a creationist/IDst. DB writes: And answering the OP would definitely be important and worthy of attention!
The best way I have found to respond to the numerous responses in various posts, is simply extract out of each one what is important and worthy of attention BVZ writes: Have at it! I have found a rock. Nothing special about it. Its just a rock. As far as I know anyway, I am no geologist. Anyway, I want to figure out if this rock was designed or not. How can I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1275 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
He doesn't need to here, Panda. He's already addressed this many times in other threads.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
subbie writes:
But surely he would want the kudos of answering the question that no-one else has successfully answered in this thread? He doesn't need to here, Panda. He's already addressed this many times in other threads.Well, we'll see... If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Panda quoting the OP says writes: I have found a rock. Nothing special about it. Its just a rock. As far as I know anyway, I am no geologist. Anyway, I want to figure out if this rock was designed or not. How can I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not? IMHO that isn't the right question to ask. The question should be either: 1/ is the process that allowed this rock to form designed or not or, 2/ more philosophically, is the process that allowed me to develop so that I perceive the rock in that form designed or not. I have no problem with ID when it is a philosophical understanding of first cause, but I do have a problem when it is used as an argument against science.Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
GDR writes: But ID proponents claim to be able to identify if something is designed or not. IMHO that isn't the right question to ask.Therefore asking them to describe how they identify if something is designed seems to be a fair request. The OP made it reasonably clear in his posts: he is not after the answer 'Yes' or 'No' - he (and I) want to know 'How'. GDR writes: If we know how IDists identify if a rock is designed, then surely we can then apply the same technique to answer your questions. 1/ is the process that allowed this rock to form designed or not or,2/ more philosophically, is the process that allowed me to develop so that I perceive the rock in that form designed or not. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Panda writes: If we know how IDists identify if a rock is designed, then surely we can then apply the same technique to answer your questions. Don't we know how a rock is formed? We know what the contituent parts are, how they combine etc. How then do we apply that technigue to understand why anything that we perceive exists? I think that something you're getting at here has gone over my head. (It's crowded up there. )Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 326 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Don't we know how a rock is formed? Yea well we also know how humans evolved, and just about how everything else got to be on this planet and we still find people claiming slilly things like 6000 years ago the world got created by a magic man who made everything there is back then Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 822 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I have no problem with ID when it is a philosophical understanding of first cause, but I do have a problem when it is used as an argument against science. Then the ID you don't have a problem with is a strawman because it's never been philosophical anything, it's ALWAYS been an attack on science. ID (as purported by CID Propontists) is allegedly a substitution for biological evolution, so we need not ask any philosophical questions since biological evolution doesn't address any either. Many many many threads (I've OP'd one myself) have been started asking for ways to test for design. Not a single CID Propontist has EVER provided a working study. Let's get a working physical test before we wander into the mess that is philosophy."Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
He doesn't need to here, Panda. He's already addressed this many times in other threads. Are you joking? I can't tell.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
GDR writes: Yes. But that does not tell us how to identify if it was designed. Don't we know how a rock is formed?The OP (and I) simply want to know how IDists identify if something is designed or not. The example of a rock is meant to be an uncomplicated test subject. GDR writes: Yes. But that doesn't tell us if the rock was designed. We know what the contituent parts are, how they combine etc.And rocks can be created on purpose by humans using the same processes as nature uses, so knowing the process still doesn't answer the question "How can I use ID theory to figure out if my rock is designed or not?". GDR writes: If an IDist would post that technique then maybe I could answer your question. How then do we apply that technigue to understand why anything that we perceive exists?But currently, I do not know what their technique is and therefore cannot suggest how it could be used. GDR writes: It is just as likely that my explanation is lacking in clarity. I think that something you're getting at here has gone over my head. (It's crowded up there. ) ID theory claims to be able to identify if something is designed.The OP is simply asking for a description of how it would work, in practice, on a rock. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.1 |
Panda writes: ID theory claims to be able to identify if something is designed.The OP is simply asking for a description of how it would work, in practice, on a rock. I posted on this thread simply because I have a problem with the term "Intelligent Design". Whe I first heard the term I assumed it would be something that I would adhere to. The I find out it is really a termed coined to try and achieve a political end, and the term has been twisted into meaning somethig that is different than the one would logically assume. My view is that evolution has the appearance of ID, and you would logically think that there is no reason for them to be mutually exclusive. It seems though that the political movement believes that ID argues against evolution and so once again a pefectly useful term is corrupted. (The same can be said for the term creationism. )Everybody is entitled to my opinion.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3733 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
GDR writes: When Intelligent Design is capitalised it is then just part of the political machinations of biblical literalists.
I posted on this thread simply because I have a problem with the term "Intelligent Design". Whe I first heard the term I assumed it would be something that I would adhere to. The I find out it is really a termed coined to try and achieve a political end, and the term has been twisted into meaning somethig that is different than the one would logically assume. GDR writes: Many (most?) christians are happy to accept that evolution happens and that it was 'started' by god. My view is that evolution has the appearance of ID, and you would logically think that there is no reason for them to be mutually exclusive.But that would be 'intelligent design' and not 'Intelligent Design'. If I were you And I wish that I were you All the things I'd do To make myself turn blue
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dawn Bertot Member (Idle past 103 days) Posts: 3571 Joined: |
Then the ID you don't have a problem with is a strawman because it's never been philosophical anything, it's ALWAYS been an attack on science. Not a single CID Propontist has EVER provided a working study. Let's get a working physical test before we wander into the mess that is philosophy. Only the sheerist stupidy would make and involve themselves with such idiodic comments as those I have quoted above Philosophy, real philosophy, is both reality and logic based. All "working physical test" begin and end with a logic and philosophical approach it still hasnt Dawned on any of you fellas that ID and Creationism dont begin with the relative design involved in any living thing. It begins with the a logical proposition, that states because things work in an orderly fashion, in coherent harmony with its parts, to a verifiable purpose, design is a very real probability This is all the argument from desing needs to make it VALID. It doent need to produce a designer, it doesnt need A TRADEMARK on it. Its not necessary to PROVE design is true, for it to be compltely valid as an explanation, the likes of which are irrefutable. Now that I have established what it is, let the person that believes he can refute this proposition step up to the plate and do so As I go to Yahoo and watch and read the numerous, so called fallicies of creation and ID, I weary for one skeptic to actually present what the argument from design is actually Not understanding what is involved in ID or Design, goes a long away in misunderstanding and misrepresenting the whole position to begin with Dawn Bertot Edited by Dawn Bertot, : No reason given.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024