Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 107 (8806 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 12-18-2017 5:42 AM
324 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Tangle (3 members, 321 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: jaufre
Post Volume:
Total: 824,537 Year: 29,143/21,208 Month: 1,209/1,847 Week: 132/452 Day: 6/126 Hour: 0/1

Announcements: Reporting debate problems OR discussing moderation actions/inactions


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Author Topic:   Why would an intelligent designer design these?
mark24
Member (Idle past 2812 days)
Posts: 3857
From: UK
Joined: 12-01-2001


Message 46 of 108 (214945)
06-07-2005 9:02 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Eledhan
06-07-2005 8:54 AM


Re: Bizarre logic.
Eledhan,

I must have hit a nerve, but oh well. My only point in this whole thing is, there is a leap of faith on both sides, and no matter how you slice it, you are never going to be able to convince me that it doesn't take faith to believe in evolution

Now there speaks an open mind!

Evolution requires as much "faith" to accept as any other scientific theory. A valid scientific theory requires a proposition that makes predictions that are borne out as data/evidence. Evolution fits the bill via a wealth of interdisciplinary correlation, creationism doesn't, period.

Creationism requires religious faith, evolution "requires" an acceptance based on a wealth of evidence.

Mark


There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Eledhan, posted 06-07-2005 8:54 AM Eledhan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by inkorrekt, posted 03-02-2006 8:50 PM mark24 has responded

    
Parasomnium
Member (Idle past 314 days)
Posts: 2191
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 47 of 108 (214962)
06-07-2005 9:38 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Eledhan
06-07-2005 8:54 AM


Re: Bizarre logic.
Eledhan,

I was just sort of joking with my rant. You didn't trigger it, I had it ready for a couple of weeks and this just seemed the right place to post it. I am not offended by you, as you shouldn't feel offended by anything I write. It's never personal, OK?

Eledhan writes:

Along those same lines, you would have to get rid of the United States

I must say it's tempting, but there are still some atheists in the US, so maybe we'll have to wait until they've all jumped ship. (Only joking, OK?)

Eledhan writes:

This very country, assuming you live in the U.S., was founded by Christian "religious" people.

Well, lucky me: I live in Europe. And I think you'll find that your "Founding Fathers" had some bones to pick with the Christians of their day.

Eledhan writes:

some of the most powerful people in the world are "religious"

All the more worrying, I'd say. The world is in a sorry state indeed. Where is an educated leader if you need one?

Eledhan writes:

You on the other hand, are not willing to admit that your belief is not 100% provable

How do you come to that conclusion? Nothing I said would indicate that. Quote me please.

Eledhan writes:

What happened in a creature's body 2 BILLION YEARS AGO is not science, but speculation.

If that is true, then forensics is also speculation, which means that some states in your country are willing to put people to death based on speculation. Speaking of food for thought...


We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Eledhan, posted 06-07-2005 8:54 AM Eledhan has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 48 of 108 (214976)
06-07-2005 10:23 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Eledhan
06-07-2005 8:54 AM


Re: Bizarre logic.
quote:
Along those same lines, you would have to get rid of the United States, as well as alot of those things that you say religious people would have to get along without; because alot of those things were developed by religious people.

Let's say that the people who performed the first heart bypass operation were devout Christians.

Did it happen that they came home after their adult literacy and GED preparation classes and prayed to God to instantly make them gifted cardiac surgeons the next day, and it happened that way?

The point that you are missing is not that religious people do not successfully operate within the constraints of scientific inquiry, but that the very same people who deny science benefit from it regardless of their denial.

quote:
This very country, assuming you live in the U.S., was founded by Christian "religious" people.

Actually, most of them were not Christians, but Deists. They believed in a Creator, but not the Christian god.

Besides, what does this have to do with science deniers benefitting from that which they deny?

quote:
So, next time you want to attempt to slander "religious people", think again; because some of the most powerful people in the world are "religious"

So? Should I be afraid of another Crusade or a witch burning or something?

The truth is that people who deny evolution benefit from the application of evolutionary theory in many, many aspects of medicine, horticulture, animal husbandry, etc.

For example, do you get vaccinations?

The only reason they work is because we understand evolutionary theory.

quote:
My only point in this whole thing is, there is a leap of faith on both sides, and no matter how you slice it, you are never going to be able to convince me that it doesn't take faith to believe in evolution,

Well, then why bring it up if you believe this dogmatically?

I could explain to you how this isn't true, but you clearly are not interested.

quote:
or whatever it is you want to call the whole atheistic worldview;

So, are physicists and Geneticists and eologists and Virologists and Bacteriologists ALL athieistic, too?

quote:
just as I will never convince you that it doesn't take faith to believe in God.

Huh? I thought that having faith, the "belief in things unseen", was the whole point.

quote:
However, I am ready, willing, and able to admit that my belief is a religion; and that you don't have to believe it if you don't want to. You on the other hand, are not willing to admit that your belief is not 100% provable,

Huh? Of course science isn't 100% provable.

Nobody ever said it was.

quote:
and therefore, you think you can force it on every other person in the world in the name of SCIENCE.

Nobody is forcing you to receive medical treatment like vaccines or antibiotics, use electricity or your computer.

You can reject all science-based technology if you like.

quote:
What happened in a creature's body 2 BILLION YEARS AGO is not science, but speculation.

Nobody has ever directly observed an electron.

Do you deny the existence of electrons?

quote:
I can come up with any theory I want about how the sexes were developed, and as long as I use a scientific community, or a well known scientist to advance my ideas; and everybody will say, "oh, that's not speculation, that's science.

Are you seriously saying that all scientists are just advancing silly, unfounded ideas that have no basis in evidence?

Then you had better never, ever get any medical treatment from any doctor or hospital ever again. It's too risky, considering that the science behind the treatments is clearly all silly and unfounded and based upon only speculation.

quote:
And the way we know that this is the best theory as of today is becuase if it weren't, then other scientists would disagree."

Do you actually know any scientists?

Do you have any idea of how contentious science is?

quote:
Well, the fact of the matter is, hundreds of well-respected scientists, who were avid supporters of evolution, as well as atheists; have begun to question many different teachings that originated with the evolutionary theory.

How many of them have degrees in the Biological sciences?

How many of them publish their ideas in the peer-reviewed scientific literature?

quote:
They have begun to raise questions about how these things could possibly come about by chance.

Huh?

You mean chance plus selection, right?

Evolution does not proceed solely by chance.

quote:
However, as soon as they speak up, they immediately get branded as "religious" for trying to destroy science because they don't agree with the way that the scientists are using the information to support evolution.

Well, all they have to do is do quality research to show that their theory is a more correct explanation of the evidence.

Can you cite some research?

quote:
I just have to wonder what it is that makes evolutionists get so antsy as soon as someone brings up ID. Are evolutionists really so willing to listen to the flaws in their own theory as they say?

Such as...?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Eledhan, posted 06-07-2005 8:54 AM Eledhan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by MangyTiger, posted 06-07-2005 8:04 PM nator has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3437 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 49 of 108 (214987)
06-07-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Eledhan
06-07-2005 8:54 AM


Re: Bizarre logic.
This very country, assuming you live in the U.S., was founded by Christian "religious" people.

They were deists which were a form of Xian religious belief directly opposed to evangelical Xianity. Some openly professed hatred of the kind of Xianity you espouse, and at the same time championed reason an scientific investigation using the methods you deride.

My only point in this whole thing is, there is a leap of faith on both sides, and no matter how you slice it, you are never going to be able to convince me that it doesn't take faith to believe in evolution

Do I take it then you are doing exactly what I said had been done before? I guess so as you have now skipped both my posts #36 and 41 to you.

or whatever it is you want to call the whole atheistic worldview

What does evolutionary theory have to do with atheism? Religious people can agree with evolutionary theory. Atheists may be glad that that is the reigning scientific theory as it does not undercut any of their beliefs, but unless you have a strict literal biblical view of speciation it doesn't undercut any of yours either.

You on the other hand, are not willing to admit that your belief is not 100% provable

I think most scientists and people that follow science readily admit their beliefe is not 100% provable. Where have you heard otherwise?

I can come up with any theory I want about how the sexes were developed, and as long as I use a scientific community, or a well known scientist to advance my ideas;

That is pure BS. Clearly you can think of theories that would not be accepted even if you had Einstein backing you up. Science is not based on names, it is based on accepted working models. Its those last two criteria that are likely to foil your plans.

Well, the fact of the matter is, hundreds of well-respected scientists, who were avid supporters of evolution, as well as atheists; have begun to question many different teachings that originated with the evolutionary theory. They have begun to raise questions about how these things could possibly come about by chance. However, as soon as they speak up, they immediately get branded as "religious"

This is in direct conflict with your previous statement that you could come up with any theory and as long as you had a scientist behind it people would accept it.

I just have to wonder what it is that makes evolutionists get so antsy as soon as someone brings up ID.

They get antsy waiting for all of the supposed evidence which is supposed to support it. Where is it? Do you know?

I am simply trying to say that the evolutionary theory is not perfect, but neither is my own theory.

The difference is evolutionary theory contains a model and it works. "God did it" or "It couldn't've been chance" are not models and do not help scientists work on understanding phenomena.

I don't really have a lot of time during the day to argue these things, so I will only answer the things I can answer the best.

Does this mean you are running out? You said you had plenty of evidence and still have not finished your first point yet.

because you could feel Him when you read that post.

I only feel the inkling of deities or "spirituality" when reading buddhist or ancient pagan texts. The only feeling I get with religious proselytization is the deja vu of boredom from ignorant ranting. But hey that's me.


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Eledhan, posted 06-07-2005 8:54 AM Eledhan has not yet responded

    
mikehager
Member (Idle past 4084 days)
Posts: 534
Joined: 09-02-2004


Message 50 of 108 (215126)
06-07-2005 6:50 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Eledhan
06-07-2005 8:54 AM


Re: Bizarre logic.
Let me begin by saying welcome. Now, the gloves come off.

You have effectively voiced the two common claims of theists that annoy me the most. First, you say.

I do know that God exists because I have experienced Him,

That's nice for you. Unless you can provide some real evidence for your opinion, it is of no value in determining facts about the nature of the world.

I know you at least have an inkling that He exists, because you could feel Him when you read that post.

This is the height of arrogance. You don't and can't know the contact of my mind. I am the only source of such information and let me tell you, I have no "inkling" of the existence of a deity. I could not feel any spectral presence while reading your post, as you imply.

Don't try to tell me what I am thinking. Not everyone thinks the way you do and it is wrong and arrogant to claim that I (or anyone else) does.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Eledhan, posted 06-07-2005 8:54 AM Eledhan has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 108 (215131)
06-07-2005 7:02 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Eledhan
06-07-2005 8:54 AM


So, next time you want to attempt to slander "religious people", think again; because some of the most powerful people in the world are "religious"

sigh... more threats from the Christers.

Well, that's the life of the atheist.

And why is it that we can't say that evolution has numerous flaws without bringing another theory that has to be better?

I dunno. Why don't you talk to any expert in any field and start telling him all about the flaws in how he does things, without offering any solutions or better plans, and see how friendly he is?

You may call them "flaws"; the word that would be more precise is "frontiers." Why would you expect evolution to be flawless? What would biologists do if that were the case? Or did you not notice that biologists were still very hard at work indeed, trying to derive a better understanding of the natural world?

One "flaw" in medicine is that we don't have a cure for cancer. The solution to that isn't that we tear down all the hospitals; the solution is that we build more schools. Similarly, the areas where evolution seems weak, or where explanitory models seem lacking shouldn't prompt us to abandon reason and science altogether; rather, these are the areas where the work needs to be done.

I am simply trying to say that the evolutionary theory is not perfect, but neither is my own theory.

Of course evolution isn't perfect; that's why biologists still have jobs. But it is better than your theory. I've already pointed out what evolution does that your own theory does not.

Ah, but I see how it works on your planet. Because we don't know everything, we know nothing; and because we know nothing who's to care if we substitute dogma for reason?

How very mature. How does anything get done where you live?

I was simply trying to make a point that I do know that God exists because I have experienced Him, and that I know you at least have an inkling that He exists, because you could feel Him when you read that post.

It must absolutely drive you nuts that people, like myself, exist who absolutely experience none of the feeling you're talking about.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Eledhan, posted 06-07-2005 8:54 AM Eledhan has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Silent H, posted 06-08-2005 5:19 AM crashfrog has responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 3971 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 52 of 108 (215153)
06-07-2005 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by nator
06-07-2005 10:23 AM


Re: Bizarre logic.
For example, do you get vaccinations?

The only reason they work is because we understand evolutionary theory.

Is this really true? I may be wrong but I thought modern vaccine development was based on understanding of how our immune system responds to 'alien' substances such as viruses, bacteria and the plasmodium parasite.

Jenner's first trial vaccination against smallpox was over sixty years before Origin of Species was first published, so clearly the initial work wasn't based on Evolutionary theory (and Pasteur's work was more or less coincident with publication so I doubt that was either).


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by nator, posted 06-07-2005 10:23 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 06-08-2005 2:32 PM MangyTiger has responded

    
Silent H
Member (Idle past 3437 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 53 of 108 (215263)
06-08-2005 5:19 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by crashfrog
06-07-2005 7:02 PM


You may call them "flaws"; the word that would be more precise is "frontiers."

I believe you wrote something else like this before... I know someone did. Did you come up with this yourself? If not, where did you read/hear of it before?

While obviously there are "flaws" which can ultimately damage and destroy a theory... and so they are not always a "frontier"... I think you have accurately pinpointed one of the most horrific mistakes that creationists (or other antiscientists) have been making, especially with respect to evolutionary theory.

I intend to carry that little flag around with me when I charge into arguments, and I'd like to know who to credit with its construction.

...where explanitory models seem lacking shouldn't prompt us to abandon reason and science altogether; rather, these are the areas where the work needs to be done... Ah, but I see how it works on your planet. Because we don't know everything, we know nothing; and because we know nothing who's to care if we substitute dogma for reason?

This is also a very apt critique which would only be strengthened by laying off the sarcasm (i.e. the "planet" remark).

I think this matches nicely with the error ID makes in rushing to judgement: There are problems with evo and so there must be a wholly alternative theory, here is the basis for an alternative theory so it must be one, since we can find some evidence if we assume the basis is correct it must be evidence that the alternative theory is viable, and since the alternative theory is viable and requires an intelligence creating designs we can now discuss those designs!

It really feels like the difference between scientists and creationists is patience as well as reason. Invariably they let one get ahold of the other.

In any case, I thought your post was dead on.

This message has been edited by holmes, 06-08-2005 05:19 AM


holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by crashfrog, posted 06-07-2005 7:02 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by crashfrog, posted 06-08-2005 7:40 AM Silent H has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 108 (215282)
06-08-2005 7:40 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Silent H
06-08-2005 5:19 AM


I believe you wrote something else like this before... I know someone did. Did you come up with this yourself?

As far as I know. Feel free to bandy it about with no attribution.

I think this matches nicely with the error ID makes in rushing to judgement:

Indeed. And of course they rush to judgement - this isn't just science for them, it's a battle for the souls of mankind. Apparantly they don't feel they have the luxury of allowing knowledge to develop at its own pace.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Silent H, posted 06-08-2005 5:19 AM Silent H has not yet responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 2260 days)
Posts: 12961
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 55 of 108 (215366)
06-08-2005 2:32 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by MangyTiger
06-07-2005 8:04 PM


Re: Bizarre logic.
The only reason they work is because we understand evolutionary theory.

quote:
Is this really true? I may be wrong but I thought modern vaccine development was based on understanding of how our immune system responds to 'alien' substances such as viruses, bacteria and the plasmodium parasite.

Jenner's first trial vaccination against smallpox was over sixty years before Origin of Species was first published, so clearly the initial work wasn't based on Evolutionary theory (and Pasteur's work was more or less coincident with publication so I doubt that was either).


Yeah, I reread that sentence and realized it was REALLY poorly-worded, sorry. It's bad to be in a hurry.

The bit about vaccines should have been expanded to include something about new vaccines being developed every year to protect us from the new mutated strains of, say, influenza.

An even better example would have been antibiotic resistance rather than vaccines.

Thanks for catching that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by MangyTiger, posted 06-07-2005 8:04 PM MangyTiger has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by MangyTiger, posted 06-08-2005 6:12 PM nator has not yet responded

    
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 3971 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 56 of 108 (215423)
06-08-2005 6:12 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by nator
06-08-2005 2:32 PM


Re: Bizarre logic.
Ah - now I understand what you were getting at :)

Actually if I'd had my mind a bit more in gear I'd have probably worked it out - it isn't like this point hasn't been made before here.


Oops! Wrong Planet
This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nator, posted 06-08-2005 2:32 PM nator has not yet responded

    
Kraniet
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 108 (215673)
06-09-2005 3:13 PM


what is an "intelligent designer"? If we are talking about God then we really cant use a term like "intelligent" since it is relative to us. Our intelligence as we know it is ultimately dependant on our reality. That means that if the world where to have other properties (like other laws etc) or if our bodies had a different form we would not have the same thinking/mind/intelligence ( a better word would be consciousness).
So the question is hard to answer. But an plausible answer would be yes. If we had the "controls" for evolution and were smart enough we would probably have gone trough the same develpoment. The comparison to plane models is a nice one and describes how we humans work and how Evolutionary algorithms are used in AI research. Given certain problems and circumstances we tend to work in that way using Occams Razor as an principle. Also since the world seem to have "accidents" the work sometimes "hops" to a completely new state.
At the same time the answer to the question is no. God would probably not design a thing like that since he dont/cant have the same kind of consciousness adn intelligence as we do.

In any case i still hold it plausible that there is some kind of entity that has created the universe but in that case he is akin to be the god of Plato, "the unmovable mover" that started the universe and after that only can watch (never intervene). Kind of like AI science today where we can create advanced networks that we dont know how they work or by what rules. We can only watch the end result or terminate it (hopefully.. in Terminator mankind could not ;) )

By the same resoning there couldnt be a understandable after world since our "spirit" or "ghost" is incorporeal and thus could never have the same consciousness and thus the same intelligence.
Not saying that god or spirits could be more intelligent. Its just that they would be intelligent in the way we know it.
In light of this there could really exist other "beings" that where conscious in ways we cant understand and therefore doesnt know of. A rock could be more "intelligent" than we are for all means.

PS
as a side remark i can say that "intelligence" is a bad word for describing the mental state that we mean by the use of the word. A bacteria culture can be said to have an intelligent behavior but i dont really think they have a mental state. Perhaps "intelligence" is an inherent "state" or "attribute" in the universe and we all(viruses, bacteria, animals, plants, man etc) are different expressions of that.
Or like one of the species in Babylon 5 explains it; "We are the Universe's way of figuring out itself" :)
DS

PS2
As i see it atheism is a equally strange standpoint as devout beliving. Since neither can be sure that there arent/are a God existing. ;)
DS2


Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2005 5:32 PM Kraniet has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 108 (215710)
06-09-2005 5:32 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Kraniet
06-09-2005 3:13 PM


Since neither can be sure that there arent/are a God existing.

Atheism isn't the position where one is certain that there is no God. Atheism is the position that one is sure that there's no known evidence for God.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Kraniet, posted 06-09-2005 3:13 PM Kraniet has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Kraniet, posted 06-09-2005 6:25 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Kraniet
Inactive Member


Message 59 of 108 (215716)
06-09-2005 6:25 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by crashfrog
06-09-2005 5:32 PM


yes thank you I was wondering about that. But let me in that case say there are different definitions of ateism where one is something similar what youre talking of while the other is not believing in any God(s) at all. From the defintion i found you get "Weak" and "Strong" Ateism where the first says
X dont belive in God
and the other that
X dont belive in the existence of God

But that really dont make that much more sense. The second one we can rule out since its just stupid to say something like that. But the "weak ateism" is kinda strange also. How can you say that you dont belive in God (but in his existence if there is one) and not at the same time claim that he do exist? Couse arent what youre saying something like "God exists but i dont belive in him" and in that case that wouldnt be very rational would it?
No I would like to call my self an agnostic. But since this seems to be more extreme in the way that its saying that there is no way of knowing and therefore no point in wondering its a bit weird to use also. I mean there isnt any way we can know that we cant have knowledge of God(s).
Finally we have something called "agnosti-ateism" (translated from Swedish so I dont what the exact english term is) that is a combination of the weak atheism and agnostcism. Saying that i dont belive in God but if there were evidence of his existence so be it. It leaves room for thinking that there might be a god without condradicting ones beliefs wheter or not he exists. I simply dont have any proof that he does exist so i cant say if he does or do not exist.

but this is all a big side-step from the topic. :D


This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by crashfrog, posted 06-09-2005 5:32 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
Nyogtha
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 108 (215744)
06-09-2005 8:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Eledhan
06-07-2005 8:54 AM


Re: Bizarre logic.
quote:

This very country, assuming you live in the U.S., was founded by Christian "religious" people.

This part was already commented by others, but I think this url might be a good read:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

quote:
... or whatever it is you want to call the whole atheistic worldview; ....

Evolution is about the change in the genetic composition of a population over generations.

Atheism means disbelief or denial of god(s).

Heh, so these two aren't really the same thing. Being an evolutionist doesn't rule out being a buddhist, jewish or even a christian etc.

Sorry if my definitions are a bit lacking, others can and should correct me.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Eledhan, posted 06-07-2005 8:54 AM Eledhan has not yet responded

  
Prev123
4
5678Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2017