Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 76 (8908 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-22-2019 1:28 AM
22 online now:
PaulK (1 member, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WeloTemo
Post Volume:
Total: 851,782 Year: 6,819/19,786 Month: 1,360/1,581 Week: 182/393 Day: 5/110 Hour: 0/5


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
45Next
Author Topic:   What does ID theory say?
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 31 of 67 (488652)
11-14-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 30 by Syamsu
11-14-2008 10:21 AM


Syamsu
Please do not post in this thread again.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 30 by Syamsu, posted 11-14-2008 10:21 AM Syamsu has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1185 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 32 of 67 (488672)
11-14-2008 6:32 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by subbie
11-13-2008 6:34 PM


Re: Design theory
This statement illustrates quite nicely that you don't understand what "science" means. Science doesn't hold anything to be true. In science, all conclusions are tentative, subject to new evidence or a better theory to explain existing evidence.

This opinion is representing Darwinian "science" correctly.

Education presupposes gnosis or a sure way to know. Education does not presuppose Agnosticism or Skepticism.

Well, special creation was an important scientific theory before 1859...

Honest-objective admission.

....but subsequent discoveries and theories have shown it to be erroneous.

This is certainly what evolution claims.

That is why scientists in the 1860s abandoned it; it had nothing to do with atheism, it had everything to do with the evidence.

This is basically true.

Here you are confusing the scientific theory of special creation from the mid 1800s with creationism as practiced today. The two actually have very little in common.

Since my comment specified which Creationism I have not confused anything. And I agree that 19th century Creationism and 20th century Creationism have nothing in common. This is why I routinely sign my name saying that I am a Paleyan Designist or Creationist. I do not want to be lumped in with YEC Fundies.

Ray

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : grammar

Edited by Cold Foreign Object, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 11-13-2008 6:34 PM subbie has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by Coyote, posted 11-14-2008 6:41 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 243 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 33 of 67 (488673)
11-14-2008 6:41 PM
Reply to: Message 32 by Cold Foreign Object
11-14-2008 6:32 PM


Re: Design theory
Why do you even bother posting in the Science Forum?

Certainly nothing you post resembles science (except, perhaps, for creation "science").

Are you evangelizing among the "Darwinists" as a penance or something? That's often what it seems like.

I would really like to know, because your posts make no contributions to science and perhaps a reply would help me understand where you are coming from.


Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-14-2008 6:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-15-2008 6:24 PM Coyote has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1185 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 34 of 67 (488674)
11-14-2008 6:44 PM
Reply to: Message 27 by subbie
11-13-2008 6:34 PM


Re: Design theory
1800s special creation was testable and falsifiable. It was tested and found lacking, and it was falsified.

I agree.

However, the remnant disagree. I am a scientific descendant of the remnant. Science was wrong to accept evolution. Pre-1859 science was and is correct. I am still writing a paper to prove these claims.

Creationism as practiced today is neither testable nor falsifiable. It is not science.

I completely agree.

Please remember what I said in my previous post.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 27 by subbie, posted 11-13-2008 6:34 PM subbie has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by subbie, posted 11-14-2008 7:04 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1185 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 35 of 67 (488675)
11-14-2008 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by bluescat48
11-13-2008 7:10 PM


Re: Design theory
According to your definition of evolution, the Pope is an atheist.

Pope Benedict (IIRC) said the universe is an Intelligent project.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by bluescat48, posted 11-13-2008 7:10 PM bluescat48 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by bluescat48, posted 11-14-2008 7:47 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 46 by Huntard, posted 11-14-2008 10:35 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1185 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 36 of 67 (488676)
11-14-2008 7:03 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Meddle
11-13-2008 8:29 PM


Re: Design theory
Both Wells and Dembski have stated they accept 'microevolution', as does the discovery institute which includes speciation in its definition of 'microevolution',

Let's suppose this is true, what is your point since my only point was that they are not Fundamentalists (= morons).

....which contradicts your view that species are immutable.

Yes, if true they disagree. Again, what is your point? My point is that we agree that nature reflects ID. This fact means Divine causation IS operating in reality and not unguided material. Maybe Wells and Dembski could explain why they accept microevolution (assuming they do) and not Divine causation producing each immutable species? As it sits now they accept two mutually contradicting forces existing in nature. I would love to place both of them on the spot.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Meddle, posted 11-13-2008 8:29 PM Meddle has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 37 of 67 (488677)
11-14-2008 7:04 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object
11-14-2008 6:44 PM


Re: Design theory
quote:
I agree.

However, the remnant disagree. I am a scientific descendant of the remnant.


While most of what you write is nonsense, I can understand most of it. This is gibberish.

quote:
Science was wrong to accept evolution. Pre-1859 science was and is correct. I am still writing a paper to prove these claims.

Yes, I've heard all about your magnum opus. I don't believe any such paper exists any more than anyone else here. In any event, it certainly adds nothing to the dialog to keep mentioning it without including actual content. But it does keep your entertainment value up, so it's not a complete waste of bandwidth.

I'll give you credit for one thing though, Senor Martinez, if that is your real name, I've met very few, if any, people who are so proudly wedded to theories that all of science discarded 150 years ago.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-14-2008 6:44 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1185 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 38 of 67 (488679)
11-14-2008 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 29 by Meddle
11-13-2008 8:29 PM


Re: Design theory
So are these folks fundamentalists or atheists?

False dichotomy.

Question also presupposes IDists to be Fundamentalists. Acceptance of ID and Creationism means you are intelligent, informed. While plenty of Fundies accept both we do not apologize. Just like evolutionists do not apologize when racists and Holocaust deniers accept evolution. We cannot control the bad element.

Given such a great disparity in beliefs about what constitutes intelligent design, is there a single intelligent design hypothesis, or is it simply so vague that anyone can shoehorn their views into it?

There are two major ID paradigms. Each, of course, has objective claims:

1. Paleyan Watchmaker thesis (1802).

Claims: the observation of design and organized complexity and contrivance (= adaptation) correspond directly to the work of an invisible Watchmaker.

2. Current DI IDism.

Claims: reality and nature reflect Intelligence and Design.

If the species were designed, why did they abruptly disappear? What does this tell us about your intelligent designer?

God is sovereign.

God is the Boss.

God is the shot caller.

Ray


This message is a reply to:
 Message 29 by Meddle, posted 11-13-2008 8:29 PM Meddle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by bluescat48, posted 11-14-2008 7:45 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 43 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-14-2008 8:02 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded
 Message 47 by Straggler, posted 11-15-2008 6:22 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

    
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 39 of 67 (488680)
11-14-2008 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object
11-13-2008 2:01 PM


Re: Design theory
1. Before 1859 the special creation hypothesis was held true by science; therefore Creationism is a scientific explanation-interpretation of evidence. Darwin was able to convince most of his scientific peers that the hypothesis was erroneous and that his transmutation hypothesis correct. This fact renders your blanket assertion that Creationism to not be testable to be false based on the fact that science before Darwin 1859 held Creationism to be true.

This is a logical fallacy based on an appeal to belief. The majority of the population at that time also believed that blood-letting was an effective medical procedure that does not make it true.

This "special creation hypothesis" you are talking about was the defacto religious world view by the Christian world from the time of Jesus to the mid-20th century. It was not recognized as a "hypothesis" of science per se, but instead it was a adopted on its value of being part of what they interpreted was "the inspired word of God". That is, it was adopted not as a result of scientific evidence but was instead adopted on the basis of the faith of the believer. However, the increase in critical thinking and reasoning in the post-renaissance world caused many scientific minds (not just Darwin) to question this world view. For example, James Hutton, the founding father of modern geology in the 18th and 19th century observed clear evidence that reflected the old age of the Earth. Much older than 3-4 thousand years that the Christian world had previously thought.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-13-2008 2:01 PM Cold Foreign Object has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by subbie, posted 11-14-2008 7:48 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded
 Message 50 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-15-2008 6:32 PM DevilsAdvocate has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2327 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 40 of 67 (488681)
11-14-2008 7:45 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object
11-14-2008 7:32 PM


Re: Design theory
Acceptance of ID and Creationism means you are intelligent, informed.

No it means you refuse to accept evidence ILO scripture.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-14-2008 7:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2327 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 41 of 67 (488682)
11-14-2008 7:47 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object
11-14-2008 6:54 PM


Re: Design theory
Pope Benedict (IIRC) said the universe is an Intelligent project.

Documentation please.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-14-2008 6:54 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
subbie
Member (Idle past 97 days)
Posts: 3508
Joined: 02-26-2006


Message 42 of 67 (488683)
11-14-2008 7:48 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by DevilsAdvocate
11-14-2008 7:36 PM


Re: Design theory
quote:
It was not recognized as a "hypothesis" of science per se,

This is not entirely accurate. In fact, most scientists proceeded on the basis of a creation hypothesis, but then attempted to conduct genuine scientific investigation for evidence in support of the hypothesis. While certainly one can criticize much of what passed for science 150 years ago, in particular if one compares it with science of today, it is a fact that many genuine scientists of the time did genuine scientific work to try to support the hypothesis of creation. It was in large part because that work was fruitless, and often pointed in different directions, that the creation hypothesis was rejected as scientifically unsupported.


Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-14-2008 7:36 PM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 11-14-2008 8:08 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 43 of 67 (488684)
11-14-2008 8:02 PM
Reply to: Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object
11-14-2008 7:32 PM


Re: Design theory
So are these folks fundamentalists or atheists?

False dichotomy.

I believe this was a legitimate question and not an assertion. Questions do not fall under the rules of logical fallacies.

Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-14-2008 7:32 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

  
DevilsAdvocate
Member (Idle past 1238 days)
Posts: 1548
Joined: 06-05-2008


Message 44 of 67 (488685)
11-14-2008 8:08 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by subbie
11-14-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Design theory
This is not entirely accurate. In fact, most scientists proceeded on the basis of a creation hypothesis, but then attempted to conduct genuine scientific investigation for evidence in support of the hypothesis. While certainly one can criticize much of what passed for science 150 years ago, in particular if one compares it with science of today, it is a fact that many genuine scientists of the time did genuine scientific work to try to support the hypothesis of creation. It was in large part because that work was fruitless, and often pointed in different directions, that the creation hypothesis was rejected as scientifically unsupported.

I agree. I probably didn't phrase this exactly the way I understand it. Yes, many pre-modern scientists i.e. Newton, Galileo, etc worked off the premis that the universe was divinely created. My point is that there was no alternative theory of how the universe could have come into existence according to their worldview. It is as you said, only by digging deeper into the inner mechanics of the universe i.e. a geo-centric solar system vice a helo-centric one or discovering the old age of the earth, that these early scientists began to discover that the actual science did not match their previous religious beliefs.


"For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." Dr. Carl Sagan
This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by subbie, posted 11-14-2008 7:48 PM subbie has not yet responded

  
bluescat48
Member (Idle past 2327 days)
Posts: 2347
From: United States
Joined: 10-06-2007


Message 45 of 67 (488691)
11-14-2008 8:45 PM
Reply to: Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object
11-12-2008 7:48 PM


Re: Design theory
We only seek to rescue science from the bad element: Darwinism, Materialism, Atheism.

No you only want to revert to the dark ages when people thought that science & religion were the same thing. When people didn't attempt to question anything or risk being killed as being in league with the other non-entity Satan.


There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002

Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969


This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 11-12-2008 7:48 PM Cold Foreign Object has not yet responded

    
Prev12
3
45Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019