Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design Creationism
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 76 of 154 (115089)
06-14-2004 1:57 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by Admin
06-12-2004 10:41 AM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
Percy you have a lot of concerns. I have a life and it does NOT revolve around this discussion board. I post when I can. If I appear to "leave" a discussion or thread it is most likely because there is nothing worth responding to.
So if you want to kick me off of this board I really don't care. I can find other forms of entertainment just as easy as I found this.
So I say farewell and ado. Hopefully some of you will come to the court house when we finally do bring this to a head- allowing ID in a science classroom. I will look for you there....

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Admin, posted 06-12-2004 10:41 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by JonF, posted 06-14-2004 4:48 PM John Paul has not replied
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2004 11:11 PM John Paul has replied
 Message 79 by Admin, posted 06-15-2004 8:45 AM John Paul has replied

  
JonF
Member (Idle past 168 days)
Posts: 6174
Joined: 06-23-2003


Message 77 of 154 (115138)
06-14-2004 4:48 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by John Paul
06-14-2004 1:57 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
If I appear to "leave" a discussion or thread it is most likely because there is nothing worth responding to.
Such as your failure to respond to Message 6? Sure, you stop posting because there's nothing to respond to ... or maybe because you've run out of psuedoscientific gibberish.
From TheologyWeb Campus (which was not addressed to JP, but is relevant):
quote:
Stick with admitting that you have no intention of defending your opinion, and accepting that the heat for that is justified, and then at least you can be credited with integrity. ...
Go ahead and take your stand, and take the heat for it. But don't try to get out of debating and get credit for "I could if I wanted to." If you really didn't want to defend your statement, the ethical thing would have been to not make it in the first place. If you refuse to make a case, other people are quite justified in concluding that you have no case to make, and stating that opinion.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 1:57 PM John Paul has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 78 of 154 (115208)
06-14-2004 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by John Paul
06-14-2004 1:57 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
Hopefully some of you will come to the court house when we finally do bring this to a head- allowing ID in a science classroom.
I am mildly amused when people who claim to be christians support ID, as I don't think they have thought through all the ramifications. Unfortunately ID is between more formalized faith and deism, and thus it is religious in nature no matter what you call the designer. For more of my views on this see the forum topic: is ID properly pursued?. You seem to be at least a partial proponent of ID, disclaimer notwithstanding, and I would be interested in you input on that essay.
This dodge that it doesn't refer to god may get past a few school boards composed of people not well versed in constitutional law, but I believe the record of cases where ID has gone to court so far is that ID is judged to be a religion and as such has no place in public funded school science classes.
Enjoy.
This message has been edited by RAZD, 06-14-2004 10:11 PM

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 1:57 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 12:27 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 83 by Loudmouth, posted 06-15-2004 12:32 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 79 of 154 (115318)
06-15-2004 8:45 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by John Paul
06-14-2004 1:57 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
John Paul writes:
I have a life and it does NOT revolve around this discussion board. I post when I can.
You are ignoring the primary point and addressing yourself to the inconsequential setting of context. No one is expected to maintain a continuous presence here, but you, like Fred Williams before you, have established a pattern of behavior that involves taking several discussions to midpoint, then leaving for a period of up to a few weeks, then returning to begin discussions in other threads while ignoring the earlier threads. If this is unintentional and inadvertent then I'm bringing it to your attention so you can break this pattern.
No one is perfect. Even the best behaved netizen occasionally leaves discussions hanging. I'm not requesting that you stick with every single discussion. I'm requesting that you break this now all-too-familiar pattern.
If I appear to "leave" a discussion or thread it is most likely because there is nothing worth responding to.
All threads you're participating in when you disappear simultaneously have "nothing worth responding to"? Please don't be disingenuous.
So if you want to kick me off of this board I really don't care. I can find other forms of entertainment just as easy as I found this.
No one ever really gets kicked off this board, and especially not after the recent improvements that allow us to control access on a forum-by-forum basis. The goal of EvC Forum is to be as inclusive as possible, but another goal is to foster an environment that encourages as high quality a dialogue as possible. Enforcing the guidelines is essential to this goal, and I think all the moderators take this goal very seriously.
I recognize that the task of the Creationist is much more difficult here than for the evolutionist, since the scientific foundation of his position is not formally established at this time. That board moderation has been accused of bias by both sides can be interpreted as indicating we've established a fair balance, and if that is a valid conclusions then I think this is something board moderation should be proud of.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by John Paul, posted 06-14-2004 1:57 PM John Paul has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Wounded King, posted 06-15-2004 12:04 PM Admin has not replied
 Message 81 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 12:24 PM Admin has replied

  
Wounded King
Member
Posts: 4149
From: Cincinnati, Ohio, USA
Joined: 04-09-2003


Message 80 of 154 (115351)
06-15-2004 12:04 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Admin
06-15-2004 8:45 AM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
recognize that the task of the Creationist is much more difficult here than for the evolutionist, since the scientific foundation of his position is not formally established at this time.
That statement is so balanced it should have concrete round its feet!!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Admin, posted 06-15-2004 8:45 AM Admin has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 81 of 154 (115354)
06-15-2004 12:24 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Admin
06-15-2004 8:45 AM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Paul writes:
I have a life and it does NOT revolve around this discussion board. I post when I can.
Percy:
You are ignoring the primary point and addressing yourself to the inconsequential setting of context. No one is expected to maintain a continuous presence here, but you, like Fred Williams before you, have established a pattern of behavior that involves taking several discussions to midpoint, then leaving for a period of up to a few weeks, then returning to begin discussions in other threads while ignoring the earlier threads. If this is unintentional and inadvertent then I'm bringing it to your attention so you can break this pattern.
John Paul:
I leave because sometimes where I go does not have internet access. When I return I usually look at the active threads first. Seeing thyat I can answer everyones' posts I answer what I can. If this were a one on one debate that would be different. Right now I am responding to several people, most who appear clueless as to what they are debating against.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Admin, posted 06-15-2004 8:45 AM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 84 by Admin, posted 06-15-2004 12:41 PM John Paul has not replied

  
John Paul
Inactive Member


Message 82 of 154 (115355)
06-15-2004 12:27 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
06-14-2004 11:11 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
RAZD:
I am mildly amused when people who claim to be christians support ID, as I don't think they have thought through all the ramifications.
John Paul:
I am not a christian. I was once but I grew out of it.
ID hasn't gone to court as such. It will if it has to and I am more than willing to do so.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2004 11:11 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2004 4:00 PM John Paul has not replied

  
Loudmouth
Inactive Member


Message 83 of 154 (115356)
06-15-2004 12:32 PM
Reply to: Message 78 by RAZD
06-14-2004 11:11 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
quote:
I am mildly amused when people who claim to be christians support ID, as I don't think they have thought through all the ramifications.
Especially when you bring up the fact that Behe supports common ancestory. His only beef is with the mechanism of change, not with common ancestory of any species, including humans.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 78 by RAZD, posted 06-14-2004 11:11 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 84 of 154 (115359)
06-15-2004 12:41 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by John Paul
06-15-2004 12:24 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
John Paul writes:
I leave because sometimes where I go does not have internet access. When I return I usually look at the active threads first.
Yes, I can see that makes sense. But if you click on your name (it appears as part of the login status line on almost any page), it will display a list of the threads you've most recently participated in, and the right most column will say "Yes" if there are responses you haven't yet addressed.
Seeing that I can't answer everyone's posts, I answer what I can. If this were a one on one debate that would be different.
This is a longstanding and continuing issue in Creation/evolution debates, where each Creationist seems to be beset by a slew of evolutionists. The evolutionists should try to restrain themselves from piling on. Creationists must recognize that Creationism takes a big tent approach that entertains a multiplicity of conflicting perspectives. It is almost inevitable that in debate the Creationist will be the only one present who happens to hold his particular viewpoint, while the evolutionists all adhere to a single TOE and so can argue together.
Right now I am responding to several people, most who appear clueless as to what they are debating against.
A more charitable view toward your opponents and a more patient approach might prove more successful.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 12:24 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2004 1:00 PM Admin has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 85 of 154 (115365)
06-15-2004 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 84 by Admin
06-15-2004 12:41 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
if you click on your name (it appears as part of the login status line on almost any page), it will display a list of the threads you've most recently participated in, and the right most column will say "Yes" if there are responses you haven't yet addressed.
could the "yes" be linked to the most recent reply?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by Admin, posted 06-15-2004 12:41 PM Admin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Admin, posted 06-15-2004 1:20 PM RAZD has not replied

  
Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 86 of 154 (115370)
06-15-2004 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by RAZD
06-15-2004 1:00 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
Yes, it could. This page needs improvement and will probably see some changes over the next few months. In the meantime, clicking on the link to your own message will display that message, and at the bottom is the list of replies.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2004 1:00 PM RAZD has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 87 of 154 (115440)
06-15-2004 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 82 by John Paul
06-15-2004 12:27 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
Did you read the essay that was linked? I am interested in your response to it.
ID is a religion, there is no reasonable question about that, as Deism is a religion and it requires even less participation by a supernatural agent than ID does. Don't be swayed by the transparent claim that {it does not matter who or what the "Designer" is}, for the actions attributed to it must be supernatural in nature, ergo it is the work of a god by definition.
The courts have consistently ruled that religion cannot be introduced into science classes.
I will also gladly go to court as well, to show that my faith cannot be {used / abused} by others, not because they believe it but because they want to use it.
And that is the crux of the matter, isn't it? That people want to use ID not to further a belief in ID but to subvert a science and disrupt proper public school education. True proponents of ID would want to see science developed in every branch to its fullest possible extant so that it could be used to show the evidence of design in the way that math is used to explain physics. This is the basic incompatibility between ID and creationism, and the essential ramification that most ID proponents fail to think about.
But let's go a little further and assume ID is true: what does that do to the course of science, any science, in the pursuit of answers to explain the evidence at hand?
Nothing.
Science answers the question of how, not why. Anyone who wants to take a short cut and say "The Great Designer did it" is not answering a question but avoiding to answer the question, and this also has no place in the pursuit of science. In fact every science would need to be employed as dispassionately and as completely as possible to rule out the possibility that ID is wrong. Furthermore, ID needs to establish a prediction that would disprove it: that is how scientific theory works. Without that test then the only possible course is to disprove every other possible answer until the only answer left is ID, and that too would have to be done in a dispassionate scientific manner using every branch of science available developed to it's fullest extent possible.
"Irreducible Complexity" (IC) does not meet that test because (1) it has been disproved, time and again and has yet to make a case that can stand -- that is invalidation of the concept of IC -- but also (2) invalidation of IC does not invalidate ID, so it does not rise to the level necessary to test ID. Got anything else?
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by John Paul, posted 06-15-2004 12:27 PM John Paul has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-01-2004 11:51 PM RAZD has replied

  
Cold Foreign Object 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3048 days)
Posts: 3417
Joined: 11-21-2003


Message 88 of 154 (121054)
07-01-2004 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 87 by RAZD
06-15-2004 4:00 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
quote:
Irreducible Complexity" (IC) does not meet that test because (1) it has been disproved,
Listen closely:
The examples of IC in Behe's book have not been disproved.
You evos are locked into "step by tiny step", those IC systems defy the step by tiny step dogma. There is no way around it.
IC systems exist and they are the product of ID.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 06-15-2004 4:00 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 89 by contracycle, posted 07-02-2004 7:20 AM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 91 by Loudmouth, posted 07-02-2004 1:12 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 92 by RAZD, posted 07-02-2004 7:03 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied
 Message 94 by arachnophilia, posted 07-12-2004 6:27 PM Cold Foreign Object has replied

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 89 of 154 (121144)
07-02-2004 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object
07-01-2004 11:51 PM


Re: Wanted: productive discussion!
quote:
those IC systems defy the step by tiny step dogma.
No, they do not. IC is a myth, a failure to understand systems.
quote:
IC systems exist
Where?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Cold Foreign Object, posted 07-01-2004 11:51 PM Cold Foreign Object has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by NosyNed, posted 07-02-2004 1:01 PM contracycle has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 90 of 154 (121205)
07-02-2004 1:01 PM
Reply to: Message 89 by contracycle
07-02-2004 7:20 AM


IC systems exist
quote:
IC systems exist
Where?
I think that they do exist, lots of them. There are systems that "break" if you remove any part. That isn't the issue. The claim that there is no way for them to evolve if they are IC is the one which is unsupported.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 89 by contracycle, posted 07-02-2004 7:20 AM contracycle 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