Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 7/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Who designed the ID designer(s)?
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 396 (208651)
05-16-2005 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by CK
05-16-2005 12:42 PM


If you disagree thats fine, but could you explain why Im wrong? I say judge a philosophy by its fruit. The darwinist philosophy is devoid of fruitful meaning. Can you show otherwise?
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 12:47 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by CK, posted 05-16-2005 12:42 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 63 by CK, posted 05-16-2005 12:52 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 87 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 7:58 PM Limbo has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 62 of 396 (208654)
05-16-2005 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Limbo
05-16-2005 12:34 PM


quote:
I submit that to be a Darwinist leads to Nihilism.
I submit that Darwinists are not concerned with finding the truth of our existance, but with destroying meaning.
I submit that ID serves to suggest meaning, which is why Darwinists are so against it.
What evidence can you offer for these assertions ? Especially the second and third which appear to be baseless attacks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 12:34 PM Limbo has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 63 of 396 (208655)
05-16-2005 12:52 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Limbo
05-16-2005 12:46 PM


No....no... nice try at a sidestep...very nimble.
It's not a matter of right/wrong - it's now become a matter of you showing that you have the basic knowledge required to actually get into the ring. What's the point of having a drawn-out debate now that it is clear (or appears to be) that you don't actually understand the basics?
I think we need to establish (in your own words) a few things.
Let's start with the basics:
quote:
1) what would you say Nihilism is?
2) Do you understand and accept the concise and to-the-point Explanation given to you by Paulk? if not? what do you argue with?
Let's make sure you actually understand the terms as seperate entities before we try and link them together!
EDIT: PAUL - ARE YOU OK WITH THIS APPROACH? I THINK WE NEED A BETTER IDEA OF LIMBO's UNDERSTANDING OF TERMS AND TERMINOLOGY BEFORE WE GO DOWN A LOT OF DARK ALLEYS!
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 16-May-2005 12:54 PM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 16-May-2005 12:55 PM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 16-May-2005 12:56 PM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 16-May-2005 12:57 PM
This message has been edited by Charles Knight, 16-May-2005 12:58 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 12:46 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 1:00 PM CK has not replied
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2005 1:00 PM CK has not replied
 Message 67 by Modulous, posted 05-16-2005 1:06 PM CK has replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 396 (208658)
05-16-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by CK
05-16-2005 12:52 PM


quote:
Let's settle you under the actual terms before we try and link them together!
Fair enough!
1) Nihilism: Rejection of all distinctions in moral or religious value and a willingness to repudiate all previous theories of morality or religious belief.
2) you mean this?
quote:
Essentially Dariwnism is about explaining the diversity and distribution of life on Earth, as it is distributed through space and time. It can be - and is - extrapolated to apply to other forms of replicator. It may play a role in the origin of life but (as discussed on another thread) that requires that non-living replicators already exist (and requires that we do not consider them life, although they would seem to have a better claim than viruses).
I consider this a dodge, double-talk, an effort to disguise/confuse the philosophical implications of Darwinism.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 01:01 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by CK, posted 05-16-2005 12:52 PM CK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 65 of 396 (208659)
05-16-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by CK
05-16-2005 12:52 PM


I'd really say that major discussion of the philosophy should probably take place in a different thread. Or threads if we want to get past the nihilism issue and on to the other alleged implications.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by CK, posted 05-16-2005 12:52 PM CK has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 1:03 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 396 (208661)
05-16-2005 1:03 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by PaulK
05-16-2005 1:00 PM


Love to

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by PaulK, posted 05-16-2005 1:00 PM PaulK has not replied

  
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 67 of 396 (208662)
05-16-2005 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 63 by CK
05-16-2005 12:52 PM


Hi CK, I am certainly not veteran enough to tell you about the forums and stuff, but perhaps the philosophical implications of Darwinism/naturalism/evolution should be reserved for a seperate thread? I only say this because ID debates have a tendency to drift into a defence of evolution or darwinism or whatever because IDers so very frequently end up saying "Oh yeah? Well your theory is worse!" or "If we should teach your philosophy they should teach mine!".
edit: OK, I guess I was beaten to it by Paul I'll just slope off over here -->
*slopes*
This message has been edited by Modulous, Mon, 16-May-2005 06:08 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 63 by CK, posted 05-16-2005 12:52 PM CK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by CK, posted 05-16-2005 3:21 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

  
KKawohl
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 396 (208671)
05-16-2005 1:34 PM


O.K guys, stop ignoring me.
Your opinion would be appreciated to my opinion of who designed the ID designer. (wow, that's confusing)
IMHO, ours or alien spirit initially evolved into the ID.
Our spirit lives in a body that contains the mind that contains the spirit within the subconscious; it records our life experiences. The spirit grows & expands & upon physical death this spiritual energy is released & continues as individualized or united spiritual energy. It is this spiritual energy that initially created the ID.
Einstein said, "Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universea spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble."
According to some scientists in New Delhi recent research, the biomedical part of life can be created through advanced applications of molecular biology and organic chemistry. But what really happens is that when the cells find out that they have to be part of a union, they communicate among themselves and form a larger life form. The process continues. While the process propagates, energy in the form of electromagnetic flux forms as a concentrated form of clustered energy. That clustered energy survives even if the physical body of the artificial life form is destroyed. The energy cluster is actually part of a larger cluster, which can be viewed as part of the whole universe.
The life as we know is collection of cells with a union that is governed by that electromagnetic flux of energy. The energy is indestructible. The energy in the whole universe is interlinked and is part of a huge integrated infrastructure. It may even extent to multiple universes and dimensions.
http://www.indiadaily.com/editorial/1666.asp
Kurt

"I Am A Transcendentalist". Transcendentalism Today = Balancing Science and Religion http://transcendentalism.us

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2005 1:54 PM KKawohl has replied
 Message 71 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 2:38 PM KKawohl has replied

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


Message 69 of 396 (208676)
05-16-2005 1:54 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by KKawohl
05-16-2005 1:34 PM


Re: O.K guys, stop ignoring me.
If you impression is that you are being ignored my impression is that is because people don't know what to say about your posts. They may also not be interested in discussion that kind of idea.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by KKawohl, posted 05-16-2005 1:34 PM KKawohl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by KKawohl, posted 05-16-2005 2:18 PM NosyNed has replied

  
KKawohl
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 396 (208683)
05-16-2005 2:18 PM
Reply to: Message 69 by NosyNed
05-16-2005 1:54 PM


Re: O.K guys, stop ignoring me.
I apparently missed your answer on this thread which asks, "Who designed the ID designer. What is your opinion?

"I Am A Transcendentalist". Transcendentalism Today = Balancing Science and Religion http://transcendentalism.us

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2005 1:54 PM NosyNed has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by NosyNed, posted 05-16-2005 3:53 PM KKawohl has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 396 (208691)
05-16-2005 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by KKawohl
05-16-2005 1:34 PM


Re: O.K guys, stop ignoring me.
I read that article...very interesting. I wonder what approach their scientists take. Would it be considered "proper" science by American mainstream science standards?
My guess is that due to the articles seemingly metaphysical implications, it would be dismissed out of hand by our ever objective, open-minded scientific community.
Just a guess.
This message has been edited by Limbo, 05-16-2005 02:52 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by KKawohl, posted 05-16-2005 1:34 PM KKawohl has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by KKawohl, posted 05-16-2005 6:05 PM Limbo has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 72 of 396 (208706)
05-16-2005 3:21 PM
Reply to: Message 67 by Modulous
05-16-2005 1:06 PM


I agree
quote:
Hi CK, I am certainly not veteran enough to tell you about the forums and stuff, but perhaps the philosophical implications of Darwinism/naturalism/evolution should be reserved for a seperate thread?
Hey we don't go for that here - you are just as welcome to tell me I'm full of shit as anyone else (and failing that we fight it out by the old monkey or on Picc Gardens).
I agree with both you and Paul (and it seems Limbo as he is starting a thread on this topic)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by Modulous, posted 05-16-2005 1:06 PM Modulous has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 73 of 396 (208720)
05-16-2005 3:53 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by KKawohl
05-16-2005 2:18 PM


Who designed?
I'm not aware of any reason to think there there is an ID designer needed by anything. I'm happy with current explanations for apparent design or with answers like "unknown for now".

This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by KKawohl, posted 05-16-2005 2:18 PM KKawohl has not replied

  
Limbo
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 396 (208740)
05-16-2005 5:13 PM


This might help shed light on possible designers:
Found here: Page not found | Skeptical Inquirer

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by CK, posted 05-16-2005 5:22 PM Limbo has replied
 Message 88 by RAZD, posted 05-16-2005 8:00 PM Limbo has not replied

  
CK
Member (Idle past 4127 days)
Posts: 3221
Joined: 07-04-2004


Message 75 of 396 (208743)
05-16-2005 5:22 PM
Reply to: Message 74 by Limbo
05-16-2005 5:13 PM


ah so you agree with that chart that if it's the christian god - he must have been a minor or evil god?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 5:13 PM Limbo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Limbo, posted 05-16-2005 5:45 PM CK 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