|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,889 Year: 4,146/9,624 Month: 1,017/974 Week: 344/286 Day: 65/40 Hour: 1/5 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: A proof against ID and Creationism | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Neither would humans require design if they were eternal. In other words humans are the product of bad, incomplete, incompetent design?
'Who designed the designer' is a great way to falsify ID when the designer is ambiguous, but when you start calling the designer god it loses its applicability. And this just proves that ID - when you do this - is faith. by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bkelly Inactive Member |
In message 22 of this thread, in response to your statements about how faith is good, I stated:
What will be your position when some Muslim detonates a nuclear weapon killing tens of thousands and maybe millions because he has faith that his god wants him to destroy the infidels? Will you applaud his faith? Is this something we should eagerly look forward to? This is a direct result of religious "FAITH." I refresh this question and request that you respond rather than ignore it.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 422 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Come on. That's a really stupid question. Would it make you feel better if the nuke was exploded by a Godless atheist?
Extreme and horrendous actions are taken by many people. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
it is OT(off topic) which is why I ignored it
anyway, I didn't even say faith was good. I do think that it can be good, and i think it can't all be good. here's the message:
How can people base a major life controlling decision on unsupportable beliefs? Faith. It can even allow someone to blow themself up. I like how System of a Down describes it as 'the most potent element of human existance'. Like, it can give you a lot of strength and taking an unsupported belief is pretty easy compared to other things. In response to "how unsupported beliefs?" i said that faith was potent and can give you strength(not that it was good), enough to do something crazy (like blow yourself up) so simply having an unsupported belief shouldn't be that hard to believe.
What will be your position when some Muslim detonates a nuclear weapon killing tens of thousands and maybe millions because he has faith that his god wants him to destroy the infidels? The same as it is now. Faith can be good and it can be bad.
Will you applaud his faith? No.
Is this something we should eagerly look forward to? No. happy now? This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 09-27-2005 06:19 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Not if god is eternal.
What evidence from design leads you to this conclusion?
I though ID was suppose to keep the designer ambiguous, maybe I'm mistaken. But if you start labeling the designer then it leads people to conclusions. For example, if the designer is an alien biological species, then I would immediately ask who designed them. However, if the designer is an eternal omipotent being, then I don't think we can ask who designed it. This message has been edited by Catholic Scientist, 09-27-2005 06:11 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I have read a number of your posts and you are more intelligent than to attempt to bluff this argument with such nonsense. I think (at least I hope) that I have shown enough intelligence that it is obvious I won't accept that rot. Your answer is vacuous, I know it, other people here know it, and so do you. Please try again. I'm not trying to support ID. I'm trying to show how, in the OP, the Wonderful Theory shouldn't be applied to God.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
Hi bkelly,
bkelly writes: Should we truly be allowed to teach people things as fact when the fact cannot be supported? Hey. That's fine. While I might like to see creationism taught in school...I'm not so sure I would. One question that immediately pops into my mind is: whose version of creationism will be taught? But when I asked:
TheLiteralist writes: By the way, just how did life come into being? What is your position on that subject? And what empirical evidence do you use to support your position? You responded with:
bkelly writes: That is one of the most difficult questions that I have ever considered. I do not have a valid answer and I don’t think science really knows. The organization, complexity and abilities of DNA is just incredible.(1) The idea that life just kind of developed of its own accord, so to speak, is a difficult pill to swallow. And I cannot completely swallow it. I appreciate your honesty in your answer. So, instead of the "ah-ha" attitude I began with (which I should probably apologize for)...let me ask why should abiogenesis be treated as anything other than the interesting speculations of scientists. Put THAT deep in the appendices. I had NO problem with most of the chapter detailing how DNA works...or the chapter explaining what ATP is and how it works. Sprinkled everywhere in these chapters are, of course, evolutionary speculations about how this or that process may have come about...yet NONE of those speculations increases understanding of the actual processes which can be understood WITHOUT having evolutionary speculations mixed in. Children of all religions and non-religions are forced to attend highschool. Why not leave ALL the speculations out of highschool science textbooks? --Jason This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-27-2005 04:22 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
Hi Crash,
Crashfrog writes: It's my understanding that the theory explains informational complexities, or at least, the complexity always seems to be expressed in those terms. Does the theory directly state or even imply that intelligence is the same as information? (AbE: this is an actual question...I've not actually read any official ID literature..I just have a general impression of what it is stating). I can see information being the result of intelligence, and I can see intelligence using information, but I'm not so sure that intelligence can be said to be information. Or, am I barking up the wrong tree? --Jason This message has been edited by TheLiteralist, 09-27-2005 06:37 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
nwr Member Posts: 6412 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: Member Rating: 4.5 |
Children of all religions and non-religions are forced to attend highschool.
However, they are not required to attend a state school. They are permitted to attent a religious school.
Why not leave ALL the speculations out of highschool science textbooks?
The speculations are often on questions that the students consider of high interest, perhaps questions that have motivated them to study science. You cannot simply ignore these issues. If the teacher does not raise them, the students will. Textbooks and teachers should be honest. Where they are presenting speculation, they ought to be clear that it is speculation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
TheLiteralist Inactive Member |
Hi bkelly,
I wanted to come at your opening post from a different angle, too. I know a lot of groups now use ID as a support for biblical beliefs. But ID theory purposely doesn't identify the designer. According to the theory the designer could be advanced aliens or God or Zeus or the CIA (okay, not the CIA). The Bible is clear that life was created (designed), but ID theory is not the Bible. A theory is an attempt to explain observed phenomena...theories can be and usually are adjusted. A theory is the result of men applying their minds to a subject. A theory is NOT the truth...but is an attempt to approximate the truth based on current knowledge. The Bible, OTOH, claims to be the word of God. The Bible claims to BE the truth -- not a theory of any kind. The Bible also makes it clear that God is the Designer...and not anything or anybody else. I really think you are confusing ID theory with the Bible itself. --Jason
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 440 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
TheLiteralist writes: I really think you are confusing ID theory with the Bible itself. This thread illustrates the primary weakness of both creationism and ID: they are both so muddled that neither the creationists nor the IDists know what they believe. They only know what they don't believe: evolution. That's why there really is no difference between creationism and ID. (By the way, I agree with you that ID is not the Bible. Neither is creationism.) People who think they have all the answers usually don't understand the questions.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
I though ID was suppose to keep the designer ambiguous, maybe I'm mistaken. It didn't seem too ambiguous when you tried to defend him against ID's obvious flaw.
However, if the designer is an eternal omipotent being, then I don't think we can ask who designed it. Then we have to conclude that some complex entities can exist without being designed, which falsifies the inital premise of ID. ID is self-refuting.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1495 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Or, am I barking up the wrong tree? I think the relevant question is if ID considers intelligence to be complex; I don't myself know for sure but I find it rather unlikely that anybody would describe intelligence as simple.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Omnivorous Member Posts: 3991 From: Adirondackia Joined: Member Rating: 6.9 |
Catholic Scientist writes: For example, if the designer is an alien biological species, then I would immediately ask who designed them. However, if the designer is an eternal omnipotent being, then I don't think we can ask who designed it. Aye, there's the rub...the rub that exposes the ID agenda. The ambiguity is deliberate and dissembling. One wonders if lies can profitably be told in the service of truth. If the designer is a deity, then ID is merely Creationism in a stolen lab coat; if the designer is not a deity, then ID answers nothing. We can narrow the ID implications further. Not all gods are described as eternal: only the God of the Book can put a stopper in the infinite regression of designers; a god could be a Younger God, a Lesser God, an elevated mortal, all subject to queries about their designers. The ID ambiguity is a Trojan Horse. I wonder if God is pleased with their deception. Is this how Yahweh conquers? Tarted up like a...theory.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It didn't seem too ambiguous when you tried to defend him against ID's obvious flaw. That's because the OP defined the designer, it wasn't ambiguous enough, that's pretty much the problem I had with it. If you're gonna call the designer god then it screws up the 'who designed the designer' part.
Then we have to conclude that some complex entities can exist without being designed My conclusion was that if a complex entity has always existed then it can exist without being designed (and still not falsify ID's initial premise). ID's initial premise requires creation, IIRC, and if a complex being was not created then its complexity doesn't suggest design.
ID is self-refuting. No argument here.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024