Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   A proof against ID and Creationism
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 226 of 300 (284392)
02-06-2006 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by inkorrekt
02-06-2006 12:04 PM


Re: No creator, but science
Inkorrekt writes:
IN simple words, whatever cannot self assemble or self synthesize is the work of an intelligent designer.
How do you determine whether something "cannot self assemble or self synthesize"?
--Percy
PS - I think your characterization of ID is off-target at best, but we'll go with the horse what brought ya.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by inkorrekt, posted 02-06-2006 12:04 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:48 PM Percy has replied
 Message 255 by inkorrekt, posted 02-23-2006 8:03 PM Percy has replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 227 of 300 (284400)
02-06-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by inkorrekt
02-06-2006 12:04 PM


Re: No creator, but science
Intelligent Design. If you can understand intelligence and Design, then you have the answer.
I asked for a scientific answer. Just giving us a couple of words doesn't do it.
If you could show us the designer in action, you might be making a start. Without evidence, all we have is your empty assertion that it is intelligent design.
But, Steve Jobs is lot more intelligent than me. Because, he DESIGNED the first apple computer.
We can find a lot of evidence on who designed the first apple. Where is the comparable evidence for the ID thesis?

Impeach Bush

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by inkorrekt, posted 02-06-2006 12:04 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 246 by inkorrekt, posted 02-18-2006 2:43 AM nwr has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 228 of 300 (284401)
02-06-2006 12:51 PM
Reply to: Message 223 by inkorrekt
02-06-2006 12:04 PM


Re: No creator, but science
inkorrekt
Intelligent Design. If you can understand intelligence and Design, then you have the answer. IN simple words, whatever cannot self assemble or self synthesize is the work of an intelligent designer
Then we shall admit that the intelligent designer is therefore subject to the same rule? In other words an intelligent designer is also the result of intelligent design correct?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by inkorrekt, posted 02-06-2006 12:04 PM inkorrekt has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by Menachem, posted 02-08-2006 7:42 AM sidelined has replied

Menachem
Inactive Member


Message 229 of 300 (284859)
02-08-2006 7:42 AM
Reply to: Message 228 by sidelined
02-06-2006 12:51 PM


Re: No creator, but science
The Creator is Intelligent Design. There is none like Him.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 228 by sidelined, posted 02-06-2006 12:51 PM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by ramoss, posted 02-08-2006 8:42 AM Menachem has not replied
 Message 231 by sidelined, posted 02-08-2006 9:14 AM Menachem has replied

ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 230 of 300 (284871)
02-08-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Menachem
02-08-2006 7:42 AM


Re: No creator, but science
So,who designed the intelligent designer? Or, do you want a special pleading for him?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Menachem, posted 02-08-2006 7:42 AM Menachem has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 231 of 300 (284880)
02-08-2006 9:14 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by Menachem
02-08-2006 7:42 AM


Re: No creator, but science
Menachem
inkorrekt writes:
Intelligent Design. If you can understand intelligence and Design, then you have the answer. IN simple words, whatever cannot self assemble or self synthesize is the work of an intelligent designer
sidelined writes:
Then we shall admit that the intelligent designer is therefore subject to the same rule? In other words an intelligent designer is also the result of intelligent design correct?
Menachem writes:
The Creator is Intelligent Design. There is none like Him.
It is quite stunninng how you managed to neither answer the question nor engage in debate. Where did the creator come from Menachem? It is a simple question.
Since the premise is that complex things must have been designed and,as it also follows,that the designer must itself be of greater complexity than that which it designed the question remains where did the Intelligent Designer come from?
You could say that the Intelligent Designer{or creator in your case} self assembled but then you must explain how such is possible if there was nothing to assemble from. If there was something to assemble from we are again left with the difficulty of explaining what designed that something and we again face a paradox.
You could say that the intelligent designer was its own creator but what does this mean? Whence came its intelligence we ask and again we are left with a vacuuous knowledge because we have waffled on the answer. Indeed such a statement is not an answer at all but an unsupportable declaration made to avoid the issue. Ganz Falsch Menachem.
I humbly submit to you sir, the question once again. What designed the Intelligent Designer?
This message has been edited by sidelined, Wed, 2006-02-08 07:15 AM

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by Menachem, posted 02-08-2006 7:42 AM Menachem has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by Menachem, posted 02-09-2006 7:27 AM sidelined has replied
 Message 236 by inkorrekt, posted 02-09-2006 10:25 PM sidelined has replied

Menachem
Inactive Member


Message 232 of 300 (285125)
02-09-2006 7:27 AM
Reply to: Message 231 by sidelined
02-08-2006 9:14 AM


Re: No creator, but science
The Creator is Perfect - so He doesn't need assembling. Is that something out of human comprehension?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by sidelined, posted 02-08-2006 9:14 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by FliesOnly, posted 02-09-2006 8:13 AM Menachem has not replied
 Message 234 by sidelined, posted 02-09-2006 9:44 AM Menachem has not replied

FliesOnly
Member (Idle past 4145 days)
Posts: 797
From: Michigan
Joined: 12-01-2003


Message 233 of 300 (285133)
02-09-2006 8:13 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Menachem
02-09-2006 7:27 AM


Re: No creator, but science
Menachem writes:
The Creator is Perfect - so He doesn't need assembling. Is that something out of human comprehension?
Well, you just told us that He's perfect and doesn't need assembling, so I guess He's not really out of human comprehension now is he. God I love circular reasoning!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Menachem, posted 02-09-2006 7:27 AM Menachem has not replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 234 of 300 (285158)
02-09-2006 9:44 AM
Reply to: Message 232 by Menachem
02-09-2006 7:27 AM


Re: No creator, but science
Menachem
The Creator is Perfect - so He doesn't need assembling. Is that something out of human comprehension?
It is empty assertion only. Your conclusion {He doesn't need assembling} has not been demonstrated by you to follow from your premise {The Creator is Perfect}
It is indeed outside of human comprehension for the simple reason that you have not explained anything nor offered a reasonable progression of organized thought to support your contention.
Ganz Falsch a second time Menachem. You are 2 for 2. Try to express some level of intellectual discourse that clearly shows what compels you to think that your view is valid would you please?

But I realize now that these people were not in science; they didn’t understand it. They didn’t understand technology; they didn’t understand their time. R.P. Feynman

This message is a reply to:
 Message 232 by Menachem, posted 02-09-2006 7:27 AM Menachem has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 235 by Chiroptera, posted 02-09-2006 9:46 AM sidelined has not replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 235 of 300 (285160)
02-09-2006 9:46 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by sidelined
02-09-2006 9:44 AM


Re: No creator, but science
quote:
It is empty assertion only. Your conclusion {He doesn't need assembling} has not been demonstrated by you to follow from your premise {The Creator is Perfect}
Not to mention that the premise itself may not be true.

"Intellectually, scientifically, even artistically, fundamentalism -- biblical literalism -- is a road to nowhere, because it insists on fidelity to revealed truths that are not true." -- Katha Pollitt

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by sidelined, posted 02-09-2006 9:44 AM sidelined has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 236 of 300 (285357)
02-09-2006 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 231 by sidelined
02-08-2006 9:14 AM


Re: No creator, but science
We do not know who the intelligent designer is. May be he is an alien from Mars, or a computer programmer,Steve Jobs, chemical engineer or anyone who has the intelligence to design.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 231 by sidelined, posted 02-08-2006 9:14 AM sidelined has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 237 by sidelined, posted 02-10-2006 10:37 AM inkorrekt has replied

sidelined
Member (Idle past 5908 days)
Posts: 3435
From: Edmonton Alberta Canada
Joined: 08-30-2003


Message 237 of 300 (285469)
02-10-2006 10:37 AM
Reply to: Message 236 by inkorrekt
02-09-2006 10:25 PM


Re: No creator, but science
inkorrekt
We do not know who the intelligent designer is.
Then what is all the effort for? You are adamant than an intelligent designer must be present and now you are,in essence, saying you do not know what you are talking about. Is this for real?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 236 by inkorrekt, posted 02-09-2006 10:25 PM inkorrekt has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:54 PM sidelined has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 238 of 300 (286008)
02-12-2006 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 226 by Percy
02-06-2006 12:21 PM


Re: No creator, but science
Amino acids do not self assemble and synthesize proteins. Chances of this occuring is less than 1 in (10 X 42) which is a statistical improbability.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by Percy, posted 02-06-2006 12:21 PM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Parasomnium, posted 02-12-2006 6:16 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 243 by Percy, posted 02-12-2006 7:24 PM inkorrekt has not replied

inkorrekt
Member (Idle past 6081 days)
Posts: 382
From: Westminster,CO, USA
Joined: 02-04-2006


Message 239 of 300 (286011)
02-12-2006 5:54 PM
Reply to: Message 237 by sidelined
02-10-2006 10:37 AM


Re: No creator, but science
Anything new requires intelligence. Ingenuity and creation requires some one who has the capability of design. Whoever that is. For you, it can be a programmer, for someone else, he could be a chef, he could be an artist or even alien from Space and all of them have intelligence. In science there is no magic. There is definite plan and purpose and a Designer.It takes lot more faith on my part to believe that everything self assembled( like proteins) than to believe in an intelligent designer who invents.
This message has been edited by inkorrekt, 02-12-2006 05:55 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 237 by sidelined, posted 02-10-2006 10:37 AM sidelined has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by crashfrog, posted 02-12-2006 6:17 PM inkorrekt has replied
 Message 242 by NosyNed, posted 02-12-2006 6:44 PM inkorrekt has not replied
 Message 244 by Percy, posted 02-12-2006 7:31 PM inkorrekt has replied

Parasomnium
Member
Posts: 2224
Joined: 07-15-2003


Message 240 of 300 (286015)
02-12-2006 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 238 by inkorrekt
02-12-2006 5:48 PM


Whence the number?
inkorrekt writes:
Amino acids do not self assemble and synthesize proteins. Chances of this occuring is less than 1 in (10 X 42) which is a statistical improbability.
Could you tell us how you arrived at that number?

"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science." - Charles Darwin.
Did you know that most of the time your computer is doing nothing? What if you could make it do something really useful? Like helping scientists understand diseases? Your computer could even be instrumental in finding a cure for HIV/AIDS. Wouldn't that be something? If you agree, then join World Community Grid now and download a simple, free tool that lets you and your computer do your share in helping humanity. After all, you are part of it, so why not take part in it?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 238 by inkorrekt, posted 02-12-2006 5:48 PM inkorrekt 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