Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,819 Year: 3,076/9,624 Month: 921/1,588 Week: 104/223 Day: 2/13 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy?
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 151 of 162 (348302)
09-12-2006 3:55 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by ReverendDG
09-11-2006 8:13 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
ok since you claim everything is opinion, why should i bother to answer you?
What I claim to be opinion is, in fact just your opinion.
but, the evidence is, the spine, it is not built for two legs, the eye has a blind spot because the retina is in backwards, the legs of female humans are inverted and make birth painful and lead to death, is that what you need to show how crappy design is and show nothing of intelligence?
That is an extremely narrow view of a much larger picture. Simple mechanics mean nothing to me. This view works only if you do not believe in God, Or if you believe in a flawed God. Either way it is still simply pushing your belief.
It is your personal opinion that these are flaws.Alone they stand as such. In a bigger picture it
is mine that they are not. What makes your opinion any better than mine? You are no more an authority than any person on this earth on this subject.
ID can't come up with a reason that it wouldn't be god other than to deny it, so they look like science, even though to prepose a non-god answer begs the question of who designed the designer. the other problem with this is ID preposes that the universe looks designed, what thing other than god can do that?
You cannot say it is not designed any more than they at this time can say it is. There is truly no factual basis for either side at this time. Only belief. Both sides are batting the big ZERO. Thier idea is young. it may fizzle....it may not. Time will tell.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by ReverendDG, posted 09-11-2006 8:13 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by ReverendDG, posted 09-12-2006 10:00 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 152 of 162 (348306)
09-12-2006 4:18 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by ringo
09-11-2006 11:03 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
What you have pointed out is that you have no clue what the topic is.
Unless your response contains some reference to blasphemy, I will waste no more time on you.
We are not removing the assumption of God in this topic. We are discussing specifically whether or not "intelligent design" is a blasphemous concept. Removing the assumption of God removes the possibility of blasphemy and the topic dies.
As I stated in message 133
It is only blasphemy if you assume the design is flawed. What constitutes a flaw is simply a matter of opinion. One persons flaw is anothers perfection. It is simply what perspective you take. I do not share your philosophical perspective here. It's that simple.
Inteligent design or unthinking blasphemy? It simply depends on what you believe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by ringo, posted 09-11-2006 11:03 PM ringo has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 153 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-12-2006 1:24 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
Archer Opteryx
Member (Idle past 3598 days)
Posts: 1811
From: East Asia
Joined: 08-16-2006


Message 153 of 162 (348410)
09-12-2006 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 152 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-12-2006 4:18 AM


Re: Laymans terms?
2ice baked taters:
What constitutes a flaw is simply a matter of opinion. One persons flaw is anothers perfection.
God made the tapeworm, right? The design works.
If I say a tapeworm is a disgusting creature, am I being blasphemous?

Archer
All species are transitional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 152 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-12-2006 4:18 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-12-2006 2:40 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 154 of 162 (348443)
09-12-2006 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 153 by Archer Opteryx
09-12-2006 1:24 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
God made the tapeworm, right? The design works.
If I say a tapeworm is a disgusting creature, am I being blasphemous?
To me, from a believing in God perspective, saying that you don't particularly care for something is not blasphemous. Profoundly claiming err without full knowledge of all aspects and ramifications would be.
Without belief in God to claim err is a non starter. There is no error.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 153 by Archer Opteryx, posted 09-12-2006 1:24 PM Archer Opteryx has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 155 by tudwell, posted 09-12-2006 8:40 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
tudwell
Member (Idle past 5979 days)
Posts: 172
From: KCMO
Joined: 08-20-2006


Message 155 of 162 (348519)
09-12-2006 8:40 PM
Reply to: Message 154 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-12-2006 2:40 PM


Re: Laymans terms?
To me, from a believing in God perspective, saying that you don't particularly care for something is not blasphemous.
But if God created everything, couldn't professing disgust for something be taken as a direct insult to God? I mean, He put in all that hard work just for you to say, "Ew, I hate mushrooms."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 154 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-12-2006 2:40 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 156 by AdminNosy, posted 09-12-2006 9:15 PM tudwell has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 156 of 162 (348526)
09-12-2006 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 155 by tudwell
09-12-2006 8:40 PM


Post Titles ! !
Does this post have anything to do with "Laymans Terms"??
Please try to use titles well.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 155 by tudwell, posted 09-12-2006 8:40 PM tudwell has not replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 157 of 162 (348533)
09-12-2006 10:00 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-12-2006 3:55 AM


intelligence? maybe someday
What I claim to be opinion is, in fact just your opinion.
ok you really should just stop bothering to debate, you have nothing at all to add to this, all you do is handwave away what other people say. go watch tv or something, saying "this is just your opinion" is not an answer to anything.
That is an extremely narrow view of a much larger picture. Simple mechanics mean nothing to me. This view works only if you do not believe in God, Or if you believe in a flawed God. Either way it is still simply pushing your belief.
you have no clue about ID or evolution or anything about science please go read a book
it all has to do with mechanics! even a human with the brain we have can tell this is not intelligent
It is your personal opinion that these are flaws.Alone they stand as such. In a bigger picture it
is mine that they are not. What makes your opinion any better than mine? You are no more an authority than any person on this earth on this subject.
i don't really give a crap about what your view is on what is opinon ore not you have nothing relevent to anything, you seem to have none, other than to say "thats just your opinion" a cop-out statement is all you have
You cannot say it is not designed any more than they at this time can say it is. There is truly no factual basis for either side at this time. Only belief. Both sides are batting the big ZERO. Thier idea is young. it may fizzle....it may not. Time will tell.
sure i can i can LOOK at things we have and see if they LOOK designed, even DI says this and they started it.
you know nothing about what you are talking about
this is about science, they show nothing that could be counted as science, if you want to philosophize about the nature of the universe and whether its designed in your OPINION then go look to the faith forums not the science forums.
i have given evidence for why things don't show design and why evolution is an answer for why there is no design other than NS, but of course YOU can't seem to unstand that. YOU have to add something other than dismissing it by saying "well you don't know the larger picture" by adding something useful instead
you have shown nothing but contempt for anyone else trying to debate, why are you on this, a DEBATE forum if all you are going to do is make vague statements and call what others consider logical reasoning "opinion" and handwaving it away?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-12-2006 3:55 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 158 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-13-2006 5:05 AM ReverendDG has replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 158 of 162 (348650)
09-13-2006 5:05 AM
Reply to: Message 157 by ReverendDG
09-12-2006 10:00 PM


Cake and eat it too.
Inteligent design or unthinking blasphemy?
ok you really should just stop bothering to debate, you have nothing at all to add to this, all you do is handwave away what other people say. go watch tv or something, saying "this is just your opinion" is not an answer to anything.
I did not hand wave anything. I pointed out very accurately that you have stated an opinion. I stated mine. You are just not happy that I do not agree.
it all has to do with mechanics! even a human with the brain we have can tell this is not intelligent
It all has to do with mechanics to you. Not to me.
sure i can i can LOOK at things we have and see if they LOOK designed, even DI says this and they started it.
you know nothing about what you are talking about
this is about science, they show nothing that could be counted as science, if you want to philosophize about the nature of the universe and whether its designed in your OPINION then go look to the faith forums not the science forums.
It is quite obvious if one is discussing this: "Inteligent design or unthinking blasphemy?" title, that science has nothing to do with it.
Member Shh clearly intended this to be an examination of a percieved moral or philosophical dilama between the idea of ID and the concept of God. That the topic was placed poorly is not my problem. I stated my reasons why I see no dilema. They are clear.
If you are to truly discuss the concept of intelligent design from a scientific standpoint then you must remove the concept of God. You refuse to do this. You want it both ways. I am not going to let you.
i have given evidence for why things don't show design and why evolution is an answer for why there is no design other than NS,
No, you gave your opinion that: the mechanics of NS is crap, dying sucks, Ns is flawed ect.
You have not addressed anything other than your opinion of how your view of the machanics of NS indicate a faulty God to you and therefore nullify ID. Show me the science.
but of course YOU can't seem to unstand that. YOU have to add something other than dismissing it by saying "well you don't know the larger picture" by adding something useful instead.
Yes. I added something very useful. You just do not like it. I stated the reasons why I do not share your opinion of the evidence you spoke of. Your response was childish. I at least recognise your right to an opinion. I also recognise the nature of this topic. Science has nothing to do with it.
Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 157 by ReverendDG, posted 09-12-2006 10:00 PM ReverendDG has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 159 by ReverendDG, posted 09-15-2006 1:16 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
ReverendDG
Member (Idle past 4111 days)
Posts: 1119
From: Topeka,kansas
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 159 of 162 (349208)
09-15-2006 1:16 AM
Reply to: Message 158 by 2ice_baked_taters
09-13-2006 5:05 AM


Re: Cake and eat it too.
I did not hand wave anything. I pointed out very accurately that you have stated an opinion. I stated mine. You are just not happy that I do not agree.
but you arn't answering me, you are just claiming its my opinion so anything i say is meaningless to you as an arguement. if you think i care if you disagree with me then you need to look at what this site is for.
It all has to do with mechanics to you. Not to me
yes and that is ID's argument, its all based on identifying via the mechanics of nature that theres a designer, if you have a problem with how YOUR side argues take it up with them
It is quite obvious if one is discussing this: "Inteligent design or unthinking blasphemy?" title, that science has nothing to do with it.
Member Shh clearly intended this to be an examination of a percieved moral or philosophical dilama between the idea of ID and the concept of God. That the topic was placed poorly is not my problem. I stated my reasons why I see no dilema. They are clear.
If you are to truly discuss the concept of intelligent design from a scientific standpoint then you must remove the concept of God. You refuse to do this. You want it both ways. I am not going to let you.
so provide some SCIENTIFIC evidence then, my point which you seem to have not grasped is, that it isn't science, so in a word it is unthinking blasphemy
and the usage of blasphemy would preclude the usage of god since scienence doesn't use this term
and by the way where is YOUR argument using science? where is your evidence? you are claiming ID is shown but i don't see it, all i've seen is philosophy put up as an argument
You refuse to do this. You want it both ways. I am not going to let you
yes becuase you have been full of such a derth of answers! i just keep having to repeat myself over and over again trying to get you to say something a bit more than "thats your opinion!"
No, you gave your opinion that: the mechanics of NS is crap, dying sucks, Ns is flawed ect.
You have not addressed anything other than your opinion of how your view of the machanics of NS indicate a faulty God to you and therefore nullify ID. Show me the science.
where did i say NS was crap? where? i believe evolution answers the questions being asked! NS and mutation account for why we have spines that don't work well for standing on two legs
did i say god? no i said a crappy designer!!! do you even read what i write or just make shit up!?
stop fucking distorting my posts FFS!
my arguement on why anything but god from how ID works, is the same fucking arguement critics of ID argue, which i happen to agree with and use as one of my beliefs that ID as a theory is useless.
it has zero to do with the fact that its god, it has to do with how they construct the arguments for ID!
my arguments for why the designer is bad is, one: what do we know about his designs? they don't work from a stand point of how humans design, they design for effency and for structural stability first, then for how it looks. if a designer of a building builds a building without these in mind and many more things he is a bad designer!
unless you are trying to be contrary just to be contrary, then you are just an asshole
Yes. I added something very useful. You just do not like it. I stated the reasons why I do not share your opinion of the evidence you spoke of. Your response was childish. I at least recognise your right to an opinion. I also recognise the nature of this topic. Science has nothing to do with it.
where? my gods where did you post anything useful?, all i've seen is a bunch of babble and claiming stuff you don't know a thing about.
i mean come on! disagreeing that a spine that gives you backproblems dissallows you from standing very well, a backwards retina and having bones that arn't set right, and just saying "i disagree with you" is not a debate! this is like the fucking monty python skit "no i don'T" "yes i do!" "no i don't!"
you don't know a damn thing about the topic, he's talking about both god and science, while claiming that if devout people hold to this belief they are saying god is erroring, you can ignore this if you want to, but ID claims its science, so it tries to hide the designer, which according to all IDiests it seems outside the public or hell in the public is GOD, anything they can use to push crap they want doesn't bother them
if my responses are "childish" then you arn't much better saying "well thats just your opinion" or "you just don't see the bigger picture"
are just as childish considering how much effort you put into debating by using such vague garbage
by trying to play it both ways ID caters to both groups while trying to burn both ends, but i think i give up on this topic, i just really don't care

This message is a reply to:
 Message 158 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-13-2006 5:05 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 160 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 09-15-2006 11:04 AM ReverendDG has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 160 of 162 (349280)
09-15-2006 11:04 AM
Reply to: Message 159 by ReverendDG
09-15-2006 1:16 AM


Re: Cake and eat it too.
and by the way where is YOUR argument using science? where is your evidence? you are claiming ID is shown but i don't see it, all i've seen is philosophy put up as an argument
This is precisely my point. All you have shown me is philosophy. Your evidence can be viewed from more than your perspective. However you have the misconception that the philosophical view you take is the only one. The science favors no position. Your philosophy is what drives it. A correct scientific position to take is that there is nothing known to science that can allow a person to take a stance on the subject of randomness or intention either way. Any interpretaion in either direction is purely philosophical in nature.
i believe evolution answers the questions being asked! NS and mutation account for why we have spines that don't work well for standing on two legs
How does this remotely undermine the concept of ID? You are looking at one infinitesimally small aspect of a design theory, calling it crap, and claiming to know the entire design is crap. You cannot say this scientifically. Not in the most remote sense. What it is, is you expressing your opinion driven by philosophy not science. For someone who speaks to others how unscientific they are perhaps you should look in the mirror. Everything we do has a consequence or a series of consequences. That is a scienctific fact. One thing that is good for us in the short run quite often has an over all negative outcome in the bigger picture. Evidence of this abounds throughout history. The cool thing is that nature has a way of ballancing things out. Nature favors no one species. The balance things tend to stay in with so many living systems interacting is a beautiful thing. It's genious to me. As it is to many others.
If you are a believer in God and speak of NS as crap then you are a blasphemer.
If you don't believe in God it's a non starter.
Again Science has nothing to do with the nature of this discussion.
my arguments for why the designer is bad
You cannot scientifially say the designer is bad.
is, one: what do we know about his designs? they don't work from a stand point of how humans design, they design for effency and for structural stability first, then for how it looks. if a designer of a building builds a building without these in mind and many more things he is a bad designer!
Where is the good science? Living things are not buildings. You have the ability to see things from many perspectives. It's time you pull your head out of the machine shop and consider a larger more honestly scientific view. Evolution includes the individual and interactive behaviour of all living things. We speak of the balance of nature all the time. We peak of natures design. Evolution may in fact be an amazing design. We have not the capacity to foresee all the ramifications of designs we do. We have tunnel vision. Your posts of "scientific" reasoning are prime examples.
stop fucking distorting my posts FFS!
unless you are trying to be contrary just to be contrary, then you are just an asshole
Regardless of which philosophical view one takes the pursuit of knowledge will continue so, I have to ask, why such an inflamed passion over such a simple thing? Just because someone decides to believe "God did it" does not mean they won't want to understand how.
It's like there is some "dark age" paranoia.
Edited by 2ice_baked_taters, : minor spell check

This message is a reply to:
 Message 159 by ReverendDG, posted 09-15-2006 1:16 AM ReverendDG has not replied

  
Shh
Inactive Member


Message 161 of 162 (365632)
11-23-2006 4:40 PM


lo again
Lo all, not had access for awhile, will post as soon as i can read up to the last posts. Sorry for the absence to anyone I should've replied to by now.

If he flew them he was crazy and didn't have to; but if he didn't want to he was sane and had to. Yossarian was moved very deeply by the absolute simplicity of this cause of Catch22 and let out a respectful whistle.
"That's some catch, that Catch22," He observed.
"It sure is."
Catch22, Joseph Heller, 1961

Replies to this message:
 Message 162 by The Barbarian, posted 02-27-2007 8:33 AM Shh has not replied

  
The Barbarian
Member (Idle past 6240 days)
Posts: 31
From: Dallas, TX US
Joined: 01-09-2002


Message 162 of 162 (387227)
02-27-2007 8:33 AM
Reply to: Message 161 by Shh
11-23-2006 4:40 PM


This topic always comes to me when I hear people describe God as a designer. It has always seemed blasphemous to me.
And the usual reply "well, this kind of design is different" doesn't work. If it's not design, why call it that? Particularly when we have a perfectly good and accurate word (create) to use.
I suspect it's political. They know "intelligent creation" isn't going to pass Constitutional muster. But then, juries and judges seem smart enough to have noticed what I did; "intelligent design" is essentially creationism with clean clothes and a shave.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 161 by Shh, posted 11-23-2006 4:40 PM Shh 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