|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Intelligent Design or unthinking blasphemy? | |||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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 itis 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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 133It 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3625 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
tudwell Member (Idle past 6006 days) Posts: 172 From: KCMO Joined: |
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."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Does this post have anything to do with "Laymans Terms"??
Please try to use titles well.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
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 bookit 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
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
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. 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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ReverendDG Member (Idle past 4138 days) Posts: 1119 From: Topeka,kansas Joined: |
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.
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 blasphemyMember 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. 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.
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 legsYou 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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
2ice_baked_taters Member (Idle past 5879 days) Posts: 566 From: Boulder Junction WI. Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||
Shh Inactive Member |
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.
Catch22, Joseph Heller, 1961
"That's some catch, that Catch22," He observed. "It sure is."
|
|||||||||||||||||||
The Barbarian Member (Idle past 6267 days) Posts: 31 From: Dallas, TX US Joined: |
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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024