Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
5 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:   Evolution guided by god? Or a natural process?
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 27 of 44 (499367)
02-18-2009 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 26 by JaysonD
02-18-2009 12:07 PM


That being said, I'd say the only arguement possible for guided evolution is "I have faith it is so, and you can't disprove faith"
That's not the only one, I can think of another. You could argue that some feature or characteristic could not have arrisen naturally and that it would have require some guidance to emerge.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 26 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 12:07 PM JaysonD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2009 1:05 PM New Cat's Eye has replied
 Message 31 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 2:36 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 29 of 44 (499386)
02-18-2009 1:44 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by Theodoric
02-18-2009 1:05 PM


You could argue that some feature or characteristic could not have arrisen naturally and that it would have require some guidance to emerge.
In order to use that argument you would have to show that something could not have arisen naturally.
Yes, yes you would.
But it remains as an argument that is not "I have faith it is so, and you can't disprove faith", so that is not the only argument possible for guided evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2009 1:05 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by Theodoric, posted 02-18-2009 1:54 PM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 33 of 44 (499418)
02-18-2009 3:00 PM
Reply to: Message 31 by JaysonD
02-18-2009 2:36 PM


Ok, I think my language was a little inexact, maybe I should have said:
I think you are just wrong
The only successful argument for evolution guided by an intelligent creator is ...
But the argument is not successful.
Also (as indicated up-thread) you've only presented a possible format for an argument and not an actual argument.
So what?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 2:36 PM JaysonD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 4:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 36 of 44 (499441)
02-18-2009 4:53 PM
Reply to: Message 34 by JaysonD
02-18-2009 4:33 PM


I think you are just wrong
wouldn't be the first time.
nor the last
Also (as indicated up-thread) you've only presented a possible format for an argument and not an actual argument.
So what?
So you didn't make your point. And I still contend you can't.
My point was that another type of argument is possible. That I presented the format for such an argument shows that it is, indeed, possible and, thus, makes my point.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 4:33 PM JaysonD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 5:33 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 38 of 44 (499596)
02-19-2009 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by JaysonD
02-18-2009 5:33 PM


Ignoring my previous statements. Will you present a valid argument for intelligent design?
I'm not aware of any valid arguments for ID.
There's sound arguments for it, but the arguments are invalidated by the fallaciousness of the premesis.
Now, what you said in Message 26 was:
quote:
That being said, I'd say the only arguement possible for guided evolution is "I have faith it is so, and you can't disprove faith"
I'm guessing you were trying to say that that is the only argument that has not been invalidated? That's because you can't falsify the premises. But still, I'm not so sure the argument is sound so, really, I still don't get what you were getting at there.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by JaysonD, posted 02-18-2009 5:33 PM JaysonD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by JaysonD, posted 02-19-2009 4:49 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

  
New Cat's Eye
Inactive Member


Message 43 of 44 (499768)
02-20-2009 9:11 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by JaysonD
02-19-2009 4:49 PM


I think your taking my initial statement a little too seriously. That or your being intentionally obtuse for the sake of an argument. I'll grant that my initial statement was poorly worded.
The poor wording of your initial statement improperly conveyed both your inention and seriousness. Its all your fault
But at least by now my intention should be clear. Specifically Intelligent Design is a concept based on faith or belief (if there's a distinction).
In general, ID is what you say it is but it doesn't have to be.
And as a concept, I don't think it is based on faith and belief. I think it ends up falling on faith and belief, when the arguments are shown to be invalid, but I don't think that faith and belief are the basis of the arguments.
Accordingly forming a logical argument in support of it is going to be an uphill battle at best.
An argument can easily be logical and false. I think you mean a valid argument, which not only depends on the logic but also the truth of the premises.
The problem with ID is not just their logic, its their fallacious premises.
Consequently proponents of ID tend to be left with emotional or spiritual appeals in place of arguments grounded in logic.
Because of the lack of truth in their premises, not because of the lack of logic in their arguments.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by JaysonD, posted 02-19-2009 4:49 PM JaysonD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by JaysonD, posted 02-20-2009 3:40 PM New Cat's Eye 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