|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,902 Year: 4,159/9,624 Month: 1,030/974 Week: 357/286 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I wish to clarify. The Taoist idea is in the beginning, there was only the Tao and the Tao was an "awareness" This awareness was alone in Wu Chi, nothingness The Tao created from the Wu Chi (nothingness) Where is this in Taoist texts? Only I read for example the Tao Te Ching, and see stuff like this:
Humans follow the laws of Earth Earth follows the laws of Heaven Heaven follows the laws of Tao Tao follows the laws of nature What I don't see is the Tao being imagined as like the creator-god of the Christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I wish to clarify. The Taoist idea is in the beginning, there was only the Tao and the Tao was an "awareness" This awareness was alone in Wu Chi, nothingness The Tao created from the Wu Chi (nothingness) Dr. Absolute writes:
I will go looking for provenance. If it turns out I made it up then I will shift my position from the Taoist view to the TaoistMe view
Where is this in Taoist texts? Dr. Absolute writes:
Of course they do. Obvious. No debate
Humans follow the laws of EarthDr. Absolute writes:
Of course it does. Basic to the Taoist cosmological view. No debate
Earth follows the laws of HeavenDr. Absolute writes:
Of course it does. Basic to the Taoist cosmological view. No debate
Heaven follows the laws of TaoDr. Absolute writes:
Of course it does. That is how the Tao creates itself. Basic to the Taoist cosmological view. No debate
Tao follows the laws of natureDr. Absolute writes:
I will look back over my posts to find a reference I made claiming the Tao being like the creator-god of the Christians. Since you found it already, could you point me there to save time?
What I don't see is the Tao being imagined as like the creator-god of the Christians.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I will look back over my posts to find a reference I made claiming the Tao being like the creator-god of the Christians. Since you found it already, could you point me there to save time? Intelligent Design was created by Christians to hide their creationism behind so they could teach it in public schools. If you don't want to be associated with Christians, stop using their term "ID". One other thing I'd like to point out, is that all ideas come from brains. Therefore, if something has an idea, then it must have a brain. When it comes to the creation of the universe, there has to be a point in time where the creations exists before brains do. And therefore, the universe could not have come about because of an idea, because there were no brains around at that time to hold any ideas.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I am arguing front-end design.
Taq writes:
I do not concede that I am arguing "where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution". Could be, could also not be. What you are arguing for is a design argument where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution. However, I could make that argument and it would not be frivolous in my cosmological view. To use an analogy, the Tao (point of "intelligence" discussion on my cosmological view) could very well have metaphorically picked up the little glass ball, shook it, and sat back to observe the curious way the snow falls on the little village inside the glass ball. The Tao must needs have somehow come across the little glass ball to do this in the first place, ergo design. Where is the argument for design being preempted by the lack of intelligent intervention in subsequent events?
Taq writes: I consider this to be a dishonest argument. You are essentially saying that the best evidence for intelligent design is the complete lack of evidence for intelligent design. I of course cannot control how you consider it. I can say it is not meant to be dishonest argument. And no, I am not saying all the rest of what you just said. Those are your words not mine.
Taq writes: Here are the facts. If evolution is true we would expect to see a nested hierarchy for independent phylogenies. That is exactly what we observe. All of the evidence is consistent with what we would expect from evolution. So how can this be evidence for design? I am not claiming the footprint of non-intervened evolution is evidence for design. I am claiming that such evidence is equally not a solid premise for arguing against design. Nothing about evolution precludes the idea of a preexistent design.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I will look back over my posts to find a reference I made claiming the Tao being like the creator-god of the Christians. Since you found it already, could you point me there to save time? Cat Sci writes: Intelligent Design was created by Christians to hide their creationism behind so they could teach it in public schools. Please give me a combination of two more pertinent words to discuss what I have been discussing: intelligent. and design I concede the term Intelligent Design has been hijacked and associated with the views of a narrow band of people with a narrow band of views. This is problematic for me. Discussion of intelligent design without all the socio-religious-political connotations should be possible and allowed. Do you have a solution for this?
Cat Sci writes: If you don't want to be associated with Christians, stop using their term "ID". See above. Is this your way of asking me to leave the discussion before resolving the debate? Perhaps it would be better to change the title of the topic to reference the specificity you imply as to the meaning of Intelligent Design.
Cat Sci writes: One other thing I'd like to point out, is that all ideas come from brains. Therefore, if something has an idea, then it must have a brain. When it comes to the creation of the universe, there has to be a point in time where the creations exists before brains do. And therefore, the universe could not have come about because of an idea, because there were no brains around at that time to hold any ideas. Where is the science that proves all ideas come from brains.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 314 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
I will look back over my posts to find a reference I made claiming the Tao being like the creator-god of the Christians. Since you found it already, could you point me there to save time? Sure.
in the beginning, there was only the Tao and the Tao was an "awareness" This awareness was alone in Wu Chi, nothingness The Tao created from the Wu Chi (nothingness) The Christians call it God instead of the Tao and don't call the nothingness "Wu Chi", otherwise there is a marked similarity. All we need now is for the Tao to have strong views on gay marriage ...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I do not concede that I am arguing "where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution". Could be, could also not be. The tell us what the distribution of shared and derived features should look like if ID is true, and why.
However, I could make that argument and it would not be frivolous in my cosmological view. To use an analogy, the Tao (point of "intelligence" discussion on my cosmological view) could very well have metaphorically picked up the little glass ball, shook it, and sat back to observe the curious way the snow falls on the little village inside the glass ball. The Tao must needs have somehow come across the little glass ball to do this in the first place, ergo design. Where is the argument for design being preempted by the lack of intelligent intervention in subsequent events? Then the designer is irrelevant and superfluous to the actual development of species. So much for ID.
I of course cannot control how you consider it. I can say it is not meant to be dishonest argument. And no, I am not saying all the rest of what you just said. Those are your words not mine. If that is not what you are saying, then tell us how we can differentiate ID from evolution where it concerns the distribution of shared and derived characteristics. If you can't show us how the two are different, then you have tacitly conceded the point.
I am not claiming the footprint of non-intervened evolution is evidence for design. I am claiming that such evidence is equally not a solid premise for arguing against design. Nothing about evolution precludes the idea of a preexistent design. Once again, you are given the chance to unmuddy the waters, and you just muddy them further. You still can't separate ID and evolution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Please give me a combination of two more pertinent words to discuss what I have been discussing: intelligent. and design Taoist religion. Front-loaded evolution. Guided evolution. Theistic evolution. Diestic evolution. Premeditated creation. Smart control (of the universe). Wise editing (of the universe). I dunno, I guess that's enough for now.
I concede the term Intelligent Design has been hijacked and associated with the views of a narrow band of people with a narrow band of views. This is problematic for me. Hold on, if anything, its people like you who have done the hijacking. Intelligent Design was invented by the Discovery Institute. They are a Christian organization. They created Intelligent Design particularly and specifically because Creationism was ruled unconstitutional for teaching in public schools. Haven't you heard of the book Of Pandas and People and the whole "cdesign proponentsists" debacle? If not, Of Pandas and People was a Creationist science text book. They were saying Creationist this and Creationist that and then the book got ruled unconstitutional. So, they decided to replace "creationist" with "design proponent". But, they screwed up and one of the cut&pastes ended up coming out as "cdesign proponentsists", which is just "design proponent" accidentally interspersed with the word "creationist". Further, have you not heard of the Wedge Document?
Is this your way of asking me to leave the discussion before resolving the debate? No, it was me telling you that ID is associated with Christianity so if you keep on talking about ID, then you are going to be associated with Christianity. Nothing more. You asked where you mentioned the creator-god of the Christians and I was just telling you that it is implicit in Intelligent Design.
Where is the science that proves all ideas come from brains. Ever single idea we have ever been aware of has come from a brain. From this we can scientifically induce, tentatively, that all ideas come from brains. If you don't think so, then point to one idea that did not come from a brain.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I do not concede that I am arguing "where the results of design are indistinguishable from the results of the blind and unintelligent process of evolution". Could be, could also not be. Taq writes: The tell us what the distribution of shared and derived features should look like if ID is true, and why. I suppose we could forever quibble about what design is, how it should be defined, observed, measured, etc.. It seems to be a very root problem encountered over and over in this thread. I don't have a definitive answer that is likely to satisfy a scientist. I can respond with an analogy. A very educated and respected Supreme Court justice once said (in my words and to the best of my recollection) that he could not say exactly what pornography was, but he knew it when he saw it. Perhaps we have something similar here?
However, I could make that argument and it would not be frivolous in my cosmological view. To use an analogy, the Tao (point of "intelligence" discussion on my cosmological view) could very well have metaphorically picked up the little glass ball, shook it, and sat back to observe the curious way the snow falls on the little village inside the glass ball. The Tao must needs have somehow come across the little glass ball to do this in the first place, ergo design. Where is the argument for design being preempted by the lack of intelligent intervention in subsequent events? Taq writes: Then the designer is irrelevant and superfluous to the actual development of species. So much for ID. If that works for you, then I really shouldn't offer any commentary. I presume you are offering a personal conclusion and not asking for a response
I of course cannot control how you consider it. I can say it is not meant to be dishonest argument. And no, I am not saying all the rest of what you just said. Those are your words not mine. Taq writes: If that is not what you are saying, then tell us how we can differentiate ID from evolution where it concerns the distribution of shared and derived characteristics. If you can't show us how the two are different, then you have tacitly conceded the point. No, I have tacitly conceded nothing. Your ipso facto remark does not make it so. As to distribution of shared and derived characteristics, I have given you the glass ball analogy which answers you in my mind. If it does not answer you, give me a more specific question and I will give a more specific answer.
I am not claiming the footprint of non-intervened evolution is evidence for design. I am claiming that such evidence is equally not a solid premise for arguing against design. Nothing about evolution precludes the idea of a preexistent design. Taq writes: Once again, you are given the chance to unmuddy the waters, and you just muddy them further. You still can't separate ID and evolution. muddy the waters is your subjective interpretation of the conversation we had. I cannot control your subjective interpretations. My points were made with the intent of giving clarity not with the intent of muddying the waters. I can absolutely and without entertaining argument tell you what my intent was. I cannot argue whether the waters were muddied for you. I can state that muddying the waters was not my intent.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
Please give me a combination of two more pertinent words to discuss what I have been discussing: intelligent. and design Cat Sci writes: Taoist religion. Front-loaded evolution. Guided evolution. Theistic evolution. Diestic evolution. Premeditated creation. Smart control (of the universe). Wise editing (of the universe). I dunno, I guess that's enough for now. All of the above hypotheses fall legitimately as subjects of discussion within the larger constraint of a discussion of intelligent design in my opinion. What are you suggesting?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
All of the above hypotheses fall legitimately as subjects of discussion within the larger constraint of a discussion of intelligent design in my opinion. What are you suggesting? If you used one of those instead, then people would be less likely to associate your arguments with Christianity. Anything to say about the rest of my post?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10085 Joined: Member Rating: 5.1 |
I suppose we could forever quibble about what design is, how it should be defined, observed, measured, etc.. It seems to be a very root problem encountered over and over in this thread. I don't have a definitive answer that is likely to satisfy a scientist. That answer satisfies me just fine. What you are saying is that ID is a faith based belief that doesn't make any testable predictions. ID is a religion.
As to distribution of shared and derived characteristics, I have given you the glass ball analogy which answers you in my mind. If it does not answer you, give me a more specific question and I will give a more specific answer. That would be the usual bullshit answer that we get from design theoriests. In the end, the theory of evolution explains the evidence extremely well. ID can't even address the evidence. I think the winner is easy to pick out.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
I will look back over my posts to find a reference I made claiming the Tao being like the creator-god of the Christians. Since you found it already, could you point me there to save time?
Dr. Absolute writes: Sure. in the beginning, there was only the Tao and the Tao was an "awareness" This awareness was alone in Wu Chi, nothingness The Tao created from the Wu Chi (nothingness) Dr. Absolute writes: The Christians call it God instead of the Tao and don't call the nothingness "Wu Chi", otherwise there is a marked similarity. All we need now is for the Tao to have strong views on gay marriage ...
I cannot control you drawing perceptions of marked similarities into restatements or misstatements of what I have said. I will tell you that I have not exhaustively studied the christian concept of creator-god in its many flavors. Their views are not important to my world-view. I doubt that these same christians who you say have the same view as me would agree with you. You are welcome to test that scientifically. Pass my Taoist notions by them and ask them if that is what believe. I will be very interested in reading of your observed results.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ooh-child Member (Idle past 373 days) Posts: 242 Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
I just don't believe it [evolution] is all random mutation. From what I understand, it isn't all random mutation. There's also natural selection. Maybe you don't understand the scientists' position?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
taiji2 Member (Idle past 3491 days) Posts: 124 From: Georgia, USA Joined: |
taiji2 writes:
I just don't believe it [evolution] is all random mutation. ooh-child writes: From what I understand, it isn't all random mutation. There's also natural selection. Maybe you don't understand the scientists' position? Thanks for responding. In another message, I may have mispoken scientific precept with something else based on my lay person level of scientific knowledge. I asked for leeway when I did unless my statement violated the point being argued. I understand evolution is more than random mutation. I took a short-cut in communication which keeps getting me in trouble. Yes, I understand natural selection in the context of evolution. No, I probably do not understand everything involved in the scientists' position. If my lack of understanding violates the precepts of discussion, please correct me. I am here to learn and understand.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024