Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
109 online now:
dwise1, Phat (2 members, 107 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,086 Year: 6,198/6,534 Month: 391/650 Week: 161/278 Day: 1/28 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is there a legitimate argument for design?
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 496 of 638 (737035)
09-16-2014 4:15 AM
Reply to: Message 488 by New Cat's Eye
09-15-2014 4:52 PM


Re: The Tao
Cat Sci writes:

Hold on, if anything, its people like you who have done the hijacking.

Who are people like me? Are you putting me in a group? If so what group?

Cat Sci writes:

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.

I did not know this. I have heard the Discovery Institute mentioned only one time previously in life. It was mentioned in passing on another forum. I did not consider the reference important enough to pursue further. That is an honest answer.

Cat Sci writes:

Haven't you heard of the book Of Pandas and People and the whole "cdesign proponentsists" debacle?

I have never heard of this book. That is an honest answer.

Cat Sci writes:

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".

This is very interesting. Again, this is the first time I have ever heard this. I had been made aware on another forum that intelligent design had connotations to other people, but I have never been given the history. Thank you. I do see where you could make assumptions about me coming out of the gate. My honest reply is that those assumptions are wrong.

Cat Sci writes:

Further, have you not heard of the Wedge Document?

No. I have not heard of this.

Is this your way of asking me to leave the discussion before resolving the debate?

Cat Sci writes:

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.

This is unfortunate. In my mind, intelligent and design are two words in common usage in the english language. As for the two words being used together........ that the two words together is an invention stretches credibility. I can look for historical usageof the words in combination which predate what you mentioned above, but is that really necessary? I make the hypothesis that intelligent design are two common words used together to communicate a simple idea and that such usage predates your invention. I leave it to you to prove or disprove this.

As for being thought christian if I use the two words together... as I said it is unfortunate words have been hijacked. I do not have a christian perspective when I use them thus. Perhaps there is something to worry about... for instance I could say I am gay (meaning happy) and be misunderstood. Another instance of a word being hijacked.

In neither this instance or the one you mentioned do i concede honest meanings of words should be excluded from common usage just because some try to imply exclusive ownership of those words or terms. That is for another debate however.

Where is the science that proves all ideas come from brains.

Cat Sci writes:

Ever single idea we have ever been aware of has come from a brain.

That is a strong statement. Has science been done to support it?

Cat Sci writes:

From this we can scientifically induce, tentatively, that all ideas come from brains.

Based on the unsupported ipso facto statement you just made.

Cat Sci writes:

If you don't think so, then point to one idea that did not come from a brain.

Sure....... something on the order of let there be Tai Chi.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 488 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-15-2014 4:52 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 498 by Percy, posted 09-16-2014 5:11 AM taiji2 has replied
 Message 505 by ringo, posted 09-16-2014 12:34 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 514 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-16-2014 4:57 PM taiji2 has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 497 of 638 (737036)
09-16-2014 4:46 AM
Reply to: Message 492 by Taq
09-15-2014 5:24 PM


Re: the eyes have it
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.

Taq writes:

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.

Wow, there is a slippery slope around here. People keep "saying what you are saying" without saying what I have said. I said none of what you said I said. Please restate

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.

Taq writes:

That would be the usual bullshit answer that we get from design theoriests.

hmmmmm. you sound angry. If you will point me to a place where "usual bullshit answers" are listed, I will try to avoid them in the future.The truth is the glass ball analogy was mine (in the context of discussing ID). If someone has used it previously in this context, I was not aware.

Taq writes:

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.

If you will modify your statement with the insertion of "In my opinion" at the front, I will take no exception with what you said.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 492 by Taq, posted 09-15-2014 5:24 PM Taq has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 504 by Taq, posted 09-16-2014 11:36 AM taiji2 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 498 of 638 (737037)
09-16-2014 5:11 AM
Reply to: Message 496 by taiji2
09-16-2014 4:15 AM


Re: The Tao
Taiji2 writes:

Where is the science that proves all ideas come from brains.

Cat Sci writes:

Ever single idea we have ever been aware of has come from a brain.

That is a strong statement. Has science been done to support it?

Cat Sci writes:

From this we can scientifically induce, tentatively, that all ideas come from brains.

Based on the unsupported ipso facto statement you just made.

Cat Sci writes:

If you don't think so, then point to one idea that did not come from a brain.

Sure....... something on the order of let there be Tai Chi.

Ideas that aren't a product of brains thinking. Interesting. Are the ideas of prickly or disputatious also independent of brains?

Concerning the topic, if you have a legitimate argument for design I haven't heard it yet.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 4:15 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 499 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 6:04 AM Percy has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 499 of 638 (737038)
09-16-2014 6:04 AM
Reply to: Message 498 by Percy
09-16-2014 5:11 AM


Re: The Tao
Percy writes:

Ideas that aren't a product of brains thinking. Interesting.

Is it really a novel idea? I would think most religions would have this as a basic assumption. Except for religions which presume the deity to have physical bodies, the notion of the deities' ideas coming from brains doesn't make sense. I don't mean to be prickly or disputatious.

Percy writes:

Are the ideas of prickly or disputatious also independent of brains?

Is that how you see me? In honesty, I do not make a deliberate attempt to be so. I am one of few debating a science community of quite a few. If I come off that way I apologize.

Percy writes:

Concerning the topic, if you have a legitimate argument for design I haven't heard it yet.

Not to be prickly, but I doubt you ever will say you do. After all, you are free to define legitimate argument as you wish. In the end we will all come down to opinions, but the journey is interesting!

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 498 by Percy, posted 09-16-2014 5:11 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 501 by Percy, posted 09-16-2014 7:59 AM taiji2 has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 500 of 638 (737039)
09-16-2014 6:37 AM
Reply to: Message 481 by Dr Adequate
09-15-2014 1:57 PM


Re: The Tao
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:

Where is this in Taoist texts? Only I read for example the Tao Te Ching

Since you have the Tao Te Ching, consult chapter 40 where the most inclusive reference is. There are other comments throughout the Tao Te Ching that are pertinent, for instance references of the Tao returning to nothingness (implication that is from where it came}. There are other sources of course, but you might consider them somewhat rabbinical and I don't think you really need look past the Tao Te Ching.

I am not giving quotes from the Tao Te Ching as there are many translations and that could prove problematic.

Also, do some reading on the taijitu - the symbol of Taoism - the yin/yang white black thing that most people are familiar with.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 481 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2014 1:57 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 501 of 638 (737041)
09-16-2014 7:59 AM
Reply to: Message 499 by taiji2
09-16-2014 6:04 AM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

Not to be prickly, but I doubt you ever will say you do. After all, you are free to define legitimate argument as you wish. In the end we will all come down to opinions, but the journey is interesting!

A "legitimate argument for design" is setting the bar pretty low. It doesn't mean a convincing argument for design, just a rational one, one that is a comprehensible and based on evidence, one that if someone asked me where's the science in your argument I could explain it to them. A lot of what you're saying so far seems mystical, not scientific.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 499 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 6:04 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 506 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 2:15 PM Percy has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 720 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 502 of 638 (737042)
09-16-2014 8:09 AM
Reply to: Message 476 by New Cat's Eye
09-15-2014 12:06 PM


Re: why is the sky blue?
Why do things fall downward instead of upward?

Gravity is how things are attracted, but why is there gravity?

Why does candy taste sweet?

Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar?

Why does my back hurt?

Strained muscles and nerve impulses are how your back aches, but why do they exist?

Why do you say that science cannot answer why-questions?

Science explains how, not why the two year old in the back seat keeps asking why questions.

Why is subjective, how is objective.

If you're simply pointing out that science is unable to identify any purpose behind the way things are, then you're just begging the question of having any need to identify a purpose in the first place.

Ooo how about poison the well fallacy?

Or I'm just pointing out that science cannot answer those questions.

Why is the sky blue?

Enjoy


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 476 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-15-2014 12:06 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 516 by New Cat's Eye, posted 09-16-2014 5:07 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 523 by NoNukes, posted 09-17-2014 2:18 AM RAZD has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 720 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 503 of 638 (737043)
09-16-2014 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 480 by Dr Adequate
09-15-2014 1:51 PM


Re: first you make a star with hydrogen ...
But God could.

I'm not arguing against the standard model.

And if god/s do it by using the standard model? -- that is the thesis presented here ...

Put another way -- would not the "standard model" reflect how god/s created the universe no matter how they actually did it? If the universe worked a different way, would that not be incorporated into the study of that universe, built into the "standard model" there?

Enjoy

Edited by RAZD, : added P


we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAmerican☆Zen☯Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

This message is a reply to:
 Message 480 by Dr Adequate, posted 09-15-2014 1:51 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 504 of 638 (737058)
09-16-2014 11:36 AM
Reply to: Message 497 by taiji2
09-16-2014 4:46 AM


Re: the eyes have it
Wow, there is a slippery slope around here. People keep "saying what you are saying" without saying what I have said. I said none of what you said I said. Please restate. . .

hmmmmm. you sound angry. If you will point me to a place where "usual bullshit answers" are listed, I will try to avoid them in the future.The truth is the glass ball analogy was mine (in the context of discussing ID). If someone has used it previously in this context, I was not aware. . .

If you will modify your statement with the insertion of "In my opinion" at the front, I will take no exception with what you said.

Notice that you were once again unable to produce testable hypotheses using ID as it relates to the distribution of characteristics among species. Evolution is able to make these predictions. That is why evolution is accepted as science and why ID is considered to be a faith based belief.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 497 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 4:46 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 508 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 2:46 PM Taq has not replied

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 19745
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 2.9


(1)
Message 505 of 638 (737061)
09-16-2014 12:34 PM
Reply to: Message 496 by taiji2
09-16-2014 4:15 AM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

Who are people like me? Are you putting me in a group? If so what group?


We get a lot of people here who "have doubts about evolution" (without knowing the first thing about it). They have never been to a creationist website (yet they know all of the creationist rhetoric verbatim). They are not religious (though they believe in a miraculous origin of the univere rather than a scientific one).

Are you really different from "the group"?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 496 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 4:15 AM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 509 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 3:17 PM ringo has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 506 of 638 (737065)
09-16-2014 2:15 PM
Reply to: Message 501 by Percy
09-16-2014 7:59 AM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

Not to be prickly, but I doubt you ever will say you do. After all, you are free to define legitimate argument as you wish. In the end we will all come down to opinions, but the journey is interesting!

Thank you Percy,
You have helped me achieve clarity. You seem to be saying that the only legitimate argument for design is a scientific argument for design. If this is not a correct interpretation of what you said, please tell me what is wrong with it, I do not wish to put words in your mouth.

If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do. Again, I suggest that perhaps the name of the thread could have been made a bit more clear.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 501 by Percy, posted 09-16-2014 7:59 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 507 by Taq, posted 09-16-2014 2:28 PM taiji2 has replied
 Message 510 by Percy, posted 09-16-2014 3:28 PM taiji2 has replied

  
Taq
Member
Posts: 8524
Joined: 03-06-2009


Message 507 of 638 (737066)
09-16-2014 2:28 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by taiji2
09-16-2014 2:15 PM


Re: The Tao
If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do.

Scientific arguments are based on logic and reason.

All you have offered is an unfalsifiable claim that there is design in nature. That is neither logical nor reasonable.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 2:15 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 511 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 3:39 PM Taq has replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 508 of 638 (737067)
09-16-2014 2:46 PM
Reply to: Message 504 by Taq
09-16-2014 11:36 AM


Re: the eyes have it
Wow, there is a slippery slope around here. People keep "saying what you are saying" without saying what I have said. I said none of what you said I said. Please restate. . .
hmmmmm. you sound angry. If you will point me to a place where "usual bullshit answers" are listed, I will try to avoid them in the future.The truth is the glass ball analogy was mine (in the context of discussing ID). If someone has used it previously in this context, I was not aware. . .

If you will modify your statement with the insertion of "In my opinion" at the front, I will take no exception with what you said.

Taq writes:

Notice that you were once again unable to produce testable hypotheses using ID as it relates to the distribution of characteristics among species. Evolution is able to make these predictions. That is why evolution is accepted as science and why ID is considered to be a faith based belief.

If you still do not understand what I have said then it must be because I have not said it well. I will try again.

My logical argument allows that evolution could have happened exactly as science has said. It is not necessarily my belief that it did, but my argument allows it. If I concede that my model allows evolution exactly as you describe, what would I have to argue with you about?

I will use my glass ball analogy again even though you don't seem to like it. I will not completely restate the analogy in the interest of brevity, but can come back to it if you request.

Briefly, the glass ball analogy allows everything science has done re evolution and everything science can do re evolution happening within the metaphorical glass ball. You must be willing to imagine yourself within the glass ball for my analogy to work.

The glass ball analogy allows science within the glass ball with no constraints other than those it imposes on itself. Conclusions drawn by thinkers within the glass ball are allowed of course, even conclusions drawn by thinkers that there is no glass ball at all. If you don't like the glass ball, read Flatland (a novel), the point is somewhat the same I think.

I cannot prove ID using science with the constraints science has imposed. That is a rigged game. I can make a logical argument that science should not claim the monopolistic right to define reality and non-reality based on those constraints.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 504 by Taq, posted 09-16-2014 11:36 AM Taq has not replied

  
taiji2
Member (Idle past 2777 days)
Posts: 124
From: Georgia, USA
Joined: 09-10-2014


Message 509 of 638 (737068)
09-16-2014 3:17 PM
Reply to: Message 505 by ringo
09-16-2014 12:34 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

Who are people like me? Are you putting me in a group? If so what group?


ringo writes:

We get a lot of people here who "have doubts about evolution"


yes, I am in the group so far
ringo writes:

(without knowing the first thing about it).


nope, out of the group. I know a little about evolution as science views it even though I admit my scientific knowledge on the subject is limited.

ringo writes:

They have never been to a creationist website (yet they know all of the creationist rhetoric verbatim).


I have not been to creationist websites (that I recall). I do not any longer pursue christian beliefs. I stated earlier that I was raised as a Baptist, so I am making no claim I am ignorant of the christian view of creation. Hmmmm, to prevent you later calling me a liar, I have made the statement, when asked if I had ever heard of certain creationist dogma, that I had heard that dogma mentioned on another forum. This is true. If that superficial contact with your "creationist rhetoric" poisons the well, then so be it.

If my arguments based on my Taoist view are verbatim what the christians say, then perhaps I should revisit their think tank and save myself a lot of time in introspection. At any rate, what is the point, are christians excluded from your discussions?

ringo writes:

They are not religious (though they believe in a miraculous origin of the univere rather than a scientific one).

I have stated my belief system as Taoist. It is open to debate whether Taoism is a religion or a philosophy. Depending on the determination of that debate I am comfortable being called religious or not religious. The distinction is important to people in that debate but not to me. My wife is catholic. I think she would disagree with anyone that I fit the mold of the "good christian'.

ringo writes:

Are you really different from "the group"?


Well yes, my opinion is that I am. But again, we are back to opinions and everyone has one.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 505 by ringo, posted 09-16-2014 12:34 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 536 by ringo, posted 09-17-2014 11:51 AM taiji2 has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 20959
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 3.2


Message 510 of 638 (737070)
09-16-2014 3:28 PM
Reply to: Message 506 by taiji2
09-16-2014 2:15 PM


Re: The Tao
taiji2 writes:

You have helped me achieve clarity.

Lord help you achieve clarity out of this jumbled muddle.

If a scientific argument is a precept for legitimate argument you may be eliminating the possibility of an argument based on logic and reason which is what I have been trying to do. Again, I suggest that perhaps the name of the thread could have been made a bit more clear.

Click on this link: Science Forums at Evc. This particular forum, Intelligent Design, is on the list. It's one of the science forums at EvC. The natural assumption is that people will join threads in these forums to discuss science.

If you're arguing that intelligent design has no scientific support then I couldn't agree more.

--Percy


This message is a reply to:
 Message 506 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 2:15 PM taiji2 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 517 by taiji2, posted 09-16-2014 5:19 PM Percy has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022