|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,574 Year: 2,831/9,624 Month: 676/1,588 Week: 82/229 Day: 54/28 Hour: 0/10 |
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Is there a legitimate argument for design? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I say there is not a legitimate argument for design. 3% of humans are born with a major defect. Toyota has a better QC program than this. If that number was 0%, would you then think that was evidence of design? No CS, but I say .0001% would be. Well now I'm confused. 3% error = not designed 0% error = not designed 0.0001% error = designed How does that makes sense?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
CS, what do you think is an acceptable error for the design of humans? I dunno, any amount I suppose. I'm not really sure what you're asking. I guess it depends on the design process.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
It helps a lot if you use the Reply button at the bottom right of a message rather than using the General Reply button at the top.
Being a moral person, I would say it is 0. Why would you design a human with any error? Well it can't be zero, because then we couldn't evolve and we could easily be wiped out (and already would have been).
Haven't we just proven that humans are not a product of intelligent design? Or have we proven that humans are the product of imperfect design? Humans have obviously evolved from earlier hominids. Whether or not that is by design, I do not know. I have not seen any evidence to suggest that humans were intelligently designed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If, therefore, the scientific community has not addressed, studied, and developed supportable theory about ideas, the scope of study required to form any conclusions in the ID debate is flawed. Ergo, ID is not science.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Not to mention that the motivations for some of the techniques used in cubism really are pretty well understood, so we actually do know why Picasso painted that face that way...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Why do things fall downward instead of upward?
Why does candy taste sweet? Why does my back hurt? Why do you say that science cannot answer why-questions? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
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?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Who are people like me? Are you putting me in a group? If so what group? The group is: People who talk about Intelligent Design and the wonder why people associate them with Christianty.
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. Okay. First off, you admit that you are unfamiliar with the Discovery Institute, have not heard of the book Of Pandas and People, and have never seen the Wedge Document. Those three things are the defining features of both the invention and the wide spread usage of the phrase "Intelligent Design". The term "Intelligent Design", as you are using it, was invented in 1987 after the Supreme Court case Edwards v. Aguillard, where it was ruled that creationism is unconstitutional in public school science curricula. Timeline of intelligent design - Wikipedia
As for the two words being used together........ that the two words together is an invention stretches credibility. I get what you're saying. But look at it like this: the words "pro" and "choice" must have been used together at some point before abortion was a thing. Now, if you were in a discussion about, say, whether or not you should choose the order for the meal for your wife, and you come in saying that you are Pro-Choice, I don't think you should be surprised that someone mistook you for talking about abortion. And if they did, would you really argue against them because the words "pro" and "choice" must have been used together in the past and therefore you can use that phrase to describe whether or not your wife should have the choice in what she orders for dinner? Ya know what I'm saying? Pro-Choice is a thing. Intelligent Design is a thing. To use those phrases to talk about other things that they are not is going to cause confusion.
for instance I could say I am gay (meaning happy) and be misunderstood. Another instance of a word being hijacke. Exactly. Except in this case, Intelligent Design means something specific and you have hijacked it to use it to mean something else. In Message 508, you wrote:
My logical argument allows that evolution could have happened exactly as science has said. See, this is why you cannot be talking about Intelligent Design. Intelligent Design is the idea that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection." Intelligent Design requires the explicit rejection of evolution. If you ain't rejecting evolution, then you ain't talkin' 'bout ID.
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? Huh? What do you mean? Ideas are things that happen in brains. That is what they are.
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. But that's just how science works. Every single scientific fact has the exact same support.
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. That idea came from your brain. Can you show me an idea that didn't come from a brain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Gravity is how things are attracted, but why is there gravity? Because mass bends spacetime.
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar? Carbohydrates perfrom all kinds of functions for living organisms.
Strained muscles and nerve impulses are how your back aches, but why do they exist? That a long and complicated answer, but muscles and nerve impulses evolved from ecological advantages.
Why is subjective, how is objective. Not necessarily. Many times, the answer to "why" is just a question of "how".
Why is the sky blue? Because the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum. See? Each of those questions is scientifically answerable. But, what you are trying to say, is that science cannot answer the purpose of those things. And sure, it can't. But all you're doing is Begging the Question. If there is no purpose in the first place, then its no wonder that science cannot find it.
Ooo how about poison the well fallacy? That's not what poisoning the well is...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Gravity is how things are attracted, but why is there gravity?
Because mass bends spacetime. That is how they are attracted. Why does mass bend spacetime?
Sugar is how candy tastes sweet, but why is there sugar? Carbohydrates perfrom all kinds of functions for living organisms. That explains how sugars are used, it doesn't explain why they are sweet.
Strained muscles and nerve impulses are how your back aches, but why do they exist? That a long and complicated answer, but muscles and nerve impulses evolved from ecological advantages. That is how they came to be, it doesn't explain why they did.
Why is subjective, how is objective. Not necessarily. Many times, the answer to "why" is just a question of "how". Then you are confusing the terms or committing an equivocation fallacy
Why is the sky blue? Because the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum. That explains how the sky is blue but not why it is blue. You've misunderstood. I didn't disagree with this from you:
quote: I disagree with this:
quote: In fact, why can be subjective, but it doesn't have to be. Many times the answer to the question of "why", is an explanation of "how". The fact that the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum IS, actually, and answer for why the sky is blue. Granted, it does not answer the question of what purpose is there for the sky being blue. (and that's because there is no purpose)
Poisoning the well is a preemptive attempt to rule out an argument that is valid, and here would be claiming that I can't use the definition of why when the difference between why and how clearly lies in the proper use of the words with the definitions of their use.
quote: No, I'm not saying that you cannot use that definition of "why". I am saying that the question of why is not limited to the definition you are using. Even in your dictionary there is the definition of why that includes "for what cause". And if I apply that to your question, then its very easy to answer: For what cause is the sky blue? The cause is that the atmosphere refracts all the wavelengths of light outside of the blue spectrum.
Using words properly helps assure good communication. Of course. So when you say that "Science cannot answer why questions", you are wrong. Science can, in fact, answer why questions. What it cannot do is answer the question of purpose. But that's just Begging the Question. Stop acting like a two year old.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
But he's just too hypocritical. That's what I was thinking after I saw this:
quote: after he posted this:
quote: Oh, that is intellectually honest? Here's what Ringo provided, and I'll oblige his intellectually honest request:
quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What was the best and most significant argument that you made in this thread?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I gave you an open invitation above to come see me and check for yourself. Insults from behind the anonymity of this forum does not cut it. Whoa, how long ago did you first get on the internet? Seriously.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024