|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach | |||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4504 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
Hi Woodsy,
Can you dig up anything more modern? Darwinism itself in not modern.
(you might like to have a look at link, by the way) I looked at the link. I could not just copy the remarks from 2 supposed to be respondents. They were making assessments about 'quotations taken out of context' WITHOUT themselves offering specifics. Oh well, there are opinion of pros and cons...on opinions about opinions. Anyway, how can I paste a .PDF list of a list of scientists--w/ their names and affiliations-- who strongly doubts Darwinism. It is 13 pages long? regards,PJ
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
platypus Member (Idle past 5783 days) Posts: 139 Joined: |
Thanks Woodsy, that link was helpful, I was suspecting as much. I should have waited for your response before posting my rant. Oh well, what's done is done.
You hear evolutionist says we are descedant from apes and monkees. Sure, but that's not the point. All of life is related, not just human's with monkees. If you hug a tree, you're hugging a relative, a very distant relative, but a relative nonetheless." Dr. Joan Roughgarden in Evolution and Christian Faith
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
limbosis Member (Idle past 6308 days) Posts: 120 From: United States Joined: |
JP, I would urge you not to be quick to judge, or to gloat.
Keep in mind that we are all on the same side. The most important question has yet to be answered, and it cannot be answered by us. Is our designer evil, or just plain stupid? Always remember that many people must have been drawn to evolution, to turn away from the idea of a benevolent god. This is because there isn't enough evidence to support the idea of a responsible designer. Also keep in mind that the thrust of evolution, as an idea, may have also been supplied or coaxed by something external to us all along. And, whatever you do, please do not use the idea of a benevolent god to support either my position or the effectiveness of my argument. Go easy on evolutionists. They know what they need to do now. Besides, it's not their fault. That fault appears to rest comfortably with the designer. Edited by limbosis, : clarification
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
NOT JULIUS Member (Idle past 4504 days) Posts: 219 From: Rome Joined: |
platypus writes How could such an illusion be propogated through these fields of biology? If such an illusion existed, wouldn't more, or even all, the students researching these fields be guided towards the real truth? Consider that the students doing this research are some of the most intelligent people in the country, and have undergone a scientific training which has taught them to be critical, especially of existing theories. Oh yeah? Are not our so called "intelligent students" being brainwashed or at least "intellectually blinded" by the ban on teaching of creation or ID starting in high-school? Is this not the reason why there is a raging controversy in the US to at least 'teach the controversy' to high school students?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
AdminNosy Administrator Posts: 4754 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Joined: |
Just a small warning to all:
The topic here is not creationism only ID. Under the ID heading it is NOT the teaching of it -- please refer to the OP -- we are talking about the nature of the design itself. We are not talking about teaching ID. There have been threads on that but if anyone has anything that they would like to see taught about ID then a new thread on that topic would be fun. Perhaps P_J would like to start one? Edited by AdminNosy, : small correction
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
iceage  Suspended Member (Idle past 5944 days) Posts: 1024 From: Pacific Northwest Joined: |
pilate_judas writes: the ban on teaching of creation or ID starting in high-school First Creationism and ID are supposedly two different things so you should be sayinig creation and ID. Creationism is a religious myth no more valid or practical than say... native american creation myths. Why should we just give creationism special status? Should we teach all creation myths. Now for ID. Biologic a new ID research lab associated with the Discovery Institute, recently was quoted as saying
Biologic Spokesman writes: "We are the first ones doing what we might call lab science in intelligent design" So you want to teach youngsters about ID when the proponents are just starting doing "lab science"? Traditional science has several centuries of history and you want it to share teaching time to some philosophy that has not led to single usable scientific discovery and who practitioners are now just putting on white lab coats? Edited by iceage, : Fixed quotes Edited by AdminNosy, : topic warning
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Seeing that we have now been warned to stay on topic, I will remind whoever is still interested in one of the points of the OP:
The OP makes an analogy of commonality of designs in living species with that of manufactured automobiles to attempt to try to make some conclusions about the supposed designer. I wrote a couple of posts explaining how the pattern of common designs in living species is actually not analogous to that of manufactured items, and, in fact, is analogous to items that are known to be formed through common descent. http://EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach -->EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach http://EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach -->EvC Forum: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: An Engineer’s Approach Perhaps I succeeded in making my point, and this is no longer a point of contention? Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Can I also point to Message 8 which also deals with the differences between cars and living creatures from a design point of view.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
limbosis writes: Always remember that many people must have been drawn to evolution, to turn away from the idea of a benevolent god. For many people, accepting evolution doesn't mean turning away from God, benevolent or otherwise. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Yeah, that was good, too. You got a POTM nomination for that one, if I recall. I'm kind of put out that neither of my posts were nominated! (No, no, I am not fishing for a nomination -- now that I have mentioned it, it would be bad form to nominate them and reward my whining.)
Never believe anything in politics until it has been officially denied. -- Otto von Bismarck
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Yeah, that was good, too. You got a POTM nomination for that one, if I recall. I'm kind of put out that neither of my posts were nominated! What you will notice though that is common to Message 8, Message 29 and Message 64 is that the ID folk simply pretend that none of them exist. The ID fiction is simply impossible to support. It is a joke, and if it were not so profitable, and if there were not so many gullible Christians begging to be conned, it would have been still-born. They certainly did deserve a POTM. I would say that those three would make the trilogy of Garlic, Silver Bullet and Wooden Stake through the heart of the fiction called ID. Now we just need to wait and see if the Zombie has the grace to stay dead. ID is not just bad Science, not just bad Engineering but even worse Theology. Edited by jar, : No reason given. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
limbosis Member (Idle past 6308 days) Posts: 120 From: United States Joined: |
For many people, accepting evolution doesn't mean turning away from God, benevolent or otherwise. Granted. That frame of mind is especially enticing if the idea of evolution was hereafter limited to a description of the way things happened, and not allowed to pose as the explanation for a process that does not exist. You could call it a set of chronologies, a gant chart at best. But, that doesn't leave you with much, except for the same question many other people have about this god, and maybe an overwhelming sense of relief that we made the "final" cut. This, to some, would be immaterial. And, it doesn't change the fact that if most believers of a benevolent god discovered that it was truly not, then they would probably have no trouble in burning down everything in sight which suggested that benevolence. What would they have to lose, peace of mind? No.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Oh well, there are opinion of pros and cons...on opinions about opinions. Anyway, how can I paste a .PDF list of scientists--w/ their names and affiliations-- who strongly doubts Darwinism. It is 13 pages long? As has been noted, this is off topic. In addition, what you did in post 101 and want to do here is also against forum guidelines: posting long copy and pastes with no content of your own brain involved, AND not referenceing where you got your (false) material. This latter is plagarism: essentially lying about your sources with the implication that you are the originator. These are also PRATTS and the argument from authority - a logical fallacy that renders any conclusion from their usage invalid. If you think even one of these statements is truly represented then please, pick the best one and start a new thread. Give the statement and a clear reference to it's source -- not the creatortionista intentional misrepresentation website, but the original scientific literature source, and be prepared to defend your assertion that the author had serious misgivings about evolution or be ready to eat crow. Now -- can you stick to the topic of this thread? Threads are limited to 300 posts for a number of reasons, thus it is good manners if nothing else, to keep on topic. Enjoy. we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22505 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.9 |
Sorry, you've lost me...
--Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
RAZD Member (Idle past 1435 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Now RAZD, what we can do to test a clear distinction between this and evolution is as follows:
We can try to make a single new animal species, on our own, through artificial selection.Message 95 As mentioned in my previous post, the evidence would be an inability to carry out the process outlined by the theory of evolution. I imagine that evidence would have alway existed. There are two problems with this "test" and one of them has already been aluded to: (1) Speciation is not contested as occurring even by creationists (they say it is "micro"evolution and hold the line on something vaguely defined as "kind" involving "macro"evolution), (2) You're test has a negative result taken as a positive for your concept. This does not mean that yout concept has to be the answer, only that a positive result may not yet have occurred. An example of this is abiogenesis: the failure to produce abiogenesis in the lab is not evidence that it can never be done, nor is the lack of result evidence that the world was created by Odin. Conclusion: not a valid test FOR you concept. You need a test where the result can produced by your concept, and that evolution cannot produce: if the result is positive then you concept must be more correct than evolution. Do you have another? Enjoy. Edited by RAZD, : (2) Edited by RAZD, : toyp we are limited in our ability to understand by our ability to understand RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ... to share.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024