Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9078 total)
124 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK (2 members, 122 visitors)
Newest Member: harveyspecter
Post Volume: Total: 895,324 Year: 6,436/6,534 Month: 629/650 Week: 167/232 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Why only one Designer
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 22 of 377 (612210)
04-13-2011 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by slevesque
04-13-2011 8:33 PM


slevesque writes:

(and stop equivocating creationism and ID, we both know they are not the same thing)

Sorry but "we" do NOT know that ID and Creationism are not the same thing.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:33 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:40 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 27 of 377 (612215)
04-13-2011 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 24 by slevesque
04-13-2011 8:40 PM


slevesque writes:

Sorry but "we" do NOT know that ID and Creationism are not the same thing.

Yeah well I haven't showed the contrary a thousand times yet, but I'm getting close so can assume it's a PRATT

The only difference between the two MIGHT be that the Creationists are slightly more honest.

Intelligent Design is simply another attempt to get Creationism past the Supreme Court, into the schools and to redefine science.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 24 by slevesque, posted 04-13-2011 8:40 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:01 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 32 of 377 (612227)
04-14-2011 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by kbertsche
04-14-2011 9:03 AM


Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 9:03 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 10:15 AM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 34 of 377 (612241)
04-14-2011 10:47 AM
Reply to: Message 33 by kbertsche
04-14-2011 10:15 AM


kbertsche writes:

jar writes:

Could there not be some first causer for item a and a separate causer for item b?


Probably. But a "first cause" is not simply the cause of any specific item. Rather, it is the first, ultimate cause in a cause-effect chain, and is itself uncaused.. So your "separate causer for item b" cannot be a "first cause" (or a "first causer").

Why not?

Why not multiple uncaused first causes, or a succession of first causes, or turtles all teh way down?

Why does there even need to be a first cause?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 10:15 AM kbertsche has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 11:43 AM jar has replied
 Message 103 by kbertsche, posted 04-14-2011 9:02 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 40 of 377 (612261)
04-14-2011 12:29 PM
Reply to: Message 37 by Straggler
04-14-2011 11:43 AM


Re: GOD
Straggler writes:

As one who believes in "GOD is the creator of all that is, seen and unseen" do you not have some sympathy for the whole single first cause thing?

Isn't a "creator of all that is, seen and unseen" a single first by definition?

No, not really. I find trying to argue that God must exist or Gods or no God pretty silly. I have my beliefs but also freely admit they are just my beliefs.

I see no difference in support or the logic behind the concepts of no cause, a single uncaused causer, multiple uncaused causers, a sequence of causers, a succession of causers or any other variation.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 11:43 AM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 1:04 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 44 of 377 (612267)
04-14-2011 1:06 PM
Reply to: Message 42 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:01 PM


slevesque writes:

Hi Jar,

You would probably rethink that oft-repeated notion that ''Id is the same thing as creationism''.

The simple fact that Behe, one of the main proponents of ID, is a theistic evolutionist should be enough to at least make you consider that you may be wrong on this.

Nonsense.

Even theistic evolution has NO place in any science class and the ID movement is nothing but another attempt to get Creationism in the classroom and to redefine science to be nothing but magic.

The ID movement is just Biblical Creationism in old worned out clothes.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:01 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:24 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 45 of 377 (612268)
04-14-2011 1:07 PM
Reply to: Message 43 by Straggler
04-14-2011 1:04 PM


Re: Parsimony?
Straggler writes:

jar writes:

I have my beliefs but also freely admit they are just my beliefs.

OK.

jar writes:

I see no difference in support or the logic behind the concepts of no cause, a single uncaused causer, multiple uncaused causers, a sequence of causers, a succession of causers or any other variation.

Surely parsimony comes into play here? If someone proposes a convuluted setup of designers - A committee of designers who design a designer that then designs a designer that then designs our universe - That is surely less parsimonious than a single designer.

A no designer at all is less parsimonious than one. No?

Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 1:04 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 1:15 PM jar has replied
 Message 98 by Dr Adequate, posted 04-14-2011 8:31 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 47 of 377 (612274)
04-14-2011 1:18 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by Straggler
04-14-2011 1:15 PM


Science?
Straggler writes:

jar writes:

Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.

You don't think parsimony has any role to play when investigating reality scientifically?

LOL

Get serious.

We are talking about a Designer and First Causes and Uncaused Causes.

What does that have to do with science?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 1:15 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 6:58 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 49 of 377 (612276)
04-14-2011 1:27 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:24 PM


slevesque writes:

Nonsense.

Even theistic evolution has NO place in any science class and the ID movement is nothing but another attempt to get Creationism in the classroom and to redefine science to be nothing but magic.

The ID movement is just Biblical Creationism in old worned out clothes.

This is such an obvious red herring ...

All I'm saying is that ID and biblical creationism isn't the same thing, if theistic evolution is scientific or not is totally irrelevant.

I brought it up to show that ID and creationism wasn't the same thing.

Repeating the same old PRATTs doesn't make them true, jar.

And Behe is just another Biblical Creationist. He may not be a YEC, but he's still just a creationist.

AbE:

Honestly, there seems to be no honor among any of that crowd, they will change names or try different definitions, whatever they seem to think will squeeze by the courts.

Edited by jar, : add apostrophe

Edited by jar, : AbE:


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:24 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:31 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 54 of 377 (612284)
04-14-2011 1:55 PM
Reply to: Message 50 by slevesque
04-14-2011 1:31 PM


slevesque writes:

And Behe is just another Biblical Creationist. He may not be a YEC, but he's still just a creationist.

AbE:

Honestly, there seems to be no honor among any of that crowd, they will change names or try different definitions, whatever they seem to think will squeeze by the courts.

And now your just lying (unknowingly, I hope), because Behe is very clearly a theistic evolutionist and always has been.

And theistic evolutionism is, by definition, not creationism.

Sorry but no. As soon as you bring in some magic outside agency that meddles in the process it stops being science and becomes Creationism.

And as I said, the Creationists will call themselves anything that they think will get around the SCOTUS.

Edited by jar, : think not thing


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 1:31 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:01 PM jar has replied
 Message 61 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2011 2:45 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 62 of 377 (612294)
04-14-2011 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:01 PM


slevesque writes:

Sorry but no. As soon as you bring in some magic outside agency that meddles in the process it stops being science and becomes Creationism.

And as I said, the Creationists will call themselves anything that they think will get around the SCOTUS.

You really are the kind of all humpty-dumpties, playing with definition and words as to fit your needs.

Sorry, but putting in some 'outside magic' does not make someone automatically a creationist. It may make an idea none-scientific, but to actually be a creationist you have to think God poofed things out of nothing, not simply changed things incrementally over time.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

If God changed things over time it is still magic until you present the testable model and mechanism for God to intervene and influence.

Sorry, it's still just Creationism is old worned out clothes.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:01 PM slevesque has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:58 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 63 of 377 (612295)
04-14-2011 2:49 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by arachnophilia
04-14-2011 2:45 PM


arachnophilia writes:

jar writes:

And as I said, the Creationists will call themselves anything that they think will get around the SCOTUS.

let me play devil's advocate here for a second.

ID has already been ruled as "the same as creationism". why stick to the name "ID"?

In the hope that no one will notice and they can sneak it past the SCOTUS.

ID is just another con game, nothing more.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by arachnophilia, posted 04-14-2011 2:45 PM arachnophilia has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 71 of 377 (612303)
04-14-2011 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by slevesque
04-14-2011 2:58 PM


ID is still Creationism
slevesque writes:

The point isn't if they both involve magic or not, the piont is they aren't the same thing.

In all honesty, you are particularly looking pathetic right now, just repeating the same things and hoping each time they'll become true. Plugging you fingers in your ears about everything else.

I'll take one final example and hopefully it'll pass: Francis Collins. He accepts absolutely everything about evolution, and all other origins-related scientific theories (big bang, etc.)

But he also believes in magic, particularly Jesus's ressurection. Does that make him a creationist ?

No.

But if he said that Evolution of some critter was the result of God interfering or of Design or was an intended outcome, then YES he becomes a creationist.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by slevesque, posted 04-14-2011 2:58 PM slevesque has not replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 83 of 377 (612328)
04-14-2011 7:27 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by Straggler
04-14-2011 6:58 PM


Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.
It is totally irrelevant.

Parsimony is only a tool to be used, it has nothing to do with reality itself.

Sure it might be easier, perhaps even prettier, to take the simplest suggested item, but that is totally unrelated to what is actually true.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 6:58 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:34 PM jar has replied

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33957
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 2.0


Message 88 of 377 (612335)
04-14-2011 7:50 PM
Reply to: Message 85 by Straggler
04-14-2011 7:34 PM


Re: Parsimony has nothing to do with reality.
Straggler writes:

jar writes:

Parsimony is only a tool to be used, it has nothing to do with reality itself. Sure it might be easier, perhaps even prettier, to take the simplest suggested item, but that is totally unrelated to what is actually true.

So as far as you are concerned we might as well just randomly guess or role a dice as apply parsimony to a situation where competing but otherwise equal explanations are available?

Of course not and I doubt you will find that I said that, but enough of your childish games.

I'm going to play with the adults.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 7:34 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 90 by Straggler, posted 04-14-2011 8:00 PM jar has seen this message but not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.1
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2022