|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Member (Idle past 1433 days) Posts: 20714 From: the other end of the sidewalk Joined: |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Who designed the ID designer(s)? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
In another thread RAZD has stated that ID = deism:
From the Cambridge International dictionary: deism [Show phonetics]noun [U] the belief in a single god who does not act to influence events, and whose existence has no connection with religions, religious buildings, or religious books, etc. from Wikipedia (seeing that RAZD appears to like Wikipedia): Deism is belief in a God or first cause based on reason rather than faith, distinguishing it from theism. Moving on to why "Who designed the ID designer(s)? Is a strawman or a red herring: This question is like reading the last page of a mystery novel first. In order to answer that question we must first determine who designed life on Earth, Earth, the Solar System and all we observe. The same type of questions can be asked of RAZD: Where did nature come from? Where did matter come from? Where did energy come from? Where did the natural laws come from? I can also construct absurd irrelevant alternatives as RAZD did. The end result will be just as his is- materialitic naturalism is just a faith. That would mean the the theory of evolution is just a faith based product. The problem with RAZD is he (she?) does not understand that ID is based on logic and reason. ID is falifiable- just show that life can arise from non-living ingredients by nature acting alone. Show us that irreducible complexity is illusory. IOW instead of attacking ID on a nonsensicle, irrelevant flailing attempt at philosophical objections, actually show support for your faith. (this first one is where I took my 'signature' fromThere’s a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years, the Moon will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5% of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view or solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them. Page 18 paragraph 4; The Privileged Planet: How our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery by G. Gonzalez Ph. D. astronomy & J. Richards Ph. D. philosophy & theology. The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one. This is because the medium in which we live is, on the one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and to prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block any view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime. Hans Blumeberg There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe The impression of design is overwhelming. Paul Davies At issue here is to let the evidence lead us where it will. If it leads us to the metaphysical, no amount of philosophical flailing can change that. If we really want to find out how or why or when life started here on Earth (and the same for Earth itself) we must allow science to function in that manner- let the evidence lead. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
I am trying to show that ID is evidence driven and not faith based.
"...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: What problem is that? This sounds like the trappings of a strawman argument.
quote: We don't adamantly argue that question. We just tell it like it is. Then we sit back and watch the anti-IDists froth at the mouth as they tend to do when confronted by logic and reason. So the whole issue boils down to your feeling. Just because you feel it is a relevant question makes it so?Now I get it. Because you feel it is important, makes it so? quote: OK wait. Why do you get to decide that is a form of faith? What if your alternative(s) are incorrect? ie just more strawmen? Is acknowledgement also a form of faith? BTW in order to refute truth in statements there must first be some truth in those statements. It's like this Mr. Moderator. I have shown ID is evidence driven. I have provided a list of books that substantiate that claim. I cannot make you or RAZD read those books. The good thing is your refusal to read doesn't make the evidence go away. Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components. (indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle) I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike Behe Peer-reviewed journals aren’t comparing what is observed inside the cell to machines, the articles make it clear it is molecular machines and motors we are observing under the magnifying glass. Howard Berg of Harvard has called the bac flag the most efficient machine in the universe. Living cells are factories in miniature. And you’re telling me that I can’t infer ID from the evidence? The writings of Walter Bradley, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, along with the conclusions of Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilee, Aristotle et al., make it clear that the positive evidence for ID extend beyond biology, is based on observation and is definitely a valid scientific endeavor. A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth. Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: I take it that is because you refuse to read or refuse to listen. The evidence has been given, in writing.
quote: Please substantiate that claim. It is bad form not to read at least the first book in the list I provided:
[i][b]Nature, Design and Science: The Status of Design in Natural Science[/i][/b] by Del Ratzsch. Bottom line is that it doesn't require faith to infer ID. All that is necessary is an objective view of the evidence and a mind open to the reality of how we got here. RAZD can't rant and rave that ID is a faith all he wants, it is not going to make the evidence go away or materialistic naturalism the only viable option. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
quote: And I am saying that we don't try to unvoid it. We accept the fact that it has no relevance to what ID is about.
quote: The problem is yours. IDists understand what they are trying to do with ID. You are trying to force it to do something it was never intended to do.
quote: IDists are not saying you can't ask that question. If we can't answer the "who made it?" question about the artifact does that mean it becomes a product of nature acting alone? No. It is still an artifact. We didn't have to see the agent making it. We didn't have to know anything about that agent. It's like this RAZD. It is not a belief if it is based on evidence. And because Del Ratzsch has already trumped your flailing attempts, you would lose in court. One more thing:
quote: YOU made the claim. I HAVE read most websites and if you had read Behe's responses you would see those rebuttals have been refuted. Also websites are not peer-reviewed. That IS the point Behe was making. Miller wasn't peer-reviewed and has been refuted. There is one guy who isn't even a biologist that claims to have done something biologists can't do, refute IC. He to has been shown to be incorrect. If you can't substantiate your claim don't make one. --------------------------------------------------------------------- ID man writes:No, we can explain it and that explanation is a designer was involved. quote: No, it is not as you said. Thank you for demonstrating your ability to twist reality. ID is based on positive evidence gathered through observation. Sir Isaac Newton came to that conclusion, as did Louis Pasteur after him and Aristotle before them, based on their observations.
[quote]RAZD:. I explain it by saying that we don't know the answer, so we need to keep looking. You mean keep looking at only an answer to the question ;How did nature acting alone produce life?
quote: How is eliminating one of two possibilities on where did life come from?, in any way keeping the options open? This is a pre-emptive elimination based on flailing attempts at philosophical criticisms and personal bias. Just how is inferring ID a gap in the knowledge? The ability of life to begin? So non-living matter has a dis-ability?
quote: Your inference on my attitude is based on your ID ignorance. ID doesn’t say to stop all research because an intelligent agency at one time had a hand in the design of the universe and life. Many questions are still left unanswered. Some have been asked by ID critics. Others are real and deal with practical applications. If that (ID) is where the evidence leads and becomes the logical and reasonable conclusion, I am OK with that. to which the wizard responds:
quote: Allowing for ID this is how it is: Scientific investigation of the evidence says there was a designer. Religions try to tell you who that designer was. You have faith that the designer of your religion is THE designer. Some scientists may want to try to figure out what those actions were. We may find out that those actions were carried out in the physical plane and were bound by physical laws. We may find out what gives life its ability.Others will want to figure out what we now have to deal with and how best to deal with it. quote: OK. Your first statement is false. Deism is not a religion. So even IF we grant B (that ID is weak form of A [deism]); therefore ID is not a religion (in weakened form).A (Deism) is not a religion B (ID) is a weakened form of A Therefore B is a weakened form of not being a religion. (to the Tune of J. Giles’ centerfold) Nah, nah, nahnahnahnah, nahnahnah nahnahnanah. I also understand your agenda on IC. IC falsifies Darwinism/ gradualism. You HAVE to try to smear it or down play it. And yes it is in the details. Materialistic gradualism for all too long has enjoyed the luxury of riding vague generalizations under the guise of scientific explanations. This message has been edited by ID man, 08-30-2004 10:28 AM "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
Deism is reason based, therefore your conditions given do not preclude ID from being reason based; ID demands more than Deism, therefore ID is a Deism substantiated:
A (Deism) is reason basedB (ID) is a A with substance Therefore B is the logical inference (Q.E.D.) "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
ID is based on evidence, observation, logic and reason:
Here I would like to give a simple, intuitive criterion for suspecting design in discrete physical systems. In these cases design is most easily apprehended when a number of separate, interacting components are ordered in such a way as to accomplish a function beyond the individual components. (indicates a narrative on snare trap in the jungle) I argue that many biochemical systems were designed by an intelligent agent. Our apprehension of the design of the cilium or intracellular transport rests on the same principles as our apprehension of the jungle trap; the ordering of separate components to achieve an identifiable function that depends sharply on the components. Mike Behe Peer-reviewed journals aren’t comparing what is observed inside the cell to machines, the articles make it clear it is molecular machines and motors we are observing under the magnifying glass. Howard Berg of Harvard has called the bac flag the most efficient machine in the universe. Living cells are factories in miniature. And you’re telling me that I can’t infer ID from the evidence? The writings of Walter Bradley, Guillermo Gonzalez and Jay Richards, along with the conclusions of Louis Pasteur, Sir Isaac Newton, Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilee, Aristotle et al., make it clear that the positive evidence for ID extend beyond biology, is based on observation and is definitely a valid scientific endeavor. A healthy science is a science that seeks the truth. Paul Nelson, Ph. D., philosophy of biology. ID: pg. 921) High information content (or specified complexity) and irreducible complexity constitute strong indicators or hallmarks of past intelligent design. 2) Biological systems have a high information content (or specified complexity) and utilize subsystems that manifest irreducible complexity. 3) Naturalistic mechanisms or undirected causes do not suffice to explain the origin of information (specified complexity) or irreducible complexity. 4) Therefore, intelligent design constitutes the best explanation for the origin of information and irreducible complexity in biological systems. There’s a final, even more bizarre twist. Because of Moon-induced tides, the Moon is gradually receding from Earth at 3.82 centimeters per year. In ten million years, the Moon will seem noticeably smaller. At the same time, the Sun’s apparent girth has been swelling by six centimeters per year for ages, as is normal in stellar evolution. These two processes, working together, should end total solar eclipses in about 250 million years, a mere 5% of the age of the Earth. This relatively small window of opportunity also happens to coincide with the existence of intelligent life. Put another way, the most habitable place in the Solar System yields the best view or solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them. Page 18 paragraph 4; The Privileged Planet: How our place in the cosmos is designed for discovery by G. Gonzalez Ph. D. astronomy & J. Richards Ph. D. philosophy & theology. The combined circumstance that we live on Earth and are able to see stars- that the conditions necessary for life do not exclude those necessary for vision, and vice versa- is a remarkably improbable one. This is because the medium in which we live is, on the one hand, just thick enough to enable us to breathe and to prevent us from being burned up by cosmic rays, while, on the other hand, it is not so opaque as to absorb entirely the light of the stars and block any view of the universe. What a fragile balance between the indispensable and the sublime. Hans Blumeberg There is for me powerful evidence that there is something going on behind it all It seems as though somebody has fine-tuned nature’s numbers to make the Universe The impression of design is overwhelming. Paul Davies From there you can read the following books: Nature, Design and Science by Del RatzschDarwin's Black Box by Behe The Privileged Planet by Gonzales and Richards Signs of Intelligence by various authors Darwinism, Design and Public Education by various authors Once you have read those it will be clear that RAZD is full of something but not substance for his claims. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
All of RAZD's positions have been more than adequately answered in my posts and ID literaure. IOW RAZD doesn't have any ammunition. If he did he would have taken it to the ISCID.
BTW addressing something is not the same as refuting it. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ID man Inactive Member |
RAZD if you are not going to read the literature than you are only arguing from ignorance. Which is something I have known for some time. It is not whining, just an observation. You truly don't know what you are talking about.
YOU said to insert deism in place of ID. Deism is based on reason therefore ID is based on reason. No faith required. Faith, not who designed the designers, is the crux of this thread. You have refuted yourself. Thank you. I take it OT stands for Obsolete Thinking. "...the most habitable place in the solar system yields the best view of solar eclipses just when observers can best appreciate them." from "The Privileged Planet"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024