Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,767 Year: 4,024/9,624 Month: 895/974 Week: 222/286 Day: 29/109 Hour: 2/3


EvC Forum ⇒ Science Forums ⇒ Intelligent Design ⇒

Attn IDers, what would it take...?

Thread ▼ Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Attn IDers, what would it take...?
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4605 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 45 of 86 (244299)
09-17-2005 4:27 AM 		Reply to: Message 36 by Chiroptera
09-16-2005 1:24 PM

If you quote, then...
There's nothing wrong with quoting, but it's always nice to inform people that you ARE and WHO you are quoting...
​
http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=325&more=1&c=1&tb=...
​
Simply cutting & pasting is NOT impressive. :
This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by Chiroptera, posted 09-16-2005 1:24 PM Chiroptera has not replied
  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4605 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 46 of 86 (244300)
09-17-2005 4:38 AM 		Reply to: Message 41 by Warren
09-16-2005 5:59 PM

Re: Reason vs Unreason
Unless you're 'Mike Gene', you did it again:
​
http://www.arn.org/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_top...
​
And if you are, you keep recycling your own old writings character by character.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Warren, posted 09-16-2005 5:59 PM Warren has not replied
  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4605 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 56 of 86 (244424)
09-17-2005 3:35 PM 		Reply to: Message 54 by Warren
09-17-2005 2:25 PM

Re: Reason vs Unreason
Warren: I take quite seriously Arthur C. Clarke's dictum: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." What you call magic I call advanced bioengineering. I do not think that an appeal to nanotechnology at the origin of life requires us to posit a supernatural force.
​
I continue to consider that an interesting but odd position...
​
You claim to favour a non-supernatural intelligent designer for the origin of life on earth, because you find it hard to believe that it came about through purely natural causes.
​
But what is your position on the origin of these "intelligent designers" themselves?
​
Since you claim not to favour a supernatural 'first designer', it follows that you WILL accept natural causes for THEIR origin, or not? There doesn't seem to be any alternative, except an infinite regression of intelligent designers.
​
But if you accept it for THEIR origins, then why not for OURS? It seems even more far-fetched to accept it for them, since they would be far above our tehcnological capabilities, so their origin isn't exactly likely to be more 'simple'.
​
Paul Davies says:
​
"The key to existence will be found not in primordial sludge, but in the nanotechnology of the living cell."
​
That's how to quote properly... ;-)
This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by Warren, posted 09-17-2005 2:25 PM Warren has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by Chiroptera, posted 09-17-2005 4:23 PM Annafan has replied
 Message 65 by Warren, posted 09-18-2005 11:42 AM Annafan has replied
  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4605 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 58 of 86 (244437)
09-17-2005 6:24 PM 		Reply to: Message 57 by Chiroptera
09-17-2005 4:23 PM

Re: "Natural" intelligent designers
I don't know what Warren himself believes, but it is logically possible for earth life to have been designed by non-supernatural intelligent aliens without going into an infinite regress.
​
It is entirely possible that some alien intelligence arose naturally some place, but when they, for whatever reason, decided to seed Earth with its artificial creations they made some artificial "improvements" over the natural forms in its designs. The original intelligent's cells may have been simpler (or, perhaps due to haphazard evolution, inefficiently complex) and so more subject to diseases or being less adaptable; their improvements then could have created a "better" form of life.
​
Well, that really doesn't sound plausible, does it? Considering them the product of "inefficient" evolution, while they are by definition way and waaay more advanced than we are right now?
​
Of course it is logically possible, but I'd categorize that even 'behind' naturalistic origins of earth-based life
This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Chiroptera, posted 09-17-2005 4:23 PM Chiroptera has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Chiroptera, posted 09-17-2005 7:39 PM Annafan has not replied
  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4605 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 68 of 86 (244610)
09-18-2005 12:06 PM 		Reply to: Message 65 by Warren
09-18-2005 11:42 AM

Re: Reason vs Unreason
Warren:Belief has nothing to do with it. I don't believe, I hypothesize. I can hypothesize a teleological origin of life that I think is as testable as the non-teleological origin of life hypotheses I've seen thus far.
​
Ok, but you do it for a REASON. I presume because you think it helps to make more sense of present reality.
​
In that respect, it doesn't really seem to help. It's just a relocation of the problem?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Warren, posted 09-18-2005 11:42 AM Warren has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by Warren, posted 09-18-2005 12:25 PM Annafan has replied
 Message 71 by Warren, posted 09-18-2005 12:49 PM Annafan has not replied
  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4605 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 78 of 86 (244672)
09-18-2005 5:25 PM 		Reply to: Message 70 by Warren
09-18-2005 12:25 PM

Re: Reason vs Unreason
Annafan: In that respect, it doesn't really seem to help. It's just a relocation of the problem.
​
Warren: What problem? Are you referring to "Who designed the designer"?
​
Yes,
​
and despite all your quoting to illustrate the contrary, it's really simple IMO:
​
until we find a highly obvious sign left behind by the Intelligent Designer (a sort of Killroy Was Here) or at least independant indications of the possible existence of candidate Intelligent Designers (ETs), an ID hypothesis is utterly useless and a waste of time.
​
It serves no purpose other than keeping the 'hope' alive that somehow we would be too good to have been the result of naturalistic processes.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by Warren, posted 09-18-2005 12:25 PM Warren has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Warren, posted 09-19-2005 1:33 PM Annafan has not replied
  
Annafan
Member (Idle past 4605 days)
Posts: 418
From: Belgium
Joined: 08-08-2005

Normal Thread Display
Message 85 of 86 (245658)
09-22-2005 5:24 AM 		Reply to: Message 84 by tsig
09-21-2005 9:51 PM

Re: looks like
Yes, they look like machines to me and they also look like machines to other scientists as my references show. I really don't care if you agree. What I object to are persons telling me I'm irrational for not accepting that these machines are the product of evolution.
​
Living things are not machines. Living things eat, excrete and reproduce. Can you show me a machine that does that?
​
Well, I don't know about "reproduce". But when it comes to eat and excrete, there is... CLOACA
​
http://www.newmuseum.org/more_exh_cloaca.php
This message is a reply to:
 Message 84 by tsig, posted 09-21-2005 9:51 PM tsig has replied
Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by tsig, posted 09-22-2005 5:21 PM Annafan has not replied
  
Date format: mm-dd-yyyy
Timezone: ET (US)
  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024