| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,640 Views) | |
| teryt | Jun 7 2006, 11:15 PM Post #421 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Had a couple iced coffees with my friend today - we talked business & of course one of our favorite topics - ID & evolution. He surprised me by sending this in response to Chris's response to him:
One other thing he said that I thought interesting was, "You either believe in intelligent design or unintelligent design, those are the two camps." |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 7 2006, 11:46 PM Post #422 |
![]()
Jane
|
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 8 2006, 03:55 AM Post #423 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Teryt's friend repeats: "Your friend misses my point entirely---nonsense is nonsense." Nihilism is not the topic here. His friend "Truth about God is truth" Nor is religion. And who is this friend to pretend to be the one who knows the truth about God, God himself? "Unfortunately (for materialists) God is truth and most of evolutionary "science" is nonsense." Now isn't that elitist and condescending? Unfortunately for materialists? "The fact that some structure resembles another is not proof that one evolved from the other, it is just a story." In all your friend has said, this is the only point out of the paper he argues with. Nothing else your friend says addresses anything else in the paper. This is typical Creationist argument. If you can find one minor little detail to discredit then you claim you have discredited all of the paper, nay, all of evolution, hell, according to your friend all of science. Ironically, your friend doesn't dispute the point. He simply says it's not enough. Then he ignores the rest of the paper. And what does he dispute? That analogy is no basis for scientific conclusion. OK, ID is based on an analogy. You freind just shot his argument in the foot. "Evolutionary science is full of stories about how this could have done that or this...." False. Evolution is based upon scientific method--observation, experimentation, predition, testing, etc. All those things that ID does not do. "...and evolution explains everything regardless which direction anything goes...." False. Evolution does not pretend to explain everything. As a scientific theory it is and always will be incomplete. Your friend does not understand the nature of science. "...a theory that explains everything is not a theory." I agree. But it is those who resort to supernatural explanations for everything--first cause, creator, all knowing, all powerful--who are putting forth theories of everything. Oops, he shot his argument in the foot again. Your friend "The problem is metaphysics, not science. Today's science..." Didn't I point this out before? This is the essence of the Creationist argument: To change the definition of science. In Kansas the board of education actually rewrote the definition of science to include the religion. Next election cycle the people voted them out of office. Your friend "...meaningless because they are only the results of random accidents and chance. There is no rationality in randomness. " Have your friend go down to his local highschool and request a biology testbook and read it. This stuff about evolution being random chance is false--but it is typical Creationist distortion. Science, evolution included, is all about discovering and explaining the laws of nature--what on earth is random and chance in these laws? "No story in evolutionary theory has ever been demonstrated, duplicated, or validated." Baloney. The paper he read is full of just such evidence--as are the papers I posted alongside that one but you conveniently didn't show your friend. And evolutionary theory is not a story. "The problems are massive...." Each of the points he raises have been addressed in this thread. Like you, Teryt, instead of addressing challenges to his claims, he merely repeats them. But let's repeat the challenges to just one: "The problems are massive: the beginning of life, (no current research has even a clue how something this complex could have come from any grouping of chemicals, only stories...." You should explain to your friend, Teryt, that, as you have learned, evolutionary theory does not concern the beginning of life. There are a few scientific studies that partially support abiogenesis--these were posted earlier in this thread. And there is a massive amount of sceintific research and evidence supporting the evolution of complexity. What your friend is doing is typical Creationist argument: Cast doubt on evolution in hopes discrediting one minor point discredits all. But even the highschool biology textbook I quoted earlier does this. That is what science is about. And typical of a Creationist, your friend assumes if he can discredit evolution then ID has been proven. Sorry, but you need to find evidence for ID. Difficult to do when you claim "no current research has even a clue how something this complex could have come from any grouping of chemicals, only stories". Your friend has shot his argument in the foot again. Your friend concludes "I for one prefer to rest outside of the prevailing paradigm of 21st century, materialism." Fine, if he prefers religious answers that's his free choice. But he's shot his argument in the foot again because his answer lies outside science and therefore has no place in the science classroom. "You either believe in intelligent design or unintelligent design, those are the two camps." Yes, you either believe in religion or you believe science. Teryt, I need to congratulate you on finding a clever way to avoid challenges and beg questions and simply, cicularly, repeat the same old tired arguments again. For that you deserve applause and hat tipping. Tell your friend to have his foot looked at.
|
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 8 2006, 10:11 AM Post #424 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Well I had a nice, finely crafted response here, but it disappeared on me somehow!
Now I'm frustrated & not in the mood to post it again, or do I have the time! #@$$%$#@@
|
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 8 2006, 02:13 PM Post #425 |
|
Member
|
Just reading through all the posts. Please forgive me, not done yet. I was away camping and when I came back, I find am behind on everything!
Just couldn't let this pass by without comment. I pointed this out before, and it was not responded to. Concerning Eric's arrow analogy....Life stating isn't caused one arrow, but trillions of arrows all hitting 1 blade of grass on trillions of different fields. Life is just that complex. Also....The arrow hitting just the right spot for life to start sounds like an accidental happening. Somehow, you claim it is not. I cannot see how it could be anything else, using your analogy. Demski's "probability of design" thought makes perfect sense to me, not weak at all. This does not mean that the universe has to be special. Seems to me, this is irrelivant. So our universe is not special, so what? This doesn't change the "probability of design" at all (ignoring the fact that there is no proof of alternate universes exept maybe in math). Our perseption of this universe does not change because there may be more universes out there.... |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 8 2006, 02:39 PM Post #426 |
|
Member
|
Had to respond to this one also, again, my appologies.
I don't agree. We are not talking about nothing. Not a fair argument.
No I don't. Just because I cannot answer "why" (and still be scientific) does not mean that I have to. Again, an unfair argument. He gives no reason why the question "why" must be answered.
No, I revealed who I think the designer is, not who the designer really is. Again unfair conclusion from the supplied info.
Not trying to be personal, I just think your arguments are unfair. Why? 1. Applying a catch 22, if I don't reveal the designer, then I am talking about nothing, but if I do, it is religion. The reality is in ID, I am talking about a designer who is unknown. If you have a murder you are investigating, and you don't know who the muderer is and cannot name him or her, does not mean you are talking about nothing. 2. If I name the designer while talking about religion, I make ID (where I have not named the designer) religion. These are two separate things. When I have my religion hat on, I know who the designer is, when I have my ID hat on, I don't. <Religion hat on> God designed the universe to reveal his glory. To who is he doing this other than us? I don't know. </Religion hat on> In ID "why" is irrelivent. The evidence points to a designer. Not knwoing why, does not mean the evidence is not there! If and when we meet him, who ever he is, we could ask him/her/it. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 8 2006, 02:44 PM Post #427 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Alan, welcome back. Yes, way behind, as all that's been dealt with, many times over, as you guys just keep repeating the same arguments, ignoring any counter arguments--or devolving into personal beleifs and such. "Life stating isn't caused one arrow, but trillions of arrows all hitting 1 blade of grass on trillions of different fields. Life is just that complex." Increasing the number of arrors does not increase complexity. A zillion dots is not more complex than one dot. Complexity is something else--which I'll leave to you to figure out as an exercise. Nor does the number of arrows change the basic counter argument to ID's claim of improbable complexity after the fact. It's just another WAP. "Also....The arrow hitting just the right spot for life to start sounds like an accidental happening. Somehow, you claim it is not. I cannot see how it could be anything else, using your analogy." And why do you think it is not. Please do more than simply disagree. State your reasons. Unless it is just personal opinion or belief, which is irrelevant to discussion here. "Demski's "probability of design" thought makes perfect sense to me, not weak at all. This does not mean that the universe has to be special. Seems to me, this is irrelivant. So our universe is not special, so what? This doesn't change the "probability of design" at all (ignoring the fact that there is no proof of alternate universes exept maybe in math). Our perseption of this universe does not change because there may be more universes out there...." Do you understand and, if you do, can you explain Dembski's argument? Special is at the heart of his mathematical (flawed at that, and non-scientific) argument. Your disagreement is disagreement with Dembski. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| abradf2519 | Jun 8 2006, 02:58 PM Post #428 |
|
Member
|
No you did not. You essentially said the universe "is". If you go into your child's room and it is a complete mess exept for the dresser, where everything on it is placed in an orderly fashion. To be accurate, the presence of order in your child's room gives it order, even if it is not completely orderly. I already did answer that question. You want me to dig up the link again? I did give a definition. It is assumed that order comes from inteligence since there is no example of order coming from anything else. And don't use the universe as an example. This is circular. You misunderstand me. I am saying that you are using an unproven theory as an excuse to ignore evidence. You are saying that life is a deterministic system? Sounds like ID to me. |
|
Alan Milan, New York, USA | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 8 2006, 02:58 PM Post #429 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Alan - yes, welcome back! And I would add that we've also established that there is a belief system Chris & Eric have been stating here: the scientific belief system. But also that this current scientific belief system is based upon a modern deviation from simply seeking the truth, to one of a focus on materialism only. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 8 2006, 03:09 PM Post #430 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Oh, I would also add that we've established that the two camps can be categorized as either intelligent design or unintelligent design. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 8 2006, 03:42 PM Post #431 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Yes, your friend made this claim. It's been countered in my simple rebuttal: "Yes, you either believe in religion or you believe science." Miss that? There's a world of difference between believe in and believe. You might say you believe facts (sun, temperature) imply a conclusion (hot day), but you would not, speaking proper English, say I believe in those facts, or conclusion, or implication. Did you point out to Alan that with that statement your friend refuted everything you and Alan have said about ID being science? Your friend is saying ID is religion. And, once again, we are drawn to the inevitable conclusion, ID as religion does not belong in the science classroom. As for intelligent/unintelligent, could you define what you, er, your friend means by those terms? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 8 2006, 03:56 PM Post #432 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Yeah, that's it - my friend said it. Yeah! (he's big, white & doesn't have floppy ears). LOL Somehow I knew you would take that to mean he said ID is a religion. I just knew it! |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 8 2006, 04:08 PM Post #433 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Alan "I would ask the Steven Weinberg why it is necessary to name the designer?" Me "You quoted him, he already answered you: "If you don't, then what are we talking about?" Nothing?" Alan "I don't agree. We are not talking about nothing. Not a fair argument." Can you bother to tell us why you don't agree? If not nothing, then what are we talking about? Why is it not fair? Please give your sttements some substance, some meaning. I have no idea what you disagree with, what you're talking about then, or what's unfair. Alan "He suggest that unless you say the designer is God or something else, ID has no credibility, but he does not say why." Me "You quoted him, he already answered you: "then you still must confront the question "why?""" Alan "No I don't. Just because I cannot answer "why" (and still be scientific) does not mean that I have to. Again, an unfair argument. He gives no reason why the question "why" must be answered." No, you don't. But you want to know why why must be answered? Sounds silly. His point is you can't answer it. Alan "If religion is supposed to answer "why", why then do you think we are conceited when we do?" Me "Because you don't. Ironically, you, too, have just revealed who you think the designer is, confirming again ID is religion." Alan "No, I revealed who I think the designer is, not who the designer really is. Again unfair conclusion from the supplied info." Uh, what's the difference? You think the Designer is God just like Jane and Teryt and his friend. Are you all keeping us in the dark? Again, what is unfair? I have no idea what you mean. "I just think your arguments are unfair. Why?" At last.... Alan explains unfair: "1. Applying a catch 22, if I don't reveal the designer, then I am talking about nothing, but if I do, it is religion. The reality is in ID, I am talking about a designer who is unknown. If you have a murder you are investigating, and you don't know who the muderer is and cannot name him or her, does not mean you are talking about nothing." But indeed either you identify the Designer or it is about nothing. ID does not explain process--what, where, when, or how the universe was designed. You admitted before it does not answer why. If it does not explain who, then it is saying nothing. Even in a murder case, until you identify the murdered in some way, you are indeed talking about nothing--you haven't got a clue, so to speak. I still don't understand what you mean by unfair argument. Alan tries to explain unfair again: "2. If I name the designer while talking about religion, I make ID (where I have not named the designer) religion. These are two separate things. When I have my religion hat on, I know who the designer is, when I have my ID hat on, I don't. <Religion hat on> God designed the universe to reveal his glory. To who is he doing this other than us? I don't know. </Religion hat on>" You can't have your cake and eat it too. How does your double-speak make me unfair? I'm just pointing it out. Alan tries to explain unfair one more time: "In ID "why" is irrelivent. The evidence points to a designer. Not knwoing why, does not mean the evidence is not there! If and when we meet him, who ever he is, we could ask him/her/it." The claim was that you couldn't explain why, not that you could. "evidence points to a designer"--and it's asked again, what evidence is this, evidence not explained by evolution, or the laws of nature? While you were away we covered the eye, flagellum, and many other evidences claimed by ID but explained by evolutionary theory. So if you answer please do not repeat cicularly. "If and when we meet him, who ever he is, we could ask him/her/it." So you know already the Designer is of a nature we could meet and ask him/her/it, that implies a human, capable of greeting, listening and speaking. Is that the analogical human of Paley's watchmaker? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 8 2006, 04:10 PM Post #434 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
That's what he said. Well, actually, to be picky, he did not say ID is a religion, but a part of believing in religion. A difference, you know. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 8 2006, 04:15 PM Post #435 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Well, that's some progress at least! (and I won't even mention that you misrepresented it - I won't - disregard this parenthetical statement) |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |









Now I'm frustrated & not in the mood to post it again, or do I have the time! #@$$%$#@@
1:28 PM Jul 11