|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
 Posted - 02/07/2003 : 00:26:43 [Permalink]
|
moakley states:quote:
1. You have already been given good examples
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
However,the first sentence contradicts his premise quote:
German scientists have created artificial life in the
laboratory.
Nice try though. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
 |
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 00:31:16 [Permalink]
|
welshdean: quote:
Incidentally your original question to which I answered (and a few others have defended) 'snowflake' was simply "design
that isn't attributed to intellegence", you made no allusion to 'predictability' nor 'information content' it is both
unfair and unreasonable to change the question after the correct answer has been recieved!!!
Oh yes, if you don't like snowflakes, how about (and I'll remind you of your original question.... "design that isn't
attributed to intellegence") the concoidal fracture of dolomite? It appears to be designed and is beautiful in the right
light yet isn't the work of a designer.
To above highlighted area I plead mea culpa.I assumed it wouldn't be an issue. I  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 06:48:19 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
moakley states:quote:
1. You have already been given good examples
2. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/217054.stm
However,the first sentence contradicts his premise quote:
German scientists have created artificial life in the
laboratory.
Nice try though.
I see that you ignored the rest of the post though. The primary reason for my responding at all. To repeat and give you one more opportunity
Just because we do not fully understand these issues is no reason to throw up our hands and proclaim "God did it". To paraphrase Albert Einstein, "Though we know little about our universe and origins. What we do know is the most precious thing we have".
quote:
I am arguing from what is known.
Again your question are not based upon what is known, they are based on the present fact that our knowledge on these issues is incomplete. Would you have us all just stop thinking and pursuing the answers to these question ? Science is progressive and cumulative, it is not fixed to the beliefs from 2000 years ago.
|
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 11:11:51 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
walt: quote:
"Are you in a universe that is ruled by natural laws and, threrfore, is stable, firm, absolute--and knowable? Or are you
in an incomprehensible chaos, a realm of inexplicable miracles, an unpredictable, unknowable flux,which your mind is
impotent to grasp? The nature of your actions--and of your ambition--will be different according to which set of
answers you come to accept." Ayn Rand
You are begging the question,since the Theistic view asserts that the metaphysical bases for a universe is that there is a law giver who orders the universe.
And can that law-giver change those laws at any time he/she/it chooses to do so, on a whim? If so then I stand by the Ayn Rand quote, and if not, then what of the omnipotence of said law-giver? |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 13:47:33 [Permalink]
|
moakley: quote:
Just because we do not fully understand these issues is no reason to throw up our hands and proclaim "God did it". To paraphrase Albert Einstein, "Though we know little about our universe and origins. What we do know is the most precious thing we have".
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I am arguing from what is known.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again your question are not based upon what is known, they are based on the present fact that our knowledge on these issues is incomplete. Would you have us all just stop thinking and pursuing the answers to these question ? Science is progressive and cumulative, it is not fixed to the beliefs from 2000 years ago.
I disagree WE KNOW that many scientist have invested years research with millions of dollars of equipment TO CREATE this molecule.Therefore, we have experimental evidence that Intelligence is required to Design them. (ed for sp) |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 02/07/2003 19:13:33 |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 15:33:54 [Permalink]
|
| No, the argument you are making is that a human intelligence made life. You are projecting this human intelligence onto nature. That is anthropomorphizing. You are turning nature into a human being. There is no evidence what so ever here that Intellingce is required for design. This is no different than seeing a lightening bolt and deciding that it is proof of Thor. |
|
|
|
moakley
SFN Regular
USA
1888 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 18:57:17 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
I disagree WE KNOW that many scientist have invested years research with millions of dollars of equipment TO CREATE this molecule.Therefore, we have experimental evidence that Intellingce is required to Design them.
What you responded to was removed from my most recent post.
In regards to your original 4 questions. Would you have us stop thinking and pursing the answers to these questions ? Do you believe that increasing our understanding of the universe and our origins is wasted ? Are you a one answer fits all individual ? |
Life is good
Philosophy is questions that may never be answered. Religion is answers that may never be questioned. -Anonymous |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/07/2003 : 19:25:57 [Permalink]
|
Looking through my pocket change I find a "New Hampshire" quarter. On the back of it is the "Old Man of the Mountain," a natural rock formation that looks a great deal like the profile of a man with a beard made out of stone. We know that Michelangelo studied stone carving for years, had a great deal of intelligence and made stones look exactly like men with beards. Should we therefore think that supernatural intelligence is at work in New Hampshire sculpting away or only erosion?
"Intelligent design" is nothing more than an elaboration of seeing the Blessed Virgin Mary in the scorch marks on a taco.
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2003 : 09:33:16 [Permalink]
|
Slater: quote:
You are turning nature into a human being. There is no evidence what so ever here that Intelligence is required for design. This is no different than seeing a lightening bolt and deciding that it is proof of Thor.
I made a typo a few post back and everybody and his "antie" were sending me ref's for logic websites,but Slater makes a ridiculous statement like this and NO ONE utters a peep??? Your statement is fallacious for various reasons I'll cite two.First,like you pointed out in the past when we didn't understand something we would many times attribute it to some unknown force[Thor] .Darwin did this,he really had no idea how irreducibly complex the so called "simple cell" was so he attributed its origin to unknown force chance.Where your error is Slater is as we understood the "simple cell" more we realized "It ain't so simple!" It's virtual little city with various complex micro-machines.Well now we are on diffrent ground altogether,whereas before we committed the fallacy of "false cause" by attributing causes to things WE DIDN"T UNDERSTAND(Thor=Lighting;Chance="Simple Cell),now WE KNOW THAT CITYS AND MACHINES DON"T HAPPEN BY CHANCE,NO MATTER HOW SMALL THEY ARE(THEY REQUIRE INTELLIGENT DESIGN).So Dr.Slater your diagnosis is wrong,it is perfectly ligitimate to argue from a from something WE KNOW analogicly to a like cause.Secondly,you are in error because now thanks to our brilliant German Scientist we not only have analogical reasoning to demonstrate that fact but we have EMPIRICAL,REPEATABLE,EXPERIMENTAL PROOF THAT IT TAKE INTELLIGENCE TO DESIGN A DNA MOLECLUE . P.S.Slater with you thoughtless remark "There is no evidence what so ever here that Intelligence is required for design." Reminded me in my Cultural Anthropology class the instructer said at the begginning of the class "I want to make one thing clear There are NO ABSOLUTES!" To which I asked "Are you ABOSOLUTLY SURE about that?" the class immidately broke out in laughter but he stood there stone faced not concerned about the fallacy he just committed and said "YES!" |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2003 : 09:46:55 [Permalink]
|
DA wrote:quote:
we have EMPIRICAL,REPEATABLE,EXPERIMENTAL PROOF THAT IT TAKE INTELLIGENCE TO DESIGN A DNA MOLECLUE.
No, we have evidence that human intelligence can design a DNA molecule, not that intelligence is required to design one. To prove what you appear to want to prove, you'll have to provide solid evidence that life on earth was, in fact, designed by some non-human intelligence (not that humans can imitate the trick) - which is something no ID proponent has yet been able to do.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2003 : 11:02:29 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
No, we have evidence that human intelligence can design a DNA molecule,
Which of course begs the question as to the source of human intelligence(see previous post on this subject),as I will in my next post proceed to the more traditional arguments for God's Existence to tie up the loose ends and demostrate that REASON for our reason is The Logos who is God. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2003 : 12:06:21 [Permalink]
|
| The Logos is a myth. A fairy tale that is beneath consideration to anyone more informed than a primitive savage...As I have shown in my first post. |
|
|
|
Dave W.
Info Junkie
USA
26020 Posts |
Posted - 02/08/2003 : 22:07:55 [Permalink]
|
DA wrote:quote:
Which of course begs the question as to the source of human intelligence
Baloney. You now seem to be trying to equate human intelligence with divine intelligence, which is incredibly arrogant of you. In other words, it seems to me that the only reason one would need to question the source of human intelligence with regards to the point I made (which you ignored - par for the course) is to show, somehow, that humans are as intelligent as your god (or got their intelligence from said god), which is why they can imitate the design of a DNA molecule.
My dog can imitate a handshake. It doesn't mean his DNA was "designed" by a human.
Again, let's see the evidence that life on this planet was designed by an other-worldly being. Everything I've seen from other ID proponents is supported by nonsense (mostly arguments from ignorance and bad math - no positive evidence whatsoever), so I hope you've got something better than the recognized leaders of the field.
|
- Dave W. (Private Msg, EMail)
Evidently, I rock!
Why not question something for a change?
Visit Dave's Psoriasis Info, too. |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/09/2003 : 10:00:35 [Permalink]
|
Dave W.: quote:
To prove what you appear to want to prove, you'll have to provide solid evidence that life on earth was, in fact, designed by some non-human intelligence (not that humans can imitate the trick) - which is something no ID proponent has yet been able to do.
First,I didn't "ignore" the rest of your "point" as the above quote proves,however, I wanted to, as my last post stated,move on to "The Traditional Arguments". But since I see in your last 2 post and in some of the other post as well some good questions So I will try my best to get to them,unfortionally I have to go right now . : [/quote]moakley Posted - 02/07/2003 : 18:57:17
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[walt]And can that law-giver change those laws at any time he/she/it chooses to do so, on a whim? If so then I stand by the Ayn Rand quote, and if not, then what of the omnipotence of said law-giver? moakley:Just because we do not fully understand these issues is no reason to throw up our hands and proclaim "God did it". To paraphrase Albert Einstein, "Though we know little about our universe and origins. What we do know is the most precious thing we have". |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 02/09/2003 10:05:53 |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 02/10/2003 : 20:44:39 [Permalink]
|
moakley quote:
In regards to your original 4 questions. Would you have us stop thinking and pursing the answers to these questions ? Do
you believe that increasing our understanding of the universe and our origins is wasted ? Are you a one answer fits all
individual ?
Not at all some of the earliest scientist were christians Bacon,Pascal,Boyle,Newton,Faraday,Mendel,Pasteur,and Lister to name a few.Certainly these scientist contributed much to our present understanding and didn't just throw their hands up in the air and say"God did it!".The real question for you is if you found a intricate machine in your backyard would the fact that you,quite rightly,attributed its design to an intelligent being curb your interest in how it works or what kind of skill & technology was used to fabricate it?  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
 |
|
Topic Locked
