 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:27 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| rufus wrote: | This one is a conference from over two years ago, but it took place in "Prague". That's outside the USA so it should be relevant to the subject of this thread which is "Why do you think ID is primarily an issue isolated to the United States?"
Darwin And Design
http://www.darwinanddesign.org/
Thanks for correcting me on that last post FFT. Far be it from me that I would want to skip a word. |
I don't think you get it. We are not talking about individuals, or even individual conferences. In all of the civilized countries on Earth ID as a significant political movement trying to muscle its way into science classrooms exists only in the United States. This is a fact.
The rest of the civilized world watched the Dover trial with bewilderment and horror because stuff like that just doesn't happen in Europe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | You're a perfect example; you don't disagree with evolution because there are scientific arguments against it. Your objections come *exclusively* from your interpretation of scripture. |
and you sir are entirely incorrect. My disagreement with the conclusions of evolutionary theory existed long before my understanding of scripture. I want to point out here that I am once again speaking of the conclusions, in particular - macro evolution. |
Had you studied biology extensively before reaching this conclusion? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Goldfish
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 65
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 23, 2008 9:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
The rest of the civilized world watched the Dover trial with bewilderment and horror because stuff like that just doesn't happen in Europe. |
horror! Yes, I'm sure if some folks in Europe happened to have caught a glimpse of the Dover trial, provided it got at least a 60 second slot one evening on the BBC or a German network, it must have made Frankenstein look like the Singing Nun!
"stuff like that just doesn't happen in Europe". Indeed! Things like trains getting blown up in Spain or riots in France pale in comparision to a school board decision in some village in Pennsylvania! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5846
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Oh analogies. The more irrelevant you are, the more hilarious you get! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 3:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
| rufus wrote: |
"stuff like that just doesn't happen in Europe". Indeed! Things like trains getting blown up in Spain or riots in France pale in comparision to a school board decision in some village in Pennsylvania! |
If you feel like starting a thread about civil disorder or terrorism, then go ahead. This thread is about ID, and why the U.S. is the only civilized country on Earth where it has any significant political traction.
Are you ever going to give your opinion on why this is the case? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PrysdieHeer!
Big Pit Bull
Joined: 30 Dec 2007
Posts: 392
Location: South Africa; Gardens of Pretoria
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | PrysdieHeer! wrote: | | An amuba is a lot more comlicated than a spaceship, you wish to tell me that is not intellegent? |
Complexity (especially unnecessary complexity) is not indicative of design. Considering that Amoeba dubia has the largest number of base pairs in its genome out of the entirety of life (as far as is known) doesn't mean that intelligence was required to spawn it. That it has such an extensive genome to little effect (compared to eukaryotes, prokaryotes such as amoebas have many fewer genes relative to their number of base pairs) is indication that it was not intelligently designed. |
Please show me one man made thing-- That is complex, but not intelligent!
:::::::::::::::
Prys die Heer! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P123 wrote: | | Had you studied biology extensively before reaching this conclusion? |
Define extensively please.
In high school I was AP in Science preparing to study medicine in college. In college I began studies in pre-med until I realized that the my mathematics ability was not going to be sufficient for chemistry and physics and my resulting GPA wouldn't have been sufficient for further advancement as I had planned, then I bounced between anthropology and psychology before I decided on psychology.
So, I don't know what you mean by extensive, but I have had my share... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Galaxy
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 5846
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: | | Please show me one man made thing-- That is complex, but not intelligent! |
Uh. What? Any complex thing ever made by man would fall under this definition.
The point of design, however, is to remove unnecessary complexity. There's no point in a complicated hammer, for instance. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1549
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 24, 2008 1:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| PrysdieHeer! wrote: |
Please show me one man made thing-- That is complex, but not intelligent! |
Not sure what the point is, but how about this guy's hat?
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
So, I don't know what you mean by extensive, but I have had my share... |
Did you take at least one biology course in university in which the study of evolution was a section of the syllabus?
Also, you have a degree in psychology? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:25 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Did you take at least one biology course in university in which the study of evolution was a section of the syllabus? |
A couple in biology and more than a few in anthropology.
| Quote: | | Also, you have a degree in psychology? |
Yep. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 26, 2008 5:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: | | Quote: | | Did you take at least one biology course in university in which the study of evolution was a section of the syllabus? |
A couple in biology and more than a few in anthropology. |
And you say that you doubted evolution BEFORE you became a Christian?
| RevJP wrote: |
| Quote: | | Also, you have a degree in psychology? |
Yep. |
Apparently there's a lot about you we don't know! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 881
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 29, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | Don't put words in my mouth. I mean we have zero verified information about God at all. |
Ana, if by 'verified', you do not mean scientifically empirical, what do you mean? We do have information about God, as I've cited. You can choose to dismiss such information, but the information still exists, which is all that is necessary for my premise to stand.
| Ana wrote: | | There is no scientific evidence that there are no ink pens on the surface of Mercury either, even though there is logical evidence to support the claim. You also haven't verified that there is logical evidence supporting God's existence or any of the qualities you're attributing to him to make your case, and even if you had, my previous sentence would render that irrelevant anyways. |
I would agree by way of common sense (informal logic) that there are no ink pens on the surface of Mercury, of course that does not make the existence of such impossible. Therefore your statement about irrelevancy is invalid.
My argument, as formulated in this thread, does not require that I provide evidence directly supporting the existence of God. My argument requires that I provide evidence supporting the concept of intelligent design.
The Boing employee example I provided illustrates that intelligence is an element necessary in the production of 757's. Likewise intelligence, albeit of a different form, is an element necessary in the production of ant hills. Thus, in these examples, an understanding of two different forms of intelligent design are clearly seen from those things that have been made. One form of this intelligence is attributable to human will and thought process, the other (guiding the ants) is a rather natural form of intelligence.
It can be logically deduced that this natural form of intelligence is what guides a sperm cell in it's mission to fertilize an egg in the formation of a human life. Furthermore, this natural form of intelligence is evident in many things.
My conclusion as previously stated is that everything has a maker, everything has a cause. I would like to expand on that.....It can logically be deduced that this natural form of intelligence is of an infinite and omnipresent nature, and is not only the cause of current causes , such as ant hills being built and humans being born, but also logically answers the scientific and philosophic question of first cause.
Based on information given us about God, and considering the logically reached conclusion above, it can be deduced that God is the cause above all causes and the cause of causes......quite simply put.....God is the creator and sustainer of all creation....a conclusion that can be, and is, reached by even the most casual observers......without the use of formal logic, nor by way of scientific methodology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 5:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: |
My conclusion as previously stated is that everything has a maker, everything has a cause. I would like to expand on that.....It can logically be deduced that this natural form of intelligence is of an infinite and omnipresent nature, and is not only the cause of current causes , such as ant hills being built and humans being born, but also logically answers the scientific and philosophic question of first cause.
Based on information given us about God, and considering the logically reached conclusion above, it can be deduced that God is the cause above all causes and the cause of causes......quite simply put.....God is the creator and sustainer of all creation....a conclusion that can be, and is, reached by even the most casual observers.. |
When people reason 'casually', they often make mistakes, and this is no exception. Your notion of 'first cause' is quaint and provincial. This is not how the universe works. Your common sense ideas and arguments don't work with the Big Bang. They simply don't apply.
| Dust wrote: |
....without the use of formal logic, nor by way of scientific methodology. |
Logic and science are the ONLY two sound reasoning methods known to man. If your reasoning does not involve them, then your reasoning is not sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 30, 2008 7:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P129 wrote: | | Irrelevant. What does computer engineering have to do with evolutionary biology? |
Seems to me that question is best directed at yourself.
| Quote: | | Logic and science are the ONLY two sound reasoning methods known to man. If your reasoning does not involve them, then your reasoning is not sound. |
This simply is not necessarily true.
Humans have engaged in sound reasoning for eons, without the use of science and 'logic'.
Science, in it most wide sweeping definition is any systematic knowledge or practice. As you use it, from my understanding is; a system of acquiring knowledge based on the scientific method, as well as to the organized body of knowledge gained through such research.
Logic, most simply, investigates and classifies the structure of statements and arguments through inference and the study of natural language.
From wiki:
| Quote: | Reason and logic
While reason is a type of thought, logic is a field of study which describes ways of reaching conclusions that are in accordance with reason. This contrast between reason and logic thus extends back to the writings of Aristotle. Although the Greeks had no separate word for logic as opposed to language and reason, Aristotle's neologism "syllogism" (syllogismos) identified logic clearly for the first time as a distinct field of study. (When Aristotle referred to "the logical" the source of our word "logic" he was referring more broadly to reason or the rational.)
Reason and logic can be thought to be distinct, although logic is one important aspect of reason. But the tendency to a preference for "hard logic," or "solid logic," in modern times has incorrectly led to the two terms occasionally being seen as essentially synonymous (see Reasoning) or perhaps more often logic is seen as the defining and pure form of reason.
However machines and animals can unconsciously perform logical operations, and many animals (including humans) can unconsciously associate different perceptions as causes and effects and then make decisions or even plans. Therefore, to have any distinct meaning at all, “reason” must be the type of thinking which links language, consciousness and logic, and at this time, only humans are known to combine these things.
Although this is an old discussion, the neurologist Terrence Deacon, following the tradition of Peirce, has recently given a useful new description in modern terms. Like many philosophers in the English traditions such as Hobbes, Locke and Hume, he starts by distinguishing the type of thinking which is most essential to human rational thinking as a type of associative thinking. Reason by his account therefore requires associating perceptions in a way which may be arbitrary (or nominal, conventional or "formal") - not just associating the image or "icon" of smoke and the image of fire, but, for example, the image of smoke and the English word "smoke", or indeed any made-up symbol (not necessarily a spoken word). What is essentially rational, or at least essentially human, is however not the arbitrariness of symbols, but how they are used. See below concerning Reason and Language. |
Most notably I think, is that reason and logic are elements of philosophy, and field which seems to be rejected outright by you, P123..., and others as being irrelevant, particularly in connection with 'pure science'. What I fail to understand is how y'all can claim, quite falsely, that the conclusions you draw from scientific evidence, are devoid of philosophical considerations as if inferring and deducing anything based on evidence or lack of evidence is anything but a philosophical function.
Conclusions based on evidence, when the facts are not demonstrable, repeatable and observable are speculative in nature. Thus if one were to apply the formal science of Logic to those conclusions one can make determinations to the soundness of those conclusions, but barring definitive, irrefutable proof that those conclusions are false, then assertions that said conclusions are false are merely aspects of differing opinion.
It would be my suggestion that those who continually throw out the word 'logic' and continually misapply the truth of the matter would either learn the truth, or stop throwing out incorrectly applied terminology. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
