 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6067
Location: Memphis
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 1:36 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Dust wrote: | Alright here's the question again.....
| Quote: | | And what does a 'test' for something being intelligently designed look like? |
I could point to a 757, it's intelligently designed. We know, by simple observation, and by the faculty of common sense it would be impossible for a 757 to evolve. We know that it was designed by educated Boing engineers utilizing computer aided design software, but what about an ant hill, who and/or what designed that marvel? |
Inasmuch as it could be said to have been "designed," ants.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: |
I've not indicated that I am against the facts of the evolution theory. I'm not even agaisnt some of the assumptions. |
At some point you're going to have to explain to us what these assumptions are.
| Dust wrote: |
I specifically have a problem with taxa according to presumptive evolutionary (phylogenetic) relationships.
|
Science isn't about 'presumption'. That's a contradiction in terms. I'll agree that Linnaeus, the father of taxonomy, made a lot of presumptions and mistakes, but that was during the 1700s. All of his mistakes have been corrected by now.
When scientists say that we evolved from lower primates, that's *not* presumptive. It's based on very compelling physical evidence such as the fossil record, DNA evidence, and atavisms.
| Dust wrote: |
As far as the Wedge Document I haven't read it, except for the portions P quotes. I have to agree......it seems pretty damning. |
And you know that the Discovery Institute was one of the main forces behind the ID movement, right?
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 27, 2008 5:41 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | Alright here's the question again.....
| Quote: | | And what does a 'test' for something being intelligently designed look like? |
I could point to a 757, it's intelligently designed. We know, by simple observation, and by the faculty of common sense it would be impossible for a 757 to evolve. We know that it was designed by educated Boing engineers utilizing computer aided design software, but what about an ant hill, who and/or what designed that marvel? |
The problem is that observation is NOT a test. Some people might look at an amoeba and say that it was intelligently designed. Others might look at it and say that it evolved. A test is supposed to be something objective which gives the same answer to everyone. That's the whole point.
For example, if we want to figure out how many calories are in a peanut, we have to set up a step-by-step experiment which two people who have never met each other before can independently do and get the same answer within some error bounds. And the conclusion should be completely independent of their political or religious views. This is the whole point of science.
You need to describe to us an OBJECTIVE experiment like that. Using observation alone as a test gives outrageously biased results that are all over the place. Most importantly, the results are a function of the tester's religious views (or lack thereof), which is very bad.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 890
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| FFT wrote: | | Inasmuch as it could be said to have been "designed," ants. |
Kind of a cautious answer, but a good answer none the less.
So, by observation and the application of common sense we know Boing employees built and designed the 757, and we know, for sure (no caution necessary), that ants build ant hills, and inasmuch as it could be said about the design of ant hills, we know ants are responsible for that as well.
Observation and the application of common sense are fairly good indicators. Now utilizing these same factors and considerations, lets take a look at ants...i.e...eusocial insects, and the Boing engineers...i.e...humans, and the entirety of creation. Couple this with the information we have about God, which has been handed down and/or tacitly-known (in the way ants know how to build an ant hill perhaps), presumably, from the inception of mankind, and we reach a clear indication that there is an intellegence behind the design of these things. No matter how intricate or simple the initial design from which all things come, we know by our observations that everything has a maker, everything has a cause.
Science is concerned with finding causes, therefore, given the imformation we have available to us, it is condradictory, if not foolish, to rule out the concept of intelligent design.
The fight between atheists, and RELIGION (think about it, the fight really does not play-out as an argument between atheists and theists in the strictest sense, it's atheists vs religion) takes many forms, sometimes a bit ridiculous (on both sides), which tends to muddy-the-waters. Winning the fight becomes the goal, sometimes at all costs, like what we find in the wedge letter you guys are making reference to.
btw, even without the use of subterfuge, as the wedge letter exposes, I think the movement was/is a bit misdirected, but that does not make consideration of intellignet design any less viable.
Bottom line....clean science is above the foolishness of atheism, just as it is above the folly of religion....not the turth in religion, but, as I said, the folly.
Though the ID movement (not the ID concept), and the guys behind it were defeated in this court case, dont-throw-the-baby-out-with-the-bath-water.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 890
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 7:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | You need to describe to us an OBJECTIVE experiment like that. Using observation alone as a test gives outrageously biased results that are all over the place. |
NO, I dont need to.
I've already stated the concept of intelligent design is not a scientific theory.....none-the-less it is a conclusion that can be reached. Remember, it's not like we've never heard of God before.
What is it exactly that you want me to test for, an invisible God who works by way of providence? Try the same sort of observation, and technical analysis used in the detection of invisible dark matter. Of course dark matter is a postulation based on observation.
Do not short-change observation and common sense, just because these are not compatible with your atheist views.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 8:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | You need to describe to us an OBJECTIVE experiment like that. Using observation alone as a test gives outrageously biased results that are all over the place. |
NO, I dont need to.
|
Yes, you really do.
| Dust wrote: |
I've already stated the concept of intelligent design is not a scientific theory.....none-the-less it is a conclusion that can be reached. |
The existence of vampires and pixies is also a conclusion that can be reached. Reachability is cheap in conclusionland. The important thing is that conlcusions be based on SOUND reasoning. And ID is NOT based on sound reasoning. That's the whole problem.
People shouldn't believe things which are not based on sound reasoning. That's the whole point of reasoning. And why did God give us brains other than to reason with?
| Dust wrote: |
What is it exactly that you want me to test for, an invisible God who works by way of providence?
|
I don't really care HOW you do it, but I want you to come up with a compelling and logically-sound scientific argument which shows that creation is true. Can you do that or are you content believing a conclusion which does NOT have sound arguments supporting it?
| Dust wrote: |
Try the same sort of observation, and technical analysis used in the detection of invisible dark matter. Of course dark matter is a postulation based on observation. |
Dark matter is not based on direct observation. The existence of dark matter is the most likely logical implication of OTHER observations.
| Dust wrote: |
Do not short-change observation and common sense, just because these are not compatible with your atheist views. |
What are you talking about? Observation is a cornerstone of science, which most certainly is compatible with my atheist views.
As for common sense, if we went by common sense, we'd still think that the Earth is flat and that the Sun orbits us once a day. We also would have thrown out Einstein's theories of relativity and pretty much all of quantum mechanics.
Placing common sense above logical and scientific reasoning HURTS our search for truth and understanding. ID is a fantastic example of this.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: |
So, by observation and the application of common sense we know Boing employees built and designed the 757, |
No offense, but whenever someone brings up the Boeing 757 was designed argument, it makes me think they are just regurgitating standard creationist arguments. Why is it almost always a Boeing 757 specifically? Why not a Gameboy or a wedding dress or a jackhammer? There are so many things that are clearly man-made that you could use in these arguments (which still suck), but for some reason, creationists are unfathomably fond of the Boeing 757.
Anyways, carry on. I don't mean to derail the thread - I'm just hoping some originality will surface at some point.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 890
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
Man......you guys see what you want to see dont ya!
Ana, be honest, I have not given you the Tornado/747 argument. Geez....I thought perhaps when I specified a 757 it would help you realize that. If an unwillingness for you to consider my actual argument, has come out in an inaccurate critique (as you have done)....so be it. People have all kinds of mechanisms to hold on to what they want to hold on to.
First FFT and P could not grasp my position, and now, Ana, you are trying to pigion hole my arguement.....Hmm it must be a better argument than I thought. Wow.
P, most folks do not believe in vampires and pixies, but most folks do believe in God. If you are unable to discern why that is, I might as well be trying to reach reasonable conclusions (which, btw, can be reached without scientific methodology) with a 3 year old.
Let me say that again.....
I might as well be trying to reach reasonable conclusions with a 3 year old!
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 10:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | Man......you guys see what you want to see dont ya!
Ana, be honest, I have not given you the Tornado/747 argument. Geez....I thought perhaps when I specified a 757 it would help you realize that. If an unwillingness for you to consider my actual argument, has come out in an inaccurate critique (as you have done)....so be it. People have all kinds of mechanisms to hold on to what they want to hold on to.
First FFT and P could not grasp my position, and now, Ana, you are trying to pigion hole my arguement.....Hmm it must be a better argument than I thought. Wow.
|
No, in your haste to think I was discrediting your argument, you missed the point. Using ANY kind of Boeing or even airplane makes me suspicious that you're not formulating your arguments all by yourself. That is my point. I am quite aware you're not going for the tornado-in-a-junkyard argument.
However, you seem to want me to pick apart your argument, so here:
| Dust wrote: | | Couple this with the information we have about God, which has been handed down and/or tacitly-known (in the way ants know how to build an ant hill perhaps), presumably, from the inception of mankind, and we reach a clear indication that there is an intellegence behind the design of these things. |
We have zero verified information about God. Therefore your premise is invalid. Therefore your conclusion is invalid. Happy now?
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dust
Growing Lion
Joined: 10 Sep 2004
Posts: 890
Location: All over the western U.S.
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Ana wrote: | | We have zero verified information about God. Therefore your premise is invalid. Therefore your conclusion is invalid. |
You mean scientifically. However, logically, we have plenty of evidence to reach an intelligent design conclusion, as I've demonstrated.
Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence which dismisses the logical evidence.
We are on two different plains. Your argument and my argument are of two different forms. The actions of these arguments are not the same. Science and Logic both exist, they are both valid, as I am sure you would agree. They can co-mingle.
Thus....your conclusion that my logical conclusion is invalid based on scientific criteria, is in itself invalid. Do you concur?
Here's the kicker.....I can view and accept scientific conclusions without losing my perspective on non-scientific logical conclusions. Your apparent inability to do this does not seem to be due to a mental deficiency, so my non-scientific conclusion is, that you are pushing an atheistic adgenda using science as an avenue. Is that accurate? As if you would tell me.
_________________
The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the communion of the Holy Ghost, be with you all. Amen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ana
King of the Jungle
Joined: 10 Mar 2006
Posts: 1553
Location: BC
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 11:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | We have zero verified information about God. Therefore your premise is invalid. Therefore your conclusion is invalid. |
You mean scientifically. However logically, we have plenty of evidence to reach an intelligent design conclusion, as I've demonstrated. |
Don't put words in my mouth. I mean we have zero verified information about God at all. If you'd like to share any of your so-called logical evidence for God that pertains to this discussion, you're going to need to share it before you can use the premise that you did. If you have any that doesn't pertain to this topic, please share it in another thread.
| Dust wrote: |
Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence which dismisses the logical evidence. |
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.
| Dust wrote: |
We are on two different plains. Your argument and my argument are of two different forms. The actions of these arguments are not the same. Science and Logic both exist, they are both valid, as I am sure you would agree. They can co-mingle. |
Of course they are both valid, and science relies on logic. However, though the structure of your argument is logical, your premises are made of thin air.
| Dust wrote: |
Thus....your conclusion that my logical conclusion is invalid based on scientific criteria, is in itself invalid. Do you concur? |
I never made a conclusion about your 'logical conclusion' considering it is in fact not a logical conclusion, so I cannot concur.
| Dust wrote: |
Here's the kicker.....I can view and accept scientific conclusions without losing my perspective on non-scientific logical conclusions. Your apparent inability to do this does not seem to be due to a mental deficiency, so my non-scientific conclusion is, that you are pushing an atheistic adgenda using science as an avenue. Is that accurate? As if you would tell me. |
What's with the little snipe there at the end? Why do you think I wouldn't answer you? I can view and accept scientific conclusions and I can view and accept logical conclusions. If one affects the other, then so be it. I can also tell the difference between logical conclusions and illogical conclusions. I am not 'pushing an atheistic agenda' - I am smashing your ID agenda. There's a difference.
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: |
P, most folks do not believe in vampires and pixies, but most folks do believe in God. If you are unable to discern why that is, I might as well be trying to reach reasonable conclusions (which, btw, can be reached without scientific methodology) with a 3 year old. |
You'd certainly have more luck with a 3-year old. It's when you try out your arguments on educated adults that you're going to run into problems. Convincing 3-year-olds of something really isn't that hard.
As for this:
| Dust wrote: |
which, btw, can be reached without scientific methodology |
I don't think you get it. Humans have exactly two tools available for reaching valid conclusions. Those tools are science and logic. If you're not using one of those tools, then your conclusions won't be sound, which is exactly what we're seeing.
You're certainly reaching CONCLUSIONS, but they definitely aren't sound, and therefore they are not reasonable.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 7563
Location: Victoria, Canada
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | Ana wrote: | | We have zero verified information about God. Therefore your premise is invalid. Therefore your conclusion is invalid. |
You mean scientifically. However, logically, we have plenty of evidence to reach an intelligent design conclusion, as I've demonstrated. |
We most certainly DO NOT! A logical argument is MORE compelling than a scientific argument. You've never given anything that even remotely resembles a logically sound argument for an ID conclusion, and by the way you're talking, I'm pretty sure you've never studied logic.
| Dust wrote: |
Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence which dismisses the logical evidence. |
What logical evidence? I must have missed it. Spell out your logical ID argument for me.
_________________
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious conviction."
-Blaise Pascal
"...with or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil -that takes religion..."
-Steven Weinberg
"I would bless my children with your destruction instead."
-Someone who shall remain anonymous. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
FFT
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 26 Mar 2005
Posts: 6067
Location: Memphis
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 4:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dust wrote: | | However, logically, we have plenty of evidence to reach an intelligent design conclusion, as I've demonstrated. |
Only through invalid logic.
| Dust wrote: | | Furthermore, there is no scientific evidence which dismisses the logical evidence. |
Well, that's not necessary. Logic's all that's required to refute your "logical evidence."
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.
Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
rufus
Big Hamster
Joined: 22 Sep 2007
Posts: 96
Location: about 20 miles west of Lake Michigan
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 28, 2008 9:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Bouncer wrote: |
Michael Behe fearing perjury charges if he wasn't honest in his testimony reveals a number of interesting facts during his testimony in Kitzmiller v Dover. |
| Bouncer wrote: |
It seems the only way to get the truth out of the ID movement is to put them on the stand and make them swear to tell the truth. |
These quotes from Bouncer give the impression, at least to me, that Michael Behe was on trial. He wasn't. Behe's testimony in the Dover case was entirely voluntary.
In October 2005 the Discovery Institute, of which Behe is affilliated, filed an "amicus curiae" on behalf of the Dover school board, defendants in the case. An amicus curiae (friend of the court) refers to someone, not a party in the case, who volunteers to offer information on a point of law or some other aspect of the case.
Let me repeat that: Behe did not have to offer testimony in the Dover case. Behe was not a party in the case (i.e. he was not a member of the Dover school board). His testimony was entirely voluntary.
| Bouncer wrote: |
...ID is not science. It is according to one of it's founders Michael Behe, a pseudoscience, like Astrology. |
Okay, here's Behe's side of the story on the astrology comment:
| Quote: |
Media Misquotes on Astrology:
"Another misperception came out in the Q&A session. Behe was asked if he believed astrology was science because he had been quoted all over the media as saying astrology would fit in with his definition of science. Behe stated that at that point in the trial they were discussing the definition of science. He was asked if astrology was science and Behe said he stated astrology was considered science in the 13th and 14th century and that it in part led to astronomy. He was referring to historical times, not current times. But, the media only picked up his reference to astrology being acceptable in his definition of science."
....Put the NAS [National Academy of Sciences] on the witness stand, and they would admit that 500 years ago, some people would have said that geocentrism qualified under their definition of "theory." In fact, 500 years ago, many of these same people would have put "astrology" under the NAS definition of science.
From:
Evolution News & Views: Michael Behe Speaks in Kansas on Intelligent Design
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/12/michael_behe_speaks_in_kansas.html |
Bouncers claim that Behe was "fearing perjury charges" is without foundation. The worst case scenario would be that Behe, on the second day of questioning in a trial he volunteered to participate in, perhaps just got nervous and gave a poor answer.
Again, Behe was not a party in the case. His organization filed an amicus curiae on behalf of the Dover school board.
Last edited by rufus on Sat Mar 29, 2008 8:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
