T
- Status
A
atheistgirl
Guest
You are free to believe me, or not to believe me. It doesn’t much change anything really.
I think this converstion has run it’s course.
Thank you for the pleasant exchanges.
Sarah x
G
grannymh
Guest
That is exactly the reason why some people dismiss I.D.
B
buffalo
Guest
Just to be clear - there is ID the science and there is IDvolution the philosophy.
I
inocente
Guest
Just to be even clearer - there’s ID the pseudoscience and there’s idvolution which doesn’t appear outside your website.
Well, I say that but google now brings up a rather one-sided thread about it on a site called rationalskepticism.org - I’ll not link it as it may cause some apoplexy.
B
buffalo
Guest
Saw it and am comforted by it.Just to be even clearer - there’s ID the pseudoscience and there’s idvolution which doesn’t appear outside your website.
Well, I say that but google now brings up a rather one-sided thread about it on a site called rationalskepticism.org - I’ll not link it as it may cause some apoplexy.
One can know the validity of an idea by the shrillness of the rationalist’s objections.
The value of an idea is also measured by its staying power, not popularity.
A
atheistgirl
Guest
I looked through the site a while ago. I didnt realize it was all your own work.Saw it and am comforted by it.
One can know the validity of an idea by the shrillness of the rationalist’s objections.
The value of an idea is also measured by its staying power, not popularity.
Nice Job
Sarah x
B
buffalo
Guest
Well Thanks.I looked through the site a while ago. I didnt realize it was all your own work.
Nice Job
Sarah x
I am just trying to connect the dots - faith and reason, using the latest science.
G
grannymh
Guest
I was worried about this when IDvolution was in its beginning stages. Seeing the alphabetical letters of I and D means only one thing to many people. You need to **visually **separate philosophy. The visual is a very important part of sales promotion. Notice that older gentlemen are not pictured selling new cars.
B
buffalo
Guest
Yes - know any artists who could image this?I was worried about this when IDvolution was in its beginning stages. Seeing the alphabetical letters of I and D means only one thing to many people. You need to **visually **separate philosophy. The visual is a very important part of sales promotion. Notice that older gentlemen are not pictured selling new cars.
IDvolution
ID=Intelligently Designed
volution - having a volute or rolled-up form.
"
“The process is astonishingly simple. In the embryo’s first moments, the Hox genes are dormant, packaged like a spool of wound yarn on the DNA. When the time is right, the strand begins to unwind. When the embryo begins to form the upper levels, the genes encoding the formation of cervical vertebrae come off the spool and become activated. Then it is the thoracic vertebrae’s turn, and so on down to the tailbone. The DNA strand acts a bit like an old-fashioned computer punchcard, delivering specific instructions as it progressively goes through the machine.” “A new gene comes out of the spool every ninety minutes, which corresponds to the time needed for a new layer of the embryo to be built,” explains Duboule. “It takes two days for the strand to completely unwind; this is the same time that’s needed for all the layers of the embryo to be completed.” This system is the first “mechanical” clock ever discovered in genetics. And it explains why the system is so remarkably precise." Source
G
grannymh
Guest
Dang! Guess I really do need a break. I was referring to the **visual **alphabetical letters of I. and D. which are not a hint of philosophy.
T
tonyrey
Guest
T
tonyrey
Guest
There’s no obligation to respond to all my points. I enjoyed our skirmish…You are free to believe me, or not to believe me. It doesn’t much change anything really.
I think this converstion has run it’s course.
Thank you for the pleasant exchanges.
Sarah x
Best wishes,
Tony
T
tonyrey
Guest
I
inocente
Guest
You earlier didn’t like my use of “design” when I said gravity designed the Earth, so if you want to rule out blind processes from having a design role, I think you have to use a phrase such as intelligent design to avoid confusion.
I
inocente
Guest
Perhaps not so much simplistic as rigorous.
We know that some people assign some things a purpose and other things no purpose, but as usual people don’t agree. What we don’t have, unless you can enlighten me, is a means of objectively assigning purposes. And if we can’t objectively assign purposes, any opinion on whether some naturally occurring thing is designed is no more than an opinion.
For see the problem, try expounding the objective purpose(s) for which a nose is supposedly designed, then do the same for the planet Venus.
G
grannymh
Guest
I am a tad cranky this AM.
I still do not understand what is meant by this comment. “Design is not directly concerned with the existence of God - and certainly not with atheism.” in post 353.
Is this one of those kind of comments where the reader is expected to say – Oh yes it is.
I still do not understand what is meant by this comment. “Design is not directly concerned with the existence of God - and certainly not with atheism.” in post 353.
Is this one of those kind of comments where the reader is expected to say – Oh yes it is.
R
reggieM
Guest
Ok, I tried twice to get a direct answer from you to a very simple question – so, I will suggest that (in making such a good effort to avoid the discussion that) miracles are probably a lot more important to you than you might think.
You reference scientific research. Obviously, that is one method you use to determine if the Shroud has a supernatural origin or not. That’s design detection.
I offered some facts to consider and it might be a question not of cynicism but of bias – I’m just suggesting for your own reflection and not to prove anything to me.
Again … this is a cloth. Apparently you accept that there is an image on it, and that the image has enough specified complexity that it needs to be explained somehow. (How did you determine that?)
Science purports to be able to explain (to some degree):
The origin of the universe
The origin of life on earth
The origin of human life
All of the variation of life on earth
The origin of human consciousness and free-will
… and much more.
But in this case of a mere image on a cloth, you correctly point out that science does not have an explanation – it remains a mystery.
How would an unbiased observer accept that fact?
I find it interesting, at least.
I then ask you if you think it is impossible that the image was created by a supernatural source, and you avoid answering the question.
Let’s move on then to this as an application of the design argument.
What evidence has convinced you that Jesus existed in history?
In my question above – can you provide some evidence to show that Jesus did exist without referencing any objects?
Could St. Paul say: “… we preach Christ crucified …” without accepting the scientific fact that crucifixion was the method used by the Romans at the time?
I’m pretty sure that you don’t believe that the passage 1 Cor 1:18-31 is a condemnation of human reason and the of intellectual virtues – otherwise, on what basis would you spend countless hours on the Philosophy thread (or apologetics or others) here on CAF?
The Bible is an object, of course.
Archeologists are scientists who study objects.
Linguists look at ancient language and that science relies on objects.
Where does one find evidence of Jesus without using any objects?
How can one determine that He was the Son of God?
How can one determine which Christian Church one should join?
What evidence convinces you that the Baptist Church is correct in its teachings?
R
reggieM
Guest
No, it’s not directly concerned with the existence of God. The detection of design can have many applications. SETI, forensics, cryptology, archeology … many others.I am a tad cranky this AM.
I still do not understand what is meant by this comment. “Design is not directly concerned with the existence of God - and certainly not with atheism.” in post 353.
Is this one of those kind of comments where the reader is expected to say – Oh yes it is.
R
reggieM
Guest
epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=66&ap=6
As Marcus R. Ross explains, “ID is classified as a philosophically minimalistic position, asserting that real design exists in nature and is empirically detectable by the methods of science.”[11] Hence, abstracted from the debate about whether or not ID is science, ID can be advanced as a single, logically valid syllogism:
Concerning premise 2, design theorists have proposed that intelligent design can be inferred from several facets of nature, including cosmic fine-tuning, the fine-tuning of our local cosmic habitat, the origin of life, irreducibly complex biomolecular systems, and the “Cambrian Explosion.”[12] However, my concern here is with the first premise, without which the empirical data lacks evidential traction. Rather than drawing upon the work of its defenders within the ID movement, I will draw attention to the fact that scientists and philosophers outside the movement, including some who are opposed to the theory, use CSI as a design detection criterion. These scholars can be divided into two groups: atheists and theists. I will review each group in turn.
epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=54
As Marcus R. Ross explains, “ID is classified as a philosophically minimalistic position, asserting that real design exists in nature and is empirically detectable by the methods of science.”[11] Hence, abstracted from the debate about whether or not ID is science, ID can be advanced as a single, logically valid syllogism:
Code:
(Premise 1) Specified complexity reliably points to intelligent design.
(Premise 2) At least one aspect of nature exhibits specified complexity.
(Conclusion)Therefore, at least one aspect of nature reliably points to intelligent design.epsociety.org/library/articles.asp?pid=54
- Status