What has "Unintelligent Design" been observed to make?

by hooberus 96 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  FlyingHighNow

  Hi, Larry.
• 

  DanTheMan

  What is the likely mechanism(s) for how these changes occur according to Intelligent Design Theory?Wouldn't these observations indicate (under an ID paradigm) that the organisms were intentionally made to ensure the deaths of people? A culling mechanism. What prediction can then be made about the disposition of this Intelligent Designer to humans when said Intelligence targets indiscriminately?

  It's all because a talking snake fooled Eve into eating some fruit. It's so rational and logical and scientific isn't it? ;)
• 

  ghostbuster

  Abaddon, I will try to reply to your last post. You made some interesting points which I need time to answer but don't have as I don't have my own computer to work from.
• 

  Shining One

  Narkisos,
  The creationist element is the most believed in the world, not the other way around. It is only in the nihilistic and brainswashed masses of Canada and western Europe that the naturalistic philosophy has been bought into. Most other countries actually allow teaching that encompasses different theories. The USA is going to break out of the restricted teachings in due time. The vast majority in this country see the elite snobs for what they are: fearful agnostics that want to keep deny any investigation that might further erode the believability of their main tenets of belief. I ask every agnostic here: If your beliefs are correct and naturalism is basically true then why do you fear other theories being advanced? Are you back in Watchtower mode?
  Rex
• 

  Abaddon

  Oh, shiny, it is fun to read your... er... considered...'"opinions".

  The creationist element is the most believed in the world, not the other way around.

  Here we see shiny making the fallacious argument I like to call 'argumentum ad lemmus'

  Apparently validity of opinion is not important, merely numbers...

  It is only in the nihilistic and brainswashed masses of Canada and western Europe that the naturalistic philosophy has been bought into.

  Please do not use words you obviously don't understand well enough to use correctly.

  Nihilism, as it is defined in the dictionary, is a very very minor belief that has nothing to do with modern secularism or religion as practised by most non-American Westerners.

  Observe the contempt you hold for sincere religious people who are open-minded and rational enough to realise bronze-age creation myths are not scientifically accurate, but who still have a religious belief, or non-religious people who don't believe "existence is senseless and useless"

  How Christian is that!?

  Shiny, when you distort information like this it make you look less than honest. In addition to using words incorrectly in an attempt to smear people, you make it sound as though science as taught and practised in the USA differs vastly from Canada or Europe. This is not the case. The vast majority of professional scientists in the USA believe in evolution. The USA is the odd one out in having a vocal minority of (frequently poorly qualified) opponents to evolution who wish to foist their religious superstitions on people in the name of science.

  Most other countries actually allow teaching that encompasses different theories.

  As Michael Behe was forced to admit in Court, ID (and by implication Creationism) are NOT theories; at best they are unfounded hypothesis. Again, in Court Behe admitted by HIS definitions Astrology could also be pushed as a valid school subject! The biggest deception pushers of the Creationist/ID-ot paradigm engage in is that they HAVE a theory. When they say this, they show they don't even know what a scientific theory IS, yet claim they are right about science!!

  The USA is going to break out of the restricted teachings in due time.

  Not whilst the people have a say; all members of an American school board who recently tried to force Creationism/ID-otism into the classroom were voted off in recent elections; they were voted off by a cross-section of people with varying levels of education who could still see that religiously inspired hypothesis shouldn't be allowed in a classroom.

  The vast majority in this country see the elite snobs for what they are:

  You make your hate, resentment, and fear all too obvious...

  fearful agnostics that want to keep deny any investigation that might further erode the believability of their main tenets of belief.

  The Fundemperor has no clothes. ID-ots and Creationists do not even HAVE a theory, yet they want their pseudoscience and superstitions taught alongside science. When people point out that this would be akin to teaching Astrology and say 'no way', the ID-ots and Creationist make out it is because scientists are 'fearful'!!

  If fear drives denying classroom access to ID-ot and Creationist speculation, it is fear of superstition and pseudoscience being taught to children and rotting their minds.

  I ask every agnostic here: If your beliefs are correct and naturalism is basically true then why do you fear other theories being advanced? Are you back in Watchtower mode?

  If you HAD a theory, it could be advanced. You DO NOT have a theory. Creationism and ID-otism are no more suited for the science classroom than Tooth Fairyism and Astrology.

  In addition to NOT having a theory it's pretty obvious you and your ilk don't have a clue...
• 

  hooberus

  Abaddon said:
  

  
  Once again, a Creationist ignores his beliefs has no foundation (i.e. to postulate complex object need intelligent design is to postulate the intelligent designer as a complex object ALSO need an intelligent designer ad ludicrousness).

  Why should I play silly games you THINK will somehow make it look like you have a decent argument when you DON'T have a decent argument and can only pretend you have by means of ignoring the self-refuting nature of your philosophy?

  
  

  
  I have already posted reasons why intelligent design is not necessarily a "self-refuting" philosophy. It should also be noted that even non-ID scientists would certainly agree that some complex objects need intelligent design; and/ or are best explained by intelligent design; are evidence of design; etc. without the postulate "the intelligent designer as a complex object ALSO need an intelligent designer ad ludicrousness". For example they certainly would say that computers, radar systems, alien spacecraft, etc. need intelligent design, and / or are best explained by intelligent design; etc.- however they then deny that Intelligent design is necessary for their intelligent designers (despite similarites- see below).
  

  Now if secular scientists can hold such design explanation views without necessarily being "self-refuting" -despite the fact that they believe that the object and its designer both 1). have an origin and 2.) are composed of complex mechanical part systems-, then why can't ID scientists also do the same without necessarily being "self-refuting"-especially since ID theory allows for the possibility of a creator who doesn't even have an origin?

  You attempt to give yourself the appearance of reason; "ooo, no, that is discussed in THIS thread (self-refuting nature of ID-otism)". Again, this is to GIVE the appearance of reason. Examination of that thread reveals this massive flaw in your arguments is dispensed with IN YOUR MIND by saying something without an origin needs no designer. The convenient nature and absolute lack of evidence for this postulation is something you ignore.

  
  

  Logically speaking something without an origin doesn't need, nor can it have a designer. Furthermore, even before my existence the Bible directly declared that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2), so its hardly a "convienent" postulation for me to cite.
• 

  DanTheMan

  The creationist element is the most believed in the world, not the other way around. It is only in the nihilistic and brainswashed masses of Canada and western Europe that the naturalistic philosophy has been bought into. Most other countries actually allow teaching that encompasses different theories. The USA is going to break out of the restricted teachings in due time. The vast majority in this country see the elite snobs for what they are: fearful agnostics that want to keep deny any investigation that might further erode the believability of their main tenets of belief. I ask every agnostic here: If your beliefs are correct and naturalism is basically true then why do you fear other theories being advanced?

  This, coming from somebody who just chastized somebody on another thread for not discussing evidence. And then on this thread you proceed to offer as evidence "but creationism is what the majority of people believe" and "you've just been brainwashed by elitist snobs if you believe evolution".

  In all of my life I have never come across a person that was so thoroughly unable to realize when they were a pot calling a kettle black.
• 

  Abaddon

  hooberus

  You might THINK you have posted "why intelligent design is not necessarily a "self-refuting" philosophy", but you only do this by ignoring that ID only NOT self-refuting IF you use special pleading ("something that has always been there doesn't require a designer"), in which case it is a hypothesis based on a logical fallacy.

  That must make you so proud; a choice between self-refuting and logically fallacious.

  To try and get out of the corner your beliefs force you into, you say;

  Furthermore, even before my existence the Bible directly declared that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2), so its hardly a "convienent" postulation for me to cite.

  hooberus, you quote that scripture like it PROVED something. That's like saying a quotation from the Qu'ran PROVES something even if there isn't supporting evidence, or that a quotation from the Silver Bough PROVES something even if there isn't supporting evidence, or that a quotation from the Bahghadavita PROVES something even if there isn't supporting evidence. Hell, a quotation from the Yellow Pages is more likely to have supporting evidence!

  ... it just illustrates you probably don't read and consider as closely as you should, as I'd already previously said (you quote it) that there was an "absolute lack of evidence" for that postulation. Of course, this lack of evidence doesn't bother you in the least bit. You have already decided what you want to believe and will not accept any interpretation of the facts that doesn't support your presuppositon, why should ignoring inconvenient facts (like the Flood didn't happen) or accepting things as factual that amply show your poor standards of evidence.

  So, still a choice between self-refuting and logically fallacious (or based on a postulation that cannot be proved).

  In short, god did it how you say he did it because you say he did. That is the begining and end of your philosophy, no matter how you might dress it up.

  I DO notice you are more on an ID trip nowadays; have you given up on YEC then? '

  I still haven't heard ONE person from the ID or Creationist posse respond to Behe having to admit ID was a HYPOTHESIS in court, which kind of illustrates nicely why it shouldn't be taught in school. Or is that another inconvenient fact you will ignore?

  That for all your tilting at evolutionary theory, you haven't actually GOT one yourself.

  Or will you just redefine theory to suit yourself?
• 

  hooberus

  hooberus
  

  You might THINK you have posted "why intelligent design is not necessarily a "self-refuting" philosophy", but you only do this by ignoring that ID only NOT self-refuting IF you use special pleading ("something that has always been there doesn't require a designer"), in which case it is a hypothesis based on a logical fallacy.

  That must make you so proud; a choice between self-refuting and logically fallacious.

  Its not "special pleading" nor a "a logical fallacy" to make a statements to the effect that "something that has always been there doesn't require a designer".

  To try and get out of the corner your beliefs force you into, you say;

  Furthermore, even before my existence the Bible directly declared that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2), so its hardly a "convienent" postulation for me to cite.

  hooberus, you quote that scripture like it PROVED something. That's like saying a quotation from the Qu'ran PROVES something even if there isn't supporting evidence, or that a quotation from the Silver Bough PROVES something even if there isn't supporting evidence, or that a quotation from the Bahghadavita PROVES something even if there isn't supporting evidence. Hell, a quotation from the Yellow Pages is more likely to have supporting evidence!
  

  ... it just illustrates you probably don't read and consider as closely as you should, as I'd already previously said (you quote it) that there was an "absolute lack of evidence" for that postulation. Of course, this lack of evidence doesn't bother you in the least bit. You have already decided what you want to believe and will not accept any interpretation of the facts that doesn't support your presuppositon, why should ignoring inconvenient facts (like the Flood didn't happen) or accepting things as factual that amply show your poor standards of evidence.

  So, still a choice between self-refuting and logically fallacious (or based on a postulation that cannot be proved).

  Your quote of my words above omits the first sentence of my paragraph in which I also used evidence from logic. Here it is again: "Logically speaking something without an origin doesn't need, nor can it have a designer. Furthermore, even before my existence the Bible directly declared that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2), so its hardly a "convienent" postulation for me to cite."
• 

  DanTheMan

  Hoob,

  That post seems like an attempt to get the last word in without actually saying anything that you hadn't previously.