!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK!!! Now we're getting down to it. It's ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE SEEDING EARTH!!! Also, YOU CAN'T PROVE MULTIPLE ALIASES!!!
These are the ID arguments that remain standing.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
!!!!!!!!!!!!!
OK!!! Now we're getting down to it. It's ALIENS FROM OUTER SPACE SEEDING EARTH!!! Also, YOU CAN'T PROVE MULTIPLE ALIASES!!!
These are the ID arguments that remain standing.
Yet again... it seems strange then, that ID'ers (read: Zeleologist/pilier) spend so much time here trying to discredit empiricism!!
You need to get your story straight before you attempt to sell ID-oil
Yep.
The process begins with simple observation.
Then naturally we wonder why the process works the way it does. (It is human nature to wonder why of course...hmmm, I wonder why that is? Just more accidental condition of humanity resulting from "ignorant chance" so the scientists would say...)
Then the guesses begin.
Then the means of testing the guess begins. Tests are fashioned to fit the guess, to make the guess appear possibly true.
Then the guess that appeals to the majority of scientists is adopted and taught as fact through an indoctrination process in the public school system.
By the way in this case, since scientists can't imagine anyone smarter than they are, the scientists have to rule out design as a possibility...can't have anyone or anything with greater intelligence than they possess. That would never do...
Naturally, certain questions must not be asked that would upset the scientific apple cart.
Like, why do all biological organisms have the same nature to survive, adapt, procreate, etc....
Since all the biological organism have common ancestry, and the same basic nature, they must come up with an ancestry that is not a designer, so a complicated mysterious chance derived explanation is developed. Of course, there is no explanation why so called evolution exists, where it actually came from, why it turned out the way it did, etc.
Mandatory of course, for the theory to work, all aspects of evolution must be by complete accident. Design at any step would negate the entire theory.
To hold the belief, one must suspend belief of causation or design. One must assume that the very first biological organism just happened to have the characteristic of survival, adaptation, limited life, need to procreate...
All just a lucky event...a guess derived from chance...
The whole science of evolution being from non design rests on a "lucky" guess....
The process begins with simple observation.
Then naturally we wonder why the process works the way it does. (It is human nature to wonder why of course...hmmm, I wonder why that is? Just more accidental condition of humanity resulting from "ignorant chance" so the scientists would say...)
Then the guesses begin.
Then the means of testing the guess begins. Tests are fashioned to fit the guess, to make the guess appear possibly true.
Then the guess that appeals to the majority of scientists is adopted and taught as fact through an indoctrination process in the public school system.
By the way in this case, since scientists can't imagine anyone smarter than they are, the scientists have to rule out design as a possibility...can't have anyone or anything with greater intelligence than they possess. That would never do...
Naturally, certain questions must not be asked that would upset the scientific apple cart.
Like, why do all biological organisms have the same nature to survive, adapt, procreate, etc....
Since all the biological organism have common ancestry, and the same basic nature, they must come up with an ancestry that is not a designer, so a complicated mysterious chance derived explanation is developed. Of course, there is no explanation why so called evolution exists, where it actually came from, why it turned out the way it did, etc.
Mandatory of course, for the theory to work, all aspects of evolution must be by complete accident. Design at any step would negate the entire theory.
To hold the belief, one must suspend belief of causation or design. One must assume that the very first biological organism just happened to have the characteristic of survival, adaptation, limited life, need to procreate...
All just a lucky event...a guess derived from chance...
The whole science of evolution being from non design rests on a "lucky" guess....
Yep, all of that can be summed up as follows -
"I have nothing. There is no proof for this so-called theory that I have suggested. I am reduced to making up blatant lies and using shameful diversionary rhetoric about the scientific method and the quest for knowledge that has brought me the quality of life I enjoy. Oh, and suggesting that maybe Aliens from Outer Space seeded the young planet.
Am I a hypocrite? Yes. But I have my faith. And all I need is my faith. "
Thread Closed.
"I have nothing. There is no proof for this so-called theory that I have suggested. I am reduced to making up blatant lies and using shameful diversionary rhetoric about the scientific method and the quest for knowledge that has brought me the quality of life I enjoy. Oh, and suggesting that maybe Aliens from Outer Space seeded the young planet.
Am I a hypocrite? Yes. But I have my faith. And all I need is my faith. "
Thread Closed.
I've used the "Search" facility of ET and couldn't find any references in this thread to the HISTORY of the idea called the teleological argument, also known as "the watchmaker analogy", also known as "intelligent design". So here is a beginning.
1268: St. Thomas Aquinas writes "Summa Theologiae" which includes his quinquae viae, or five rational proofs for the existence of God. These included the teleological argument.
1779: David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" is published. This book attacks the teleological argument and, as wikipedia tersely says, "Hume killed the argument for good".
1803: William Paley writes "Natural Theology" and publicizes the watchmaker analogy. Nature is a watch which was designed by an intelligent creator.
1859: Charles Darwin writes "The Origin of Species" which puts forward an alternate explanation for the order observed in living organisms.
Based on this brief timeline, which I invite readers to verify for themselves, it appears that the teleological argument has lost out in the marketplace of ideas, despite the advantage of knocking around in one form or another for 750 years.
1268: St. Thomas Aquinas writes "Summa Theologiae" which includes his quinquae viae, or five rational proofs for the existence of God. These included the teleological argument.
1779: David Hume's "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" is published. This book attacks the teleological argument and, as wikipedia tersely says, "Hume killed the argument for good".
1803: William Paley writes "Natural Theology" and publicizes the watchmaker analogy. Nature is a watch which was designed by an intelligent creator.
1859: Charles Darwin writes "The Origin of Species" which puts forward an alternate explanation for the order observed in living organisms.
Based on this brief timeline, which I invite readers to verify for themselves, it appears that the teleological argument has lost out in the marketplace of ideas, despite the advantage of knocking around in one form or another for 750 years.
This is absurd. We have someone who knows very little about science touting "what the astrophysicists have to say" in order to promote antiscience.
For one, the Anthropic Pricniple is not science. It is as speculative as the image of God with a lightening rod in His hand striking anyone that displeases Him. The "most recent science" has absolutely nothing to do with the Anthropic Principle.
Secondly, why do you favor astrophysicists' opinion on the subject of evolution over that of biologists? It's like asking a car mechanic's opinion on brain surgery. The only reason you're doing this, is because you just want to hear the answer you want. At the same time, you want to use "astrophysicists" to scare off people who dare to disagree with you.
In the global warming thread, you were very skeptical of scientists' opinions. I seriously doubt you understand what science is.
You are the exact type of dingbat with a knee jerk reaction to whom I was referring.
Where in the hell did you even contribute one bit to the state of knowledge here.
Astrophyisicists could conclude are universe could not have beena random creation independent of anything a biologist would have surmised. Why don't review the work of the astrophysicist who first introduced the Anthropic Prinicple to us.
By the way I am not skeptical of scientists postions. I am skeptical of he orthodox position when it is based on poor or non existent research.
Global waming has not be proved. We have very limited , ambiguous data sets.
Which are part of much larger cycles.
Sceintist is the 70s said we were heading for a new iceage. What has changed their mind?
By the way I am in favor of preserving the enviorment and I once worked as an environmental lawyer for enviornmental groups. I just saw that it was mostly political bull shit.
This forum is for entertainment. At best, the contribution is to the education of the less knowledgeable and even that I doubt because people like you refuse to be educated. You're delusional if you believe that the discussion here contributes to any real knowledge.
So what has changed since the 70's when some scientists proposed the iceage theory? We simply have vastly more evidence that point the other way. If you want to stick to old "science" theories, 300 years ago scientists thought that wood contains the "fire element" which gives burning, what has changed since then? 2000 years ago scientists thought that the earth was the center of the universe, what has changed since then?
So you're a lawyer. We all know how much a laywer knows. (Which is entirely uncorrelated to how much he makes.
)