what does your therapist say? will you be allowed visits soon? smoking is a thing of the past now, perhaps they should allow you out... in a carefully controlled (designed) environment first, and then in the real world maybe...Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Take any normal human being on the planet, normal in the sense that from birth they have no great mental or physical defect, have normal intelligence as measured by IQ tests.
Teach them just the basic known facts of life. No unproved theory, no speculative garbage, just the basic facts that are as true today as they were thousands of years ago.
Then around 6 years of age or so, show them a watch, show how it has been made, the design behind it, the way all the parts work together. Show them cars, and everything else mechanical. Show how the designer put it all together to work.
Show them the great art of the world. Have them listen to the great classical music. Have them fully understand the way man's mind has created so much diversity, and at the same time that it has been done with initially only an idea in the mind, the source of external potency of creativity. Each and every thing designed began by man with a thought of some sort, then was designed and came into fruition on that basis. Poor design wouldn't not last, it would simply not function...back to the drawing board.
Then take the same 6 year old and have them just observe the natural world. The variety of animal species, the way the species are colorful, different, varied, on land, in the sky, in the water...yet without flaw in the sense that the entire animal kingdom and plant kingdom and natural world exists in a natural harmony with no need of intervention from mankind. Show them the heavens and all the ways that we have such stability in the ways the planets move, that stars are not colliding all the time, the regularity, the predictability, etc.
Have the child fully understand the concept of design versus random happenings.
Then ask the 6 year old, what would be the conclusion of nearly every other 6 year old who performed this same empirical observation of the world around them?
Chances are great that they would by observation conclude that the world, and and nature itself was designed...by something.
That observation, that natural observation of the designs of man, and the condition of nature that they have in common is that they both appear designed.
Then provide no evidence, no conclusive proof that they were not in fact a product of design, and that they did not follow any pattern of development or design.
Then indoctrinate them into thinking that the entire universe, including mankind, including all the designed things of mankind...including art, literature, music, cooking and combining of foods, use of color, etc. are not a product of design at all, but ultimately they are nothing but accidental consequences and byproducts of random ignorant chance. Tell them that their initial observations are false. They can't trust their eyes, they can't trust their natural observations, they cannot trust their instincts...they must trust the judgment of those who are more "educated."
The reaction of the 6 year old would be natural doubt and resistance, as his eyes are telling him one thing, his direct observations are revealing one thing...yet someone is telling him not to trust his eyes, his observations, nor his instincts and common sense, but rather to take a purely intellectual speculative position that what looks like it is designed, but is lacking in knowledge of design by some known and identifiable designer, is not designed, but a product of random ignorant chance development. All the laws of nature are not by design, but simply chance. Everything is ultimately just by chance, pure luck that everything works the way it does. Even man's intelligence and creativity are nothing but a product of pure dumb luck.
The 6 year old will be very confused now. But constant reinforcement and conditioning of a 6 year old mind finally gets the child habituated to accepting as factual, something that is actually not factual. Layers and layers of theory are then loaded up upon the initial assumption of chance that is indoctrinated into the child by repeatedly telling the child that design in nature is not true, that it is false.
What is this like? What is this similar to?
Anyone ever smoke a cigarette?
What was the initial natural reaction?
I'm guessing coughing and disgust. Natural repulsions. But friends and peer groups are smoking, people who are smoking are said to be cool, we see iconic images of people smoking...so the child continues to try and smoke even though it is unnatural, and darned if after a while through repeated efforts, and given the addictive chemicals in cigarettes he not only gets used to smoking, he non only rejects the initial natural response, he enjoys it, looks forward to it, but the reality is that he gets addicted to something that is unnatural, and actually harmful to his existence.
So, it is clear that human beings can be lead into habits (including belief systems) that are unnatural, and once addicted they can even rationalize what was initially experienced as so objectionable, so unnatural, so foreign to the human body that it is now considered the right thing and pleasurable thing to be doing.
So it is with non design theory that is propagated in modern day science. It runs counter to intuition, common sense, and general innocent observation. It is drummed out of a child's head, in the same way that learning to lie when necessary is drilled into a child's head as "the right thing to do."
From a platform of denying that what looks designed isn't designed (why isn't it designed? Because we can't find a designer) the mind then becomes addicted to an unnatural position of non design, just like the smoker.
Non smokers are ridiculed by the smokers as "not cool, not with it."
The natural condition of man is to observer the world around him, and the natural observation is that the world around him appears designed for the most part, and the natural desire would be to find a designer, even the chaos has its place and reasons in the cycles of nature....yet the mind is conditioned to reject this natural and simple view of life.
Modern day atheists and so called "natural" science calls this process of mind conditioning to reject the natural observation of the world as "progress."
Cigarette companies call the addiction to cigarettes "profits."
Progress and profits...they go so well together, don't they...
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Intelligent Design is not creationism
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
Quote from Teleologist:
No, it's my point that's been proven. I said that you ask for evidence of ID but you will only accept absolute proof of ID. You didn't deny it.
Nonsense. I deny it categorically. It was so ridiculous that I didn't feel it was worth commenting on. You said you had empirical evidence which led you to the inference that the first cells were designed. Examining the evidence is the first step in a series of steps which will hopefully lead to the truth. I have never once claimed incontrovertible proof of evolution. From the first pages I have consistently and simply asked for the evidence of ID. When you said that you had empirical data that led to the inference that the first cells were designed, it was the first I had heard of any concrete evidence in this thread. So I asked you
"Please let me know what this 'empirical data' consists of. Either describe the research or at least give me a link to it so that I can check it out myself."
And what did you do? You said to me
"I am not going to bother giving it to you because you won't believe it".
Your credibility, already weakened after the kjkent debacle in which he showed that you were citing authors whom you had never read, is now almost completely gone, after claiming to have 'empirical data' which supported your assertions and, having been challenged to provide it, attempting to weasel your way out if it with obfuscation and evasions.
I resent the implication that I would dismiss solid empirical data that the first cells were designed by an intelligent designer. I would in fact be very interested to see such data, as it might challenge some of my beliefs.
Something tells me, however, that I shouldn't hold my breath waiting for you to provide it.
Teleologist: I have proof that pigs have wings
The Rest of Us: Really?? Wow, that's amazing! What is the proof??
Teleologist: I'm not going to tell you because you wouldn't believe it. But I am telling you this - pigs have wings.
The Rest of Us: Well, that's helpful.
Thread Closed.
TraderNik:
That there is data from the natural world that warrants a design inference is indisputable. Even atheist Richard Dawkins recognizes this. He says:
The ID critics here are advocates of the designer-centric approach. That is, we can't ever hope to detect/infer design without having independent knowledge of the designers and their methods. Of course, I think the designer-centric approach is confused. Specifically, while independent knowledge of the designers and their methods will make a design inference easier, and also make it easier to reach a consensus, I do not think such knowledge is necessary. It all depends on what one is trying to extract from the data of the physical world. Are we trying to establish certainty and reach consensus? If so, perhaps there is something solid to the designer-centric approach. Are we trying to conduct a tentative investigation? If so, the designer-centric approach is not necessary.
The main point is how we would go about inferring design without independent evidence of the designers and their methods. Those of the designer-centric school of thought have given up without ever really trying.
Here's a quote from a design theorist concerning this:
Followed by this question: who designed the designer?From the first pages I have consistently and simply asked for the evidence of ID.
That there is data from the natural world that warrants a design inference is indisputable. Even atheist Richard Dawkins recognizes this. He says:
Biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose.
The ID critics here are advocates of the designer-centric approach. That is, we can't ever hope to detect/infer design without having independent knowledge of the designers and their methods. Of course, I think the designer-centric approach is confused. Specifically, while independent knowledge of the designers and their methods will make a design inference easier, and also make it easier to reach a consensus, I do not think such knowledge is necessary. It all depends on what one is trying to extract from the data of the physical world. Are we trying to establish certainty and reach consensus? If so, perhaps there is something solid to the designer-centric approach. Are we trying to conduct a tentative investigation? If so, the designer-centric approach is not necessary.
The main point is how we would go about inferring design without independent evidence of the designers and their methods. Those of the designer-centric school of thought have given up without ever really trying.
Here's a quote from a design theorist concerning this:
The designer-centric position assumes that independent knowledge of the designer is necessary to carry out a design inference. Not so. We can simply follow the example of science, which constructs what are known as "working hypotheses." For example, in science, a common ancestor is inferred through analogical reasoning. Although we have no independent knowledge of this "common ancestor," we assume things about it, using analogy, and then use these assumptions to generate working hypotheses that are then tested.
In my case, I generate a working hypothesis that the designer possessed a human-like intelligence (otherwise, we have no hope of detecting its design, since it is experience with our design that serves as the template for inquiry). I further constrain the hypothesis to life being "bioengineered," for we already possess a "science of design," it's called engineering, thus it makes sense to use this as a guide (although I am hindered by not being an engineer). Further yet, I hypothesize that the designers had access to a superior base of knowledge and advanced technology. This assumption is based on the fact that our current abilities cannot come close to designing novel life forms, let alone those sufficient to the task of seeding a distant planet.
Of course, one can always question the assumption, just as is done in science. The point is not in coming up with a deductive argument that cannot be questioned. The point is not to deliver certain knowledge. The point is in coming up with a teleological approach to explore the biotic world, in the quest of generating insight and fruit. After all, that I could ask a dozen unanswerable questions about some common ancestor doesn't cause scientists to abandon the use of common ancestry.
Quote from Teleologist:
That there is data from the natural world that warrants a design inference is indisputable. Even atheist Richard Dawkins recognizes this. He says:
" Biology is the study of complicated things that appear to have been designed for a purpose."
How convenient that you overlooked many posts in this thread pointing out to you the difference between "appearing to be designed" and "indisputable design inference." Are you really that dumb to not know the difference?
Quote from Teleologist:
Followed by this question: who designed the designer?
No. You can say it 1000 times but it won't become true. I am not the one who brought up the 'who designed the designer' point in this thread.
All I am asking you is this. You said your inference that the first cells were designed was based on empirical data. Can you either describe the research to which you refer or provide a link to a description so that I can check it out? This is the first mention of empirical data that I have seen in this thread, and since it's evidentiary empirical data that we have been asking for the whole time, I don't think it's too outrageous to ask for the details when someone finally claims that they have it.
James bond:
Are you really so stupid that you don't know the difference between inference and proof? If one could see the designer designing one would have proof of design. There would be no need to infer it.
How convenient that you overlooked many posts in this thread pointing out to you the difference between "appearing to be designed" and "indisputable design inference." Are you really that dumb to not know the difference?
Are you really so stupid that you don't know the difference between inference and proof? If one could see the designer designing one would have proof of design. There would be no need to infer it.