Relating Evolution and Intelligent Design

[jem]

we have played this game before.
from mirriam websters.

you use definitions created by atheists and I use major dictionaries like marriam websters..



atheist
One entry found.



Main Entry:
athe·ist Listen to the pronunciation of atheist
Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ist\
Function:
noun
Date:
1551

: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic Listen to the pronunciation of atheistic \ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal Listen to the pronunciation of atheistical \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly Listen to the pronunciation of atheistically \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

I note that when most major dictionaries use the word disbelief in the definition of atheist - disbeliefs first definition means the rejection of something as untrue.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

we have played this game before.
from mirriam websters.

you use definitions created by atheists and I use major dictionaries like marriam websters..



atheist
One entry found.



Main Entry:
athe·ist Listen to the pronunciation of atheist
Pronunciation:
\ˈā-thē-ist\
Function:
noun
Date:
1551

: one who believes that there is no deity
— athe·is·tic Listen to the pronunciation of atheistic \ˌā-thē-ˈis-tik\ or athe·is·ti·cal Listen to the pronunciation of atheistical \ˌā-thē-ˈis-ti-kəl\ adjective
— athe·is·ti·cal·ly Listen to the pronunciation of atheistically \-ti-k(ə-)lē\ adverb

I note that when most major dictionaries use the word disbelief in the definition of atheist - disbeliefs first definition means the rejection of something as untrue.

I don't expect Dictionary.com "use definitions created by atheists" any more than Merriam-Webster do , you buffoon.

You don't believe The God Allah exists do you? Then to a Muslim you are one who believes that there is no deity. A muslim believes there is only one deity and it is Allah. As such you are atheist.
Get over it.
Anyone would think it’s a bad thing the way you squirm around.

 

[kut2k2]

Quote from Teleologist:

Relating Evolution and Intelligent Design

Many people are under the impression that evolution and intelligent design are contrary explanations. As a result, it is quite common to find people trying to demonstrate intelligent design by refuting evolution. In response, the stage is set for scientists to refute intelligent design by coming up with evolutionary explanations. Yet the truth of the matter is that evolution and intelligent design can co-exist; they are not mutually exclusive concepts. After all, you can design with, and
through, evolution. Fascinating possibilities such as this are addressed in The Design Matrix. Here is an excerpt:

Reproduction is the means to forward a design into the future. Yet because of the inevitability of mutation, and its effects, replication over large spans of time will lead to evolution. It would thus seem that a good designer would take this “problem” and turn it into something to be exploited or used. This is just one example to illustrate that Intelligent Design and evolution may complement, rather than contradict each other. Life itself could have been designed and evolution, by natural selection, would have subsequently followed. What’s more, life might even have been designed in such a way that Darwinian evolution was recruited to carry out distinct design objectives meaning that evolution could have been “rigged by design.”

The Design Matrix provides a method for assessing a design inference and demonstrates how the hypothesis of design can guide scientific research. I found the book to be UTTERLY THOUGHT-PROVOKING and highly recommend it.

What you say is true: the fact of evolution does not preclude the existence of a Creator (although it certainly eliminates the deity depicted in the Book of Genesis, which is what almost all of the fuss is about).

However I am reminded of a story: when Pierre-Simon LaPlace had improved on Sir Isaac Newton's mathematical description of the solar system in a seminal work on celestial mechanics, it is alleged that Napoleon himself read it, and then asked LaPlace where God was in his scheme. LaPlace replied, "I have no need of that hypothesis."

Thus far in any scientific theory of evolution, there is no need for the hypothesis of a Creator.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from stu:

I don't expect Dictionary.com "use definitions created by atheists" any more than Merriam-Webster do , you buffoon.

You don't believe The God Allah exists do you? Then to a Muslim you are one who believes that there is no deity. A muslim believes there is only one deity and it is Allah. As such you are atheist.
Get over it.
Anyone would think it’s a bad thing the way you squirm around.

It is still possible to believe something created this whole complex puzzle without having to believe in allah or any other religious God.

As far as what you call it, there are ford's, chevy's, bmw's etc but in the end they are all the same thing. The same can be said for the creator.

 

[FeenixRizin]

evolution and intelligent design are interchangeable

 

[jem]

Quote from stu:

I don't expect Dictionary.com "use definitions created by atheists" any more than Merriam-Webster do , you buffoon.

You don't believe The God Allah exists do you? Then to a Muslim you are one who believes that there is no deity. A muslim believes there is only one deity and it is Allah. As such you are atheist.
Get over it.
Anyone would think it’s a bad thing the way you squirm around.

I have always suspected you are axeman - therefore I may be mis not be have been accurate when I said you argued that atheists should be th trusted source of the definition of atheism. If deny making such a statement and you explicitly state you never posted as axeman ..... I apologize.

Finally you may wish to clear this up - what happened to the orginal stu.

 

[I am...]

Quote from FeenixRizin:

evolution and intelligent design are interchangeable

Intelligent design is more like intent.

Given intent, and given what the world seems to be, what may have been the motive for it's apparent design? If one is not willing to consider intent as a cause, can he really think himself open-minded?

Christ!

 

[jem]

Quote from jem:

I have always suspected you are axeman - therefore I may be mis not be have been accurate when I said you argued that atheists should be th trusted source of the definition of atheism. If deny making such a statement and you explicitly state you never posted as axeman ..... I apologize.

Finally you may wish to clear this up - what happened to the orginal stu.

I edited the above and somehow it did not save properly. I was attempting to say I am not sure if you or axeman argued that atheists should be the group in charge of defining atheism.

However, I suspect axeman is writing as Stu.

If STU explicitly denies he is axeman and denies arguing atheists should be the ones defining athesim, I retract my statement.

By the way STU are you the currently the same person writing as the original stu?

 

[stu]

Quote from volente_00:
It is still possible to believe something created this whole complex puzzle without having to believe in allah or any other religious God.

Yes it is. Any Invisible Friend as a creator will do. A Giant Invisible Sky Faery for instance.
But why do that in the first place having to then fool yourself into pretending there is anything evidential, substantial , existing even, which has a semblance of serious argument for It.?

Quote from volente_00:

As far as what you call it, there are ford's, chevy's, bmw's etc but in the end they are all the same thing. The same can be said for the creator.

Fine, but you need to call a Universe something other than that , .... I know - call it a Universe !....so those ford's, chevy's, bmw's exist , and that certainly is not the same thing.
As far as the creator goes, there is a world full of evidential, substantial and existing information it might very well be called evolution . So why call it anything else less likely?
The same cannot be said for linking unconnected words up with no justifiable reason, like design and intelligent.

 

[stu]

Quote from jem:

I edited the above and somehow it did not save properly. I was attempting to say I am not sure if you or axeman argued that atheists should be the group in charge of defining atheism.

However, I suspect axeman is writing as Stu.

If STU explicitly denies he is axeman and denies arguing atheists should be the ones defining athesim, I retract my statement.

By the way STU are you the currently the same person writing as the original stu?

In the interests of your psychological well being (bit late for that but nevertheless..) I explicitly deny I'm axeman or ever have been. Your apology is therefore accepted and you may now retract your statement as you have promised.

Look jem once and for all, you must know deep down in that excuse for a thought process you waggle about, that Dictionaries are the depository for generally accepted and understood definitions. Recognized main stream Dictionary definitions however, vary amongst themselves.
One reason for that is people use words differently to mean different things. So all dictionaries worth being called one, alter and adapt their definitions to contain additional meanings and contexts as knowledge changes.

There should be nothing in my view which should bar a definition of a word being given by anyone, just because it differs from one or all dictionaries, especially when such a definition stands in context and is pertinent to an apprehension of the meaning intended.

If you want to make yourself understood , use words in context to their general meaning and use. If you want a word to mean something else than that, to expand or alter a word's meaning , then fine, so long as you can explain how you intend it to be used.

That is after all how language works. It Evolves. It's definitions are not written in stone.
If you really want to know what atheist does and can mean, ask an atheist. Likewise ask a theist for definitions of theist. But neither will have exclusivity over definitions , as etymology , contrast and context will properly be included for understanding.

Your particular closed mindedness excludes any understanding of a word you don't like. As with others of your ilk, you will cherry pick from dictionaries the meanings you want to see , even when the dictionary gives alternatives.
You are intolerant and deny any expansion or additional meaning to a word , even one which would be obvious given modern day knowledge, should it not fit with your religious views.

In that way you parade yourself as a bigot.