15 Oct 08
Besides, if ID allows the exact same evolution as is already understood by biology, then God is unnecessary.
Not at all. You've just assumed that natural selection is enough to explain how complicated bodies like our own came about. Some people just do not see how that is possible.
15 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarNo, if we're going with evolution as understood by biologists, then God is unnecessary. Their theory explains how complicated bodies like our own came about. That is a central concern of evolutionary theory.
[b]Besides, if ID allows the exact same evolution as is already understood by biology, then God is unnecessary.
Not at all. You've just assumed that natural selection is enough to explain how complicated bodies like our own came about. Some people just do not see how that is possible.[/b]
I haven't assumed anything. I've found their arguments to be perfectly adequate, after doing my best to review their work and the counterarguments. I prefer "best guess based on available evidence" to any kind of a priori assumptions and do my best to root them out. (That's how I ended up an atheist, in fact, from a starting position of Christian.) If you do not see how their theory is possible, then you are rejecting their theory.
This isn't exactly an argument against the existence of God--just against the necessity of God as an explanatory hypothesis.
15 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarNo...if God is necessary for explaining complex biological forms, then you're going with a model that is not evolution as understood by biologists. You're saying that evolutionary theory is wrong, because God is necessary for it.
[b]No, if we're going with evolution as understood by biologists, then God is unnecessary.
That's where you've got it wrong. Having said that, I don't think there's much hope of you ever seeing that.[/b]
I have no conflict with interventionism. But interventionism is not biology.
15 Oct 08
Originally posted by convectUnless proven.
No...if God is necessary for explaining complex biological forms, then you're going with a model that is not evolution as understood by biologists. You're saying that evolutionary theory is wrong, because God is necessary for it.
I have no conflict with interventionism. But interventionism is not biology.
15 Oct 08
3 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[/b]When speaking of a pattern it is very acceptable to say a design;
[b]…Design equates to patterns when applied to snowflakes, it does not
mean the same thing when applied to designing a piece of equipment
or CPU or some other item. That type of design requires a designer. …
Correct -in the narrow sense you are using here that one requires an an "intelligent designer" and the other does not.
…and tha h accepting that nature can mindlessly design another kind of thing (such as a living thing)?
however, where you are in error is when you start to use that term
and give it to something that is not supposed to have any intent
within it. You cannot have it both ways, either there is intent or there
is not, if not, you cannot say evolution designed anything. Nature does
not design anything either, again that word implies intent you want
to tell me nature acts with intent? You need to start using the term
it is a natural outcome due to forces of nature, nothing more than
forces within the universe causing apples to fall from the trees in
a pattern/design on toa field. If evolutionist keep using design terms
to describe evolution then must by their reasoning know deep down
that is what they are looking at.
Kelly
15 Oct 08
2 edits
Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton[/b]The problem I have with nature causing a snow flake to form is none
[b]…Design equates to patterns when applied to snowflakes, it does not
mean the same thing when applied to designing a piece of equipment
or CPU or some other item. That type of design requires a designer. …
Correct -in the narrow sense you are using here that one requires an an "intelligent designer" and the other does not.
…and tha h accepting that nature can mindlessly design another kind of thing (such as a living thing)?
what so ever, I have an issue with you applying the word design to
it, as if there was some intent to the process by a being called nature.
I dislike the idea of life being an accident due to the high level of
functionally complex sub-systems working together with other systems
and forming a fully developed living system like a bird, rabbit, whale,
ant, elm tree, and so on. The amount of time and effort applied to
creating a CPU compared to life is nothing because the complex nature
of life is so huge, and I'm being told that life just started and got
more complex over time, not in a billion years and I mean that
literally.
Kelly
15 Oct 08
Originally posted by convectNot at all, God shared what He did with His creation, we just call Him a
If you water it down to such banality, then sure, there's nothing objectionable about ID except its pretense to science. A reasonable way to reconcile having faith in God with the observable Universe is either front-loading, or interventionism, or some combination of the two. Besides, if ID allows the exact same evolution as is already understood by biolog ...[text shortened]... erse with the appearence of age...a rather nasty fellow, then, don't you think? ) .
liar saying no you could not have done it that way. That isn't God
making us look bad, that is us doing it without any help form God
what so ever.
Kelly
15 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseOne other point, science isn't a place for faith.
You really love to equate science with faith, that all of science is nothing but a different religion. The thing that differs as we have pointed out many times is your faith never changes, our 'faith' can change daily, which makes it not faith but the result of hard work. It irritates me no end when you try to do that, and you know it which is why you do that.
People on the other hand they fill their lives with it.
Kelly
15 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJayIf there is no room in science for faith, then why do you keep calling what people see about science 'belief'? If there is no faith, there can be no 'belief' so you are doing the circular reasoning thing again.
One other point, science isn't a place for faith.
People on the other hand they fill their lives with it.
Kelly
15 Oct 08
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayWhy are you so certain there is no intent in the construction of a snowflake?
When speaking of a pattern it is very acceptable to say a design;
however, where you are in error is when you start to use that term
and give it to something that is not supposed to have any intent
within it. You cannot have it both ways, either there is intent or there
is not, if not, you cannot say evolution designed anything. Nature does
not des ...[text shortened]... evolution then must by their reasoning know deep down
that is what they are looking at.
Kelly[/b]
Maybe there are snowflake spirits directing every one and they have contests to see which one has the best design. Prove me wrong.
15 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJay…When speaking of a pattern it is very acceptable to say a design;
When speaking of a pattern it is very acceptable to say a design;
however, where you are in error is when you start to use that term
and give it to something that is not supposed to have any intent
within it. You cannot have it both ways, either there is intent or there
is not, if not, you cannot say evolution designed anything. Nature does
not des ...[text shortened]... evolution then must by their reasoning know deep down
that is what they are looking at.
Kelly[/b]
however, where you are in error is when you start to use that term
and give it to something that is not supposed to have any intent
within it. You cannot have it both ways, either there is intent or there
is not,…
And I don’t have it “both” ways; what I mean by “design” in the context of nature creating a design is design without intent -can we now move on please -I repeatedly made this position of mine perfectly clear.
…if not, you cannot say evolution designed anything. Nature does
not design anything either,…
So nature does not design snowflakes?
So if it isn’t “design” then what word should we call it?
…again that word implies intent . ….
Only if you are a creationist.
15 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseThis probably belongs in the Spirituality Forum, but: I find that belief so much more beautiful. I mean, if I went back to believing in things whether or not I know them to be true, and the sort of freedom that brings, I would definitely go for polytheism. The idea of a nature that is filled with gods is just so delightful. Even today I'll talk to the wind or the sun or the clouds because it feels nice to do it.
Why are you so certain there is no intent in the construction of a snowflake?
Maybe there are snowflake spirits directing every one and they have contests to see which one has the best design. Prove me wrong.
FWIW, if God were ever demonstrated, in a general sense, that is, monotheism was proven, but without proving a specific God, I've thought to myself that Islam might be what I would go for. I don't know much about it, other than it is huge and complicated and full of intricacies, and that it seems a fairly generic monotheism (except of course for the veneration of the Prophet). I'm probably wrong about that, though. It probably would ask me to believe as many hard-to-swallow things as Christianity does.
15 Oct 08
Originally posted by KellyJay…The problem I have with nature causing a snow flake to form is none
The problem I have with nature causing a snow flake to form is none
what so ever, I have an issue with you applying the word design to
it, as if there was some intent to the process by a being called nature.
I dislike the idea of life being an accident due to the high level of
functionally complex sub-systems working together with other systems
a ...[text shortened]... rted and got
more complex over time, not in a billion years and I mean that
literally.
Kelly[/b]
what so ever, I have an issue with you applying the word design to
it, as if there was some intent to the process by a being called nature. ,…
That is clearly not my position.
…I dislike the idea of life being an accident due to the high level of
functionally complex sub-systems working together with other systems
and forming a fully developed living system like a bird, rabbit, whale,
ant, elm tree, and so on. The amount of time and effort applied to
creating a CPU compared to life is nothing because the complex nature
of life is so huge, and I'm being told that life just started and got
more complex over time, not in a billion years and I mean that
literally…
So your point here is…?