17 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarWell, the idea that evolution--or anything else science has to offer for ways of exploring nature--does not in itself say anything about the existence or nonexistence of gods is not just your point of view, but I daresay consensus among reasonable and educated people.
[b]The point you say you are trying to make is that although evolution explains the appearence of design without having a Designer, that says nothing about the existence or nonexistence of the Designer.
Yes, that's my point of view. Sure, you can come up with ways of trying to explain how things could have happened, but from my point of view, those explanations are contrived.[/b]
I hope the illustration I offered explains my view as well as yours did your own. Like I said, I'm particularly proud of it and intend to use it again.
PS. This is probably obvious, but I find contrivance belongs more to your side of the argument, which is why I slid from Christianity through a variety of theisms to where I am now. We clearly have different standards of proof for different things.
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarWell, I don’t want to (and didn’t intend to) misrepresent what you were saying in any way. I have generally found here that people use illustrations in support of their arguments, and so I assumed that in your case.
You can look at it any way you wish. There is no debate here, only opions. The illustrations are nothing more than ways of explaining how people see things.
As I say, those particular kinds of arguments for ID are logically flawed (even if your view that living beings can be generally considered as “biological machines” is correct). That really isn’t just how I see it: it is simply so.
17 Oct 08
Here is a new report about the original Miller experiment from 1953, the spark experiment, his student was given the material from the experiment after Miller died in 07. It was subjected to modern analytical techniques and they found a much richer and diverse number of amino acids that could be evidence for how life started on Earth:
http://environment.newscientist.com/article/dn14966-volcanic-lightning-may-have-sparked-life-on-earth.html
I have no illusions the religious crowd would in any way be swayed.
17 Oct 08
1 edit
I have no doubt that you will see things for what they are when it comes to God. You believe that if we can turn the key and start the car, then the car was not designed and created to do just that.
As has been pointed out by a few people, this is not a religious discussion at all.
If you want to pedal your "anti-God" issues, then the spirituality forum is a more appropriate forum.
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarI'm going to pick a tiny little piece of what you said and respond to it like it's the crux of the argument. What do you mean by "the head"?
I think that leaving Christianity doesn't have much to do with this issue. As you said, it isn't a religious topic, even if people like to use it as a religious issue to bash other people over the head.
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarAnd you believe that because it looks like a footprint, there's no other explanation.
I have no doubt that you will see things for what they are when it comes to God. You believe that if we can turn the key and start the car, then the car was not designed and created to do just that.
As has been pointed out by a few people, this is not a religious discussion at all.
If you want to pedal your "anti-God" issues, then the spirituality forum is a more appropriate forum.
Does this mean you will stop bringing religion into discussions on the Science Forum? If, for example, I post a question about the origin of the Universe, you won't come in for no other reason other than to bring up God?
17 Oct 08
I was hoping the context was clear. The head was the part of the body that's attached to the neck. It is where you'll find a person's eyes, nose and ears (as well as mouth).
When people get in fights sometimes they pick up things and hit the other person in the head.
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by convectThat all depends on the general discussions around here. Until I decided to make a point of making it clear that what was being used as evidence that God does not exist, it went unchecked.
And you believe that because it looks like a footprint, there's no other explanation.
Does this mean you will stop bringing religion into discussions on the Science Forum? If, for example, I post a question about the origin of the Universe, you won't come in for no other reason other than to bring up God?
Perhaps if people will get off their "anti-God" high horse and discuss science as science, then I'll not see the need to make a point.
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarSo, if I start a thread on, say, the origin of the Universe, you won't post on it to bring up God?
That all depends on the general discussions around here. Until I decided to make a point of making it clear that what was being used as evidence that God does not exist, it went unchecked.
Perhaps if people will get off their "anti-God" high horse and discuss science as science, then I'll not see the need to make a point.
My point is that you're being dishonest. It's not just that us atheists are being all anti-God here, and if only we wouldn't you would not bring up God. You posted on a thread that I started because I'm curious to learn more about science-based conjectures about the origin of the Universe. You brought God into a discussion on the Science Forum where the discussion was clearly neither atheistic nor theistic.
17 Oct 08
Originally posted by EladarHaha. Nicely done, sir!
I was hoping the context was clear. The head was the part of the body that's attached to the neck. It is where you'll find a person's eyes, nose and ears (as well as mouth).
When people get in fights sometimes they pick up things and hit the other person in the head.
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseI point out human assumptions on unknowable or provable positions
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.
and faith.
Kelly
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by sonhouseNot at all, you assume a great deal on things you cannot know for
If 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.
certain. If you claim you have certainty in your views you have
left the position of science's claim that our knowledge should be
changed by the introduction of new information that causes us to
have to rethink what we understood as true based on our old
knowledge. You assume or believe a great deal about things that
have be accepted because they are without a doubt not certainly
shown to be true. Your assumptions or beliefs have helped shape
your world view on truth and molded your faith to walk out your
beliefs as if they are as solid as a rock, when in fact they are more
like shifting sands.
Kelly
18 Oct 08
Originally posted by Andrew HamiltonYou have repeated your position several times, and each time you did
[b]…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,…
And I don’t have it “both” ways; what I mean by “desi ...[text shortened]... ld we call it?
…again that word implies intent . ….
Only if you are a creationist.[/b]
it you were wrong. Not sure why you keep using design terms to
describe what you claim is without design, but I suppect is it because
you really do acknowledge design in the universe. I told you, the
proper way to describe the snow flake already from your intentless
point of view in the universe, but I doubt you really do read all of the
responces to you. The formation of snow flakes are a natural outcome
of processes that take place under certain conditions there isn't any
design here only a reaction of material under specific conditions if we
were to accept your point of view of no intent. If you want to use
design terms feeling the need to while describing nature feel free, I
can accept intent with someone doing the design. I find it amusing
you really do feel compelled to use the word design and other words
that lean towards design with intent when speaking about evolution.
Kelly