3rd Molars

Originally posted by Agerg
Firstly, even if it were the case they were never needed, the fact we have 3rd molars wouldn't disprove ID - it would just seriously undermine its credibility.

Taking on board your point that 3rd molars were once needed, your rebuttal still requires that evolution happens (and I would of course agree with this) and this doesn't exactly further the cause of ID, especially when you consider creationists like RJhinds (et al).

a, but there are all kinds of id's. not all dismiss evolution. i for one don't dismiss it at all. ID doesn't equal creationist fundamentalist. they propose that a "god" is behind the last theorem. some, including myself, are quite aware that ID may not ever be proven and shouldn't be considered a scientific theory. if you and i were to have a scientific discussion about how life evolved on earth, you wouldn't ever hear me mention a creator. the fact that you hold rjhinds or robbie (or the morons who insist ID be thought in schools as an equal theory to evoution) as figureheads is a slight limitation of your view on theists.

if it were the case they were never needed [...] it would just seriously undermine its credibility.

yes, this is what i meant. but since they were in fact needed at some point, no undermining from this point of view is made.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
a, but there are all kinds of id's. not all dismiss evolution. i for one don't dismiss it at all. ID doesn't equal creationist fundamentalist. they propose that a "god" is behind the last theorem. some, including myself, are quite aware that ID may not ever be proven and shouldn't be considered a scientific theory. if you and i were to have a scientific dis e they were in fact needed at some point, no undermining from this point of view is made.

If some god or other initially seeded the universe such that evolution could take place on any planets that give rise to the first life forms then can we really call that intelligent design? As I understand it, intelligent design as espoused by the more 'gifted' theists is that God sits up in some magical throne in the sky twinkle dusting new life forms into being that are adequate for their environments, the availability of predators/prey etc... as well as twinkle dusting us into being in some magical garden with a tree that bears naughty fruits and has talking serpents (and then expelling us from said garden so we could wreck all his handiwork).

I might be conflating 2 forms of ID but then yours seems far away from its normal or loudest usage.

Originally posted by 667joe
If we were made via intelligent design, how come the majority of people need 3rd molars removed?

We are a transitional form.

Originally posted by Agerg
If some god or other initially seeded the universe such that evolution could take place on any planets that give rise to the first life forms then can we really call that intelligent design? As I understand it, intelligent design as espoused by the more 'gifted' theists is that God sits up in some magical throne in the sky twinkle dusting new life forms into b ...[text shortened]... ht be conflating 2 forms of ID but then yours seems far away from its normal or loudest usage.

again, opinions differ. however from what i hear, proponents of intelligent design that avoid saying "jesus" or "allah" or whatever simply view a source of intelligence behind the universe, not randomness. (maybe they avoid adhering to a certain religion to sound more sciencey, not the point i am trying to make though). as such, who is to say that god is required to constantly tweak the machine in order for it to work? can't an intelligent designer design the machine to tweak itself? (hence evolution).

an intelligent designer might understand what amplitude the strong force must have so that atom nuclei could form, or how strong the gravitational force must be so that stars and solar systems could form and exist. from there, life could appear where certain conditions are met. an intelligent designer doesn't need necessarily to intervene constantly to make sure the machine is working. he might intervene to maybe nudge certain processes in a certain direction. maybe god sent the asteroid that wiped the dinos 65-ish million years ago. and maybe on another planet god intervened and stopped a similiar asteroid and now there is a flourishing civilization there of descendants of raptors.

i believe in god. i believe that sometimes he intervenes in the universe. however i do not believe he is required to do that else the universe will unravel itself.

i believe that the loudest ID-ers are simply fundies trying to make their religion sound more sciencey. true ID-ers realize there is no way to prove their ideas and there might never be one.

Originally posted by RJHinds
The idea that all living creatures have a common ancestor is absurd and even Darwin admitted it, but thought it might be true anyway.

That's right - Darwin wanted to retain Intelligent Design but found the evidence went against it.

The idea that all living creatures have a common ancestor was indeed incredibly hard to see at the outset. However there are many lines of enquiry that all support the claim so that by now it is not contentious. Your inability to see this now is entirely attributable to defects in your education.

Dawkins described a complete ancestry for human beings in his book The Ancestor's Tale. It is a struggle to read after a while only because it sets out exhaustively the evidence for each step back to the origin of life. Even so, it is vastly more readable than the begats of the Bible and each begat in the scentific account is supported by several lines of evidence not just one.

Originally posted by finnegan
That's right - Darwin wanted to retain Intelligent Design but found the evidence went against it.

The idea that all living creatures have a common ancestor was indeed incredibly hard to see at the outset. However there are many lines of enquiry that all support the claim so that by now it is not contentious. Your inability to see this now is entirely at ...[text shortened]... nd each begat in the scentific account is supported by several lines of evidence not just one.

It is a bunch of garbage put out there to make money off
the gullible. In my opinion Dawkins is a degenerate.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
again, opinions differ. however from what i hear, proponents of intelligent design that avoid saying "jesus" or "allah" or whatever simply view a source of intelligence behind the universe, not randomness. (maybe they avoid adhering to a certain religion to sound more sciencey, not the point i am trying to make though). as such, who is to say that god is re ...[text shortened]... ey. true ID-ers realize there is no way to prove their ideas and there might never be one.

I think that if your definition of ID ever held in the past it has been redefined by the creationists. I'm often careful to differentiate between fundies and other theists, but on this issue, any defence made for ID on your terms will be taken as vindication of ID on the simpleton's terms.

Originally posted by RJHinds
It is a bunch of garbage put out there to make money off
the gullible. In my opinion Dawkins is a degenerate.

And for clarity, the value of your opinion, so succinctly expressed, is what?

There is a general acceptance that everyone has a right to an opinion but there is not a general acceptance that every single opinion has equal value. An opinion which is not arrived at responsibly and not communicated coherently is no more interesting or useful than babbling.

In other words, while I respect your right to an opinion I do not respect the opinion you express.

Originally posted by finnegan
And for clarity, the value of your opinion, so succinctly expressed, is what?

There is a general acceptance that everyone has a right to an opinion but there is not a general acceptance that every single opinion has equal value. An opinion which is not arrived at responsibly and not communicated coherently is no more interesting or useful than babbling ...[text shortened]... other words, while I respect your right to an opinion I do not respect the opinion you express.

Fine. That's mutual, except I respect those that present the truth, not lies.

Originally posted by Zahlanzi
and galileo "admitted" under threats of torture by the church that his work on astronomy is wrong.

what is your point? that the father of evolution had some second thoughts on his theory? wouldn't you find that normal? to admit he might be wrong? and would you consider the numerous other evolutionists who improved on that theory? they have less doubts.

and galileo "admitted" under threats of torture by the church that his work on astronomy is wrong.

No. That is completely false. Galileo was never tortured and it was not Galileo's astronomy that was strictly contentious but his claim that it conflicted with Scripture.

Originally posted by Agerg
I think that if your definition of ID ever held in the past it has been redefined by the creationists. I'm often careful to differentiate between fundies and other theists, but on this issue, any defence made for ID on your terms will be taken as vindication of ID on the simpleton's terms.

C'mon man , he's talking about two totally different things

Originally posted by karoly aczel
C'mon man , he's talking about two totally different things

I know that Zahlanzi shouldn't be identified with fundamentalst thinking and I expect Zahlanzi is aware of this. My problem with accepting the idea that Zahlanzi's position is comfortable with intelligent design is his creationist counterparts who will take any defence of ID no matter the context, as a defence of their own nonsensical interpretation of ID.

That doesn't mean I find his position believable, I just think that the moderate theist's position has more integrity than the fundamentalist. The former acknowledges science and finds a way to accomodate some god where science has no juristiction. The latter just mindlessly parrot their insane dogma, and cry out against the science that enriches their life behind the scenes because they simply don't know any better. The folk who pose problems, the folk who scare me, and the folk who are compelled towards irrational hatred of groups and people disimilar to their own tend to be fundies. It is the fundies who are more likely to engage in 'killing for Jesus!', or 'killing for Allah!', not the moderates.

Originally posted by Agerg
I know that Zahlanzi shouldn't be identified with fundamentalst thinking and I expect Zahlanzi is aware of this. My problem with accepting the idea that Zahlanzi's position is comfortable with intelligent design is his creationist counterparts who will take any defence of ID no matter the context, as a defence of their own nonsensical interpretation of ID.

...[text shortened]... e likely to engage in 'killing for Jesus!', or 'killing for Allah!', not the moderates.

I am glad you defined "fundies". I thought it was a derogatory term
directed at Christians who believe the Holy Bible.

Originally posted by RJHinds
I am glad you defined "fundies". I thought it was a derogatory term
directed at Christians who believe the Holy Bible.

You're not worth it ;]

Originally posted by Conrau K
[b]and galileo "admitted" under threats of torture by the church that his work on astronomy is wrong.

No. That is completely false. Galileo was never tortured and it was not Galileo's astronomy that was strictly contentious but his claim that it conflicted with Scripture.[/b]

The threat of torture is a form of torture!