06 Mar 06
2 edits
Originally posted by amannionforensics n.,
If you're going to refute me with a counter argument from science, please make it obvious what you're talking about, because I have no idea what you're on about with the forensics stuff you mention.
As for open mindedness, while my posts may not suggest that for someone living in the ID dream world, I am pretty open minded. I would ask whether you were? ...[text shortened]... tant rejection of evolution that seems posited by a belief in ID, I'd suggest not very much.
The use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts in criminal or civil courts of law.
A simple referral to the dictionary and a little reading between the lines: it is the use of scientific principles and reasonable criteria to detect the presence of "intelligent design" in any given situation.
"Could the dude have fallen and broken his neck, or is there reasonable cause to suspect an assailant (intelligent agent)?"
How about the SETI program -- the Search for Extra Terrestrial Intelligence. Is this not a field of science too?
So the argument here is Evolution vs ID? How quaint. Well... enjoy. Just don't draw the battle lines as Science vs ID, because as I demonstrated, science has its own pet versions of ID. Now back to your fruit salad of ad hominems... you were saying something about a dream?
06 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionBy your reasoning, Aristotle, Pliny the Younger, Josephus and most of the other historical figures that can't produce a birth certificate or another form of reasonable ID must also be fiction.
Prove to you that it's not accurate?
Did you read my post?
Presumably not, since my point was that from my perspective it would be idiotic to try to prove it. I may as well prove that Macbeth is true, or that To Kill a Mockingbird is true.
How sould I prove a fiction to be true and accurate?
That's what you're asking me to do which would be pretty stupi ...[text shortened]... om your perspective, I'm idiotic to suggest that this book is fiction. But hey, that's me.
06 Mar 06
Originally posted by Halitosei'm almost sorry, Dad. unfortunately he does insult me often by insinuating that i am a fool for not following his beliefs. i am simply more outspoken in my opinion of him.
Give the guy a break. Just because he won't insult you back isn't reason enough to take advantage of him.
06 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI'm not suggesting that the bible or any other text does not include historical characters, who may have actually lived. I'm sure it does. What I'm calling inot question is the historical accuracy of the events it cites.
By your reasoning, Aristotle, Pliny the Younger, Josephus and most of the other historical figures that can't produce a birth certificate or another form of reasonable ID must also be fiction.
There's a mass of theological scholarship that suggests the ways the Jewish authors wrote their accounts was anything but an accurate account of what was going on in their world.
Hence my link with other works of fiction.
06 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseIs there reasonable cause to suspect an intelligent designer?
forensics n.,
The use of science and technology to investigate and establish facts in criminal or civil courts of law.
A simple referral to the dictionary and a little reading between the lines: it is the use of scientific principles and reasonable criteria to detect the presence of "intelligent design" in any given situation.
"Could the d ...[text shortened]... back to your fruit salad of ad hominems... you were saying something about a dream?
I think not. And i've yet to see any credible sort of evidence that would suggest otherwise.
The only evidence that keeps getting used and used and overused is the incredulity argument. This thing can't possibly have occured naturally so must have been intelligently designed.
When you've got something better than that to come back at me with, then I'll start taking more notice.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionThis is a philosophical question -- one that you are intellectually averse to. It is like a man stuck on an island claiming that the only reality is the small spit of land he inhabits.
Is there reasonable cause to suspect an intelligent designer?
I think not. And i've yet to see any credible sort of evidence that would suggest otherwise.
The only evidence that keeps getting used and used and overused is the incredulity argument. This thing can't possibly have occured naturally so must have been intelligently designed.
When you've got something better than that to come back at me with, then I'll start taking more notice.
What would you take as proof of the supernatural? Let me guess -- nothing, since you have already excluded it a priori.
Now, what's that again about "this can't possibly have occurred naturally, so it must have been intelligently designed"? Did you just ignore my point that many reputable scientists make similar claims every day in a court of law and no-one cries "foul"? If you were consequential in your logic, then no legal case could be tried on forensic evidence.
I am not having a ID vs Evolution debate here; I'm merely fascinated that you could seem to claim objectivity and register outrage at other's beliefs while you have unfounded (yet in your view perhaps more reasonable) ones of your own.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by RolfeyFair enough, I guess. Insult by insinuation vs Rudeness. I personally prefer more discreet jabs.
i'm almost sorry, Dad. unfortunately he does insult me often by insinuating that i am a fool for not following his beliefs. i am simply more outspoken in my opinion of him.
07 Mar 06
Originally posted by HalitoseBut your forensic argument is exactly the problem, anthropomorphising the natural world. Of course no one disputes forensic evidence in the way I'm suggesting (well maybe not all the time anyway) because we're dealing with humans and human motivations.
This is a philosophical question -- one that you are intellectually averse to. It is like a man stuck on an island claiming that the only reality is the small spit of land he inhabits.
What would you take as proof of the supernatural? Let me guess -- nothing, since you have already excluded it a priori.
Now, what's that again about "this can' ...[text shortened]... fs while you have unfounded (yet in your view perhaps more reasonable) ones of your own.
The natural world doesn't work this way.
Yes, you're right, I have excluded the supernatural a priori. Are you suggesting that ID requires supernatural explanations? That would seem to fly in the face of all attempts to turn ID into some sort of respectable scientific subject, instead of the psuedo-science crap that it seems to be ....
08 Mar 06
Originally posted by amannionI am confused...
Of course no one disputes forensic evidence in the way I'm suggesting (well maybe not all the time anyway) because we're dealing with humans and human motivations.
The natural world doesn't work this way.
I thought you do not believe in supernatural causes, so how exaxtly do you seperate the particular collection of atoms that you consist of from the natural world? Surely humans and human motivations are part of the natural world? What else is there?