Welcome


Thank you for visiting our new forum! To start posting again please follow the link below to create a new password. First time forum users please follow the link to register. CFI thanks you for continuing the discussion on evidence-based thinking and humanist values.

Intelligent Design


Forums Forums Science and Technology Intelligent Design

Viewing 15 posts - 226 through 240 (of 329 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #312423
    3point14rat
    Participant

    What does a snake inducing vomiting have to do with anything?

    #312425
    Widdershins
    Participant

    You just reminded me of something my big sister said decades ago.

    “Women are better than men.  We have tunnel of love.  You have a snake that pukes.”

    #312427
    Lausten
    Keymaster

    Dukkha refers to the psychological experience—sometimes conscious, sometimes not conscious—of the profound fact that everything is impermanent, ungraspable, and not really knowable. On some level, we all understand this. All the things we have, we know we don’t really have. All the things we see, we’re not entirely seeing. This is the nature of things, yet we think the opposite. We think that we can know and possess our lives, our loves, our identities, and even our possessions. We can’t. The gap between the reality and the basic human approach to life is dukkha, an experience of basic anxiety or frustration.

    I like the concept of Dukkha, since it sounds so much like doo-kee. Sometimes I think I really understand it when I suffer the recurring posts on this forum.

    #312471
    Tee Bryan Peneguy
    Participant

    @timb

    I didn’t mean to create an advocacy group for the idea of reincarnation.

    LOL no worries — My interest is that it shows how Christiancentric most Americans are. I’ll bet the average American estimates only about 10% of the world believes in reincarnation.

    It’s similar to the way a lot of Americans assume all other religions are just like Christianity. That’s why they think Hannukah is the Jewish Christmas, Mohammad is the Muslim Jesus, and Buddha has to forgive Chinese peoples sins or else they go to hell.

     

     

    #312520
    Sherlock Holmes
    Participant

    @teebryantoo

    You wrote:

    Do me a favor, will you? Will you post a link about Intelligent Design proponents who come from any religious culture other than “Judeo”-Christianity? Are there Buddhists, Hindus, Sikhs, Shintos etc who believe the theory of evolution is wrong, and that an Intelligent Designer has to be responsible? Are there parents in South Korea, China, India, Pakistan, etc. who are angry their children are being taught natural selection in science class?

    This is a perfect example of what is termed a genetic fallacy Tee.

    This is where the validity of some belief or position is evaluated based on how the belief arose or among whom it arose.

    Even if ID is primarily evident amongst Judeo-Christians that fact has no bearing on whether ID arguments have any merit or not.

    If you were on trial for some alleged crime would you like the fact that your personal traits and beliefs were used as a means of proving your guilt? Of course you wouldn’t.

    I’m seeing a real lack of rigor on this site when debating, there are far too much ad-hominem attacks and genetic fallacies and other such nonsense where one’s prejudice for some group blinds their ability to objectively rationalize.

     

     

    #312539
    Tee Bryan Peneguy
    Participant

    This is a perfect example of what is termed a genetic fallacy Tee.

    Thanks, @Holmes. I understand logical fallacies. This isn’t one.

    Even if ID is primarily evident amongst Judeo-Christians that fact has no bearing on whether ID arguments have any merit or not.

    Since we are discussing science, yes, it absolutely does have merit. Unlike religion, philosophy, ethics, morality, music, art, etc., there are certain objective points about science that either are true or not.

    All over the world, in all different cultures, scientists are doing science. Research into biology, medicine, genetics, and other fields involving Natural Selection are happening simultaneously, in thousands of labs, East and West, North and South.

    If Evolutionary Theory doesn’t hold up, and ID does, one would expect scientists worldwide to be using ID instead…at least in parts of the world where religion isn’t a factor.

    In Japan, for example, I doubt anyone is even aware of the debate. They would want to apply the theory that works. Evolutionary  theory is the “building block” for many fields; if it’s wrong, then these fields should be in collapse. If ID is the better theory, then they would be using that instead. Are they?

    Sherlock: If you were on trial for some alleged crime would you like the fact that all the evidence against you came from a single witness?

    What if investigators never questioned your neighbors or coworkers about the alibi you provided?

    What if you discovered they never took forensic evidence from the site that would prove someone else was the perpetrator?

     

     

     

     

    #312557

    Even if ID is primarily evident amongst Judeo-Christians that fact has no bearing on whether ID arguments have any merit or not.

    Sure!  The real problem is that ID has no ideas to argue, it’s a vague notion.

    I’ve heard of two examples for irreducible complexity, both completely bogus, once you spend a little time learning about it.

    When asked for specifics, ID’er get all coy, then they get defensive, then they disappear.  Then they return to start the cycle all over, as though they hadn’t learned a thing.

     

    Holmes, once again, what good is ID what does it have to offer our understanding?

    Also, once again, I want to point out, I myself don’t have great difficulties with notions of ID –

    I simply expect some honesty in acknowledging that ID is a philosophical notion, more akin to religion, than to science!

     

     

     

     

     

    #312559

    In the world of the endless what-ifs

     

    Sherlock: If you were on trial for some alleged crime would you like the fact that all the evidence against you came from a single witness?

    What if investigators never questioned your neighbors or coworkers about the alibi you provided?

    What if you discovered they never took forensic evidence from the site that would prove someone else was the perpetrator?

    What if they actually did a thorough investigation and all the evidence really does point to you as being the criminal and deserving to be convicted!!!

    #312583
    Sherlock Holmes
    Participant

    @teebryantoo

    Thanks, @holmes. I understand logical fallacies. This isn’t one.

    Yes it is, it’s a clear example of a genetic fallacy Tee:

    “A genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence.”

    From here.

    (Incidentally RationalWiki is a far better source for such definitions that is CFI).

    Now you wrote:

    Do me a favor, will you? Will you post a link about Intelligent Design proponents who come from any religious culture other than “Judeo”-Christianity?

    Your concern is clearly about the source not the substance, therefore you did post a genetic fallacy, a fallacious argument.

     

    #312592

    “Holmes:  A genetic fallacy is a logical fallacy that occurs when a claim is accepted or rejected based on the source of the evidence, rather than on the quality or applicability of the evidence.”

     

    Tee wrote: “Do me a favor, will you? Will you post a link about Intelligent Design proponents who come from any religious culture other than “Judeo”-Christianity?”

    I think I see the deception fallacy at work in Holmes reinterpretation.

    When I read that, Tee is simply asking if you can provide examples that others have also evolved an “Intelligent Design” independent of the US Evangelicals – why should that simple question become such a bone of contention?

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

    It’s also noteworthy that you log on to post about this trivial pursuit, but totally ignore my substantive questions and observations.  Such as:

    Sure!  The real problem is that ID has no ideas to argue, it’s a vague notion.

    I’ve heard of two examples for irreducible complexity, both completely bogus, once you spend a little time learning about it.

    When asked for specifics, ID’er get all coy, then they get defensive, then they disappear.  Then they return to start the cycle all over, as though they hadn’t learned a thing.

     

    Holmes, once again, what good is ID? what does it have to offer our understanding?

     

    Also, once again, I want to point out, I myself don’t have great difficulties with notions of ID –

    I simply expect some honesty in acknowledging that ID is a philosophical notion, more akin to religion, than to science!

     

    Cat got your tongue?  Or do you consider these invalid and hostile queries?

     

    #312595
    Sherlock Holmes
    Participant

    @citizenschallengev3

    When I read that, Tee is simply asking if you can provide examples that others have also evolved an “Intelligent Design” independent of the US Evangelicals – why should that simple question become such a bone of contention?

    Because the subject was the veracity of some ID arguments and claims so the source of these is not relevant and amounts to changing the subject from ID to who advocates ID.

    Now let me see what you’re complaining about, I’ll reply mainly to the bold statements below:

    Sure!  The real problem is that ID has no ideas to argue, it’s a vague notion.

    I’ve heard of two examples for irreducible complexity, both completely bogus, once you spend a little time learning about it.

    When asked for specifics, ID’er get all coy, then they get defensive, then they disappear.  Then they return to start the cycle all over, as though they hadn’t learned a thing.

    Holmes, once again, what good is ID? what does it have to offer our understanding?

    Why not listen to Dawkins? he himself said we might be able to find some evidence of a designer if we looked closely enough, I agree with that.

    Also, once again, I want to point out, I myself don’t have great difficulties with notions of ID –

    I simply expect some honesty in acknowledging that ID is a philosophical notion, more akin to religion, than to science!

    Once again, listen to Dawkins, he thinks we might (if design was involved) be able to see evidence for that and I agree.

    If you disagree that’s fine I don’t care but you’ll be disagreeing with Dawkins, just want you to understand that.

     

    #312597

    Hey you are one champion ID here,  I’m trying to listen to YOU.  Why can’t you answer?  Oops, won ‘t.

    Hell, why not provide Dawkins quote, for that matter.

    Again, you don’t display any of the traits that are involved in a good faith exchange.

    Rather than exchange ideas it’s always back to ‘what if riddle’ then “Go fish” – that’s the stuff of circle jerks, not constructive learning.

    #312604
    Lausten
    Keymaster

    What I heard from Dawkins is that we should continue to follow the evidence just as we have for the last 500 years. IF, and I put that in caps for emphasis, if, and then repeated it again, we find evidence for an intelligent designer, then we would keep pursuing that. What I hear from Sherlock is that we should make a conclusion based on the trouble we are having finding a source of life and morality and where all this material came from to make stars and all the other places that we don’t have solid answers for and clearly see that is constitutes evidence FOR an intelligent design and I guess by implication, an intelligent designer. Then, we start designing ways to prove that conclusion.

    That’s the opposite of the scientific method. Dawkins would not have meant that.

     

    #312605

    Thank you for helping clear that up.

    Now the question, what about individuals who are offered objective information time and time again, yet who refuse to absorb or acknowledge said information.

    I’m not being rhetorical Lausten, you know how I approach it, but you?   You deal with a lot of people, get into those long discussions and time and time again, I bet you find nothing has been acknowledge, nothing has been absorbed or processed.

    Do we just go … Que Sera Sera, and continue talking past each other?

    #312612
    TimB
    Participant

    “If complex organisms demand an explanation, so does a complex designer. And it’s no solution to raise the theologian’s plea that God (or the Intelligent Designer) is simply immune to the normal demands of scientific explanation. To do so would be to shoot yourself in the foot. You cannot have it both ways. Either ID belongs in the science classroom, in which case it must submit to the discipline required of a scientific hypothesis. Or it does not, in which case, get it out of the science classroom and send it back to church, where it belongs.”

    Richard Dawkins

Viewing 15 posts - 226 through 240 (of 329 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.