Posted on 12/18/2013 10:11:55 AM PST by null and void
No. You simply go outside the premise of ID by questioning the origins of the Designer. The issue here is whether living things that are seen are designed by an Intelligent Designer. The Intelligent Designer is invisible but his existence is inferred by that which is seen. The premise of ID is based on the visible not the invisible. The origins of the Invisible Designer is a separate issue.
“That doesn’t answer the question of who designed the designer”
Let me rephrase your question? Who designed the eternal designer? Then who is to say that we all and the earth are not eternal?
It’s strange how you appeal to ‘common sense’ yet refuse to see where your analogy fails simple logic in two easy steps.
Interesting, but not very helpful.
The fact that a car is in the repair shop doesn't change the premise that it was intelligently designed. Why the car needs repair is a separate issue from whether it was designed by someone. Maybe it was a design flaw or maybe it was operator error. Either way, the car had a designer.
> So what? The arguments for evolution are the same kinds of
> arguments made for any scientific theory.
No they’re not. They’re the same as made for Global Warming, but not at all like those made for General Relativity, for example.
For one, General Relativity is falsifiable. Furthermore, it is mathematically solvent. People who reject General Relativity, even nowadays, are not called “deniers”, impugned and derided as intellectually deficient, and likened to cultists involved with nature deities.
They are not excluded from universities, dismissed from professional employment, cajoled, derided, and threatened with legislation, and told they should have their kids removed from them.
Those pejoratives appear to be the uniquely among the expressions of the Global Warmists and Evolutionists.
Global Warmists and Evolutionists are alike in their arrogance and derision of those who reject their claims, even when there is a great deal of data that they cannot accommodate with their theories. Their shrill, discordant, and bellicose demeanor is a disgrace to any real scientific proponents with a modicum of common sense and true inquisitive spirit.
Unfortunately, we seldom see the real scientists. All we see out here are the derisive poseurs pretending to know what even the real scientists readily admit that they don’t know.
Yet in your prior musings you reference logic several times. In your post 183 you reference 'logical conundrums'. Every conclusion you assert is underpinned by a syllogism inferred or an attempt at application of reason and rational thought. How, then, does one have a conversation.
I also said ‘as long as you aren’t picky about the answers’ and you get so picky as to take one imprecise word ‘believe’ and claim I have faith after my views on the matter are clear to anyone who apparently researched my posts enough to list a number of them, some correctly.
I will not discuss at length the idea of belief, unless you push the issue. It is clear you are not ready for such a discussion. Faith, is yet another point. There are those that reason and faith are hostile to each other, and whatever one believes of reason cannot be of faith. However, to arrive at a belief includes three components: (1)notia-understanding the content, (2)fiducia-a faithfulness to that 'notion', and (3)assensuss-and assent to the intellect to the thrush of the proposition. TRUST is the basis of the belief of understanding, knowledge, and your intellectual assent to that view. Yet, by your own words you are not an expert in your pronouncements, and thus no understanding (or minimal), and your belief rests on that lack of undertandigs (your words). Now, truth, and knowledge (warranted true belief)….I will not go into this since you seem adverse. If you enjoin on these subjects I ail be more than happy to fill your mind with the current understanding of these.
Gotcha tactics like that aren’t honest debating tactics. Attempting to lead another person into a logical train wreck of gibberish with leading questions that misrepresent my position, is also not an honest tactic. Something I suspected you would engage in from your very first post to me, politely asking if you could ask me some questions.
" Gotcha" tactics? I am trying to be specific. You do not want to deal in philosophy and logic, yet yo seek the refuge of the phrase 'logic into a train wreck' of gibberish with leading questions. I will hold my comment on this statement. Yet you complain about my politely asking to involve myself into your and Katherine's conversation. I thought it was the polite thing to do. I won't use the term paranoid. I will leave that one alone also….unless you enjoin the subject, then I will be happy to discuss it with you.
Saying you are looking to me for answers is also ridiculous as I’ve stated clearly I have no ‘answers’ and don’t claim to be an expert. That’s not false modesty as it is true of you as well, or any person that has ever lived on the planet. There are those who dedicate their lives to these subjects and may be considered more qualified to speak on them, but they also are not to be looked at as having the answers, only better qualified provided their work can be tested, repeated and meet rigid scientific standards, all of whom should be well aware a new discovery could change everything tomorrow.
My looking for answers from you was based largely on your mistreatment of KatherineAragon in your vilification of her. She seemed perfectly capable of dealing with your pronouncements. I just hate to see the name calling and rudeness. So….I wanted a few 'answers" from you….to see if you were as well versed as your pronouncements attempted to convey. Clearly they do not. But I also hoped you would be interested in the truth. That is coming into question, but I am willing to continue discussing these matters if you continue to enjoin me.
You are obviously looking to play word games in an attempt to say ‘gotcha’ instead of honestly looking for my position.
No, I am not playing word games. I am being as specific as possible, and will not allow you to get away with playing fast and loose with what you describe as self described non-expert on your assertions, which show a profound lack of understanding of science, darwinian evolution, neodarwinism, the theories which contend for that perspective as well as competing theories which refute those notions.
To be clear though, I have seen no evidence of such an existence in measurable terms outside the pursuits of philosophy. The mind is not metaphysical and I did not agree that it was to begin with. You found one word and presumed way too much. Though many works on this issue can be interesting and worthwhile to investigate, it’s not scientific, even if brain waves that create the concept of mind can be measured scientifically.
Wow. OK. You say (Conclusion) "the mind is not metaphysical and I did not agree that it was to begin with." You,clearly have not read anything about this subject. I am going to ask you if you really want to get into your conclusion. Syllogistically you state:
I know of nothing to indicate the mind is metaphysical,
I do not agree with the idea that mind is metaphysical,
therefore, (conclusion) the Mind is not me physical in nature.
Now, are you sure you want to get into this? It is not a quick process of learning and discussing the facts regarding these matters.
Your mind is nothing more than a manifestation of natural processes. The mind is only a separate entity based on a philosophical construct, not a scientific one.
Same question to you. Do you really want to get into what atheist experts in this area say regarding mind/consciousness/epiphenomenal emergent properties which, according to you, arose from the Big Bang, as a naturalist. Do you really want to discuss the merits of whether consciousness emerged from matter, or do you deny this, thus abandoning phenomenal consciousness. I assure you a Wikepedia explication will not fill in the gaps. Secondly, it is obvious that mental states are causal factors win our behavior. It is hard to see how knowledge and agency can be salvaged if this is denied. Such self-proclaimed atheists, naturalists, darwinists (not you) who are recognized experts in this field would disagree with you. Read Jaegwon Kim, Roger Sperry, D.M.Armstrong, and many others for a deeper understanding.
YOu say you do not want to get into this, yet you make reckless pronouncements about these very matter. If you wish to get into it, if you enjoin me on these matters I will be happy to discuss it profusely with you. I recommend you demur.
Your mind is nothing more than a manifestation of natural processes. The mind is only a separate entity based on a philosophical construct, not a scientific one.
The 2 paragraphs just prior to the last paragraph do not merit response.
Your mind is nothing more than a manifestation of natural processes. The mind is only a separate entity based on a philosophical construct, not a scientific one.
As a naturalist, please tell me what consciousness is made of . Is it epiphenomenal, thus metaphysical, or did dead, brute matter give rise to consciousness? If so, please give me the ontological and epistemic explanation of a naturalistic epistemology. If it is epiphenomenal then you must abandon naturalism. Again, how does brute matter give rise sui generis to a new emergent property. What is the structural property of the constituent parts of consciousness?
Now, are you sure you want to get into it. I will be happy to oblige if you wish.
There are volumes written on consciousness and evolution. It is on point of the article and, as you have eloquently involved logic and reason, it is on the subject which you, unprovoked, have put forth.
I will leave it along if you do not answer. If you want to answer, I will be happy to discuss these matters with you.
If I hear from you, that will be fine. If I do not to hear from you, I do still wish you a Merry Christmas.
So you're holding open the possibility that there's an Intelligent but Incompetent Designer? That's a new one on me. It seems even harder to test for, scientifically speaking, than the idea of the perfect Designer. And I really don't see why it should be incompatible with evolution, in that case.
So is evolution.
Furthermore, it is mathematically solvent.
I have no idea what that means.
People who reject General Relativity, even nowadays, are not called “deniers”, impugned and derided as intellectually deficient, and likened to cultists involved with nature deities.
That may be in large part because there is no well-funded, organized effort to keep General Relativity from being taught in schools or, if taught, being accompanied by a counter-theory with little supporting evidence. And people who reject GR don't generally tell those who accept it that they're doing Satan's work and are likely going to hell.
Another reason is that GR isn't something most people see in action, so they only relate to it theoretically. What about my examples? What if there were a bunch of people insisting that disease was caused by bad humors, and demanding that schools "teach the controversy," and complaining that they didn't get hired to teach in medical schools because of their beliefs? You don't think doctors and scientists would argue against them using exactly the same kinds of terms that "evolutionists" use for evolution deniers?
>> For one, General Relativity is falsifiable
> So is evolution.
Really? How so?
>> Furthermore, it [General Relativity] is mathematically solvent.
> I have no idea what that means.
It simply means that the theory of General Relativity was submitted with mathematical proof.
> there is no well-funded, organized effort to keep General
> Relativity from being taught in schools or, if taught,
> being accompanied by a counter-theory with little
> supporting evidence.
There are many alternatives to General Relativity being taught, most of them exponents of Quantum Mechanics. As far as I know, there are no well organized, well funded efforts to keep such teaching out of the schools, nor is there any punishment for supporting or believing them.
Evloutionism is taught and promoted in the same manner as Global Warmism.
> Another reason is that GR isn’t something most people see in action
You can’t be serious. What holds you to the ground? Think before you react.
> hat if there were a bunch of people insisting that
> disease was caused by bad humors, and demanding that
> schools “teach the controversy,” and complaining that
> they didn’t get hired to teach in medical schools because
> of their beliefs?
Argumentum ad absurdum. We can see the little buggies in microscopes. Nobody has seen a shrew turn into a bat or a photosensitive cell turn into an eye.
> You don’t think doctors and scientists would argue
> against them using exactly the same kinds of terms that
> “evolutionists” use for evolution deniers?
Just to set the record straight, I am also a Global Warming “denier”.
Your use of the pejorative term of the Global Warmists says something about you that you may not want it to say.
Nevertheless, although it is irrelevant to ID, you may want to consider "operator error", not "design flaw", when it comes to the imperfections of people (and life in general).
You gave your own example: if a shrew gave birth to a bat, that'd pretty much do it. Or finding the proverbial rabbit in the stomach of a T. Rex.
It simply means that the theory of General Relativity was submitted with mathematical proof.
Mathematics doesn't prove a theory. It can describe and predict the phenomena that a theory tries to explain, but it doesn't prove anything. And if it's numbers you want, what's wrong with the rate of genetic change or the percentage similarity of two genomes?
There are many alternatives to General Relativity being taught, most of them exponents of Quantum Mechanics.
I'm not familiar with them--do you have a reference? More to the point, do they claim that GR is completely wrong in its premises and conclusions and should be scrapped, or are they just expanding and deepening it--the way GR did to Newtonian physics?
You can’t be serious. What holds you to the ground?
Newton handled that just fine. We don't need GR to understand much of what we see at human scale.
We can see the little buggies in microscopes.
Yes, and we can see DNA changes from generation to generation. We've seen the formation of entirely new bodily structures in just a few years. At the same time, I'm not sure anyone's seen the little buggies actually cause a disease--it's all inference from strong evidence. Just like evolution.
You'll probably have the last word, as I'm going out of town for a couple of days and probably won't bother to pick this up again when I get back.
> Yes, and we can see DNA changes from generation to
> generation. We’ve seen the formation of entirely new bodily
> structures in just a few years.
I musta missed that.
> Newton handled that just fine.
Newton had no explanation for gravity, other than it seemed to be related to mass.
Einstein posited that space is curved by mass, which was actually observed, and that is what causes what we experience as gravity, because our speed relative to the curve of space is not great enough to propel us out of it.
Quantum Mechanics posits, among other things, that mass is conveyed through what is commonly referred to as the Higgs Boson, which they believe they have also observed, though more analysis is forthcoming.
Meanwhile, only neo-darwinism’s “hopeful monster” theory could explain a shrew giving birth to a bat. but then, what does the bat mate with to propagate its species, unless, by another even grander miracle, another shrew has given birth to another bat of opposite sex in the same general place at the same general time and that the two hopeful monster bats were able to mate. This is more ridiculous than even nature deities.
“Meanwhile, only neo-darwinism’s “hopeful monster” theory could explain a shrew giving birth to a bat. but then, what does the bat mate with to propagate its species, unless, by another even grander miracle, another shrew has given birth to another bat of opposite sex in the same general place at the same general time and that the two hopeful monster bats were able to mate. This is more ridiculous than even nature deities.”
When you put it that way it really does sound ridiculous.
I musta missed that.
You can read about it here, if you're curious.
Newton had no explanation for gravity, other than it seemed to be related to mass.
Einstein posited that space is curved by mass, which was actually observed, and that is what causes what we experience as gravity, because our speed relative to the curve of space is not great enough to propel us out of it.
Yes, I know. But "something to do with mass" is perfectly fine for the vast majority of what people do and encounter in their daily lives, which was my point. I know that gravity bends light, but the effect between me and my TV is negligible.
I know it's also true that most people don't encounter evolution's effects in their daily lives either, outside maybe of when they get a flu shot. But the idea seems to threaten some people's faith in a way that GR doesn't.
Your last paragraph is irrelevant because nobody posits that a shrew ever gave birth to a bat.
Time to go!
Okay, looking at this photo, human metacarpals appear to be the thickest of the three. Okay.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.