0
   

The Intelligent Designers - who were they?

 
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 09:34 pm
neologist wrote:
Though it may seem to multiply elements, it may perhaps be the quintessential explanation in favor of free will.


Free will is not in question. It needs no explanation, it never has. You're just adding more and more unecessary complexity to everything in an attempt to rationalize and justify your own belief in a personal god. Give it up. The answer is obvious; your assumptions are wrong.

Free will is not in question in the natural world. It's only in question in your world.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 10:49 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
rosborne979 wrote:
You think a population of peole who live forever wouldn't 'upset' the balance of nature? It's not even natural to suggest such a thing.
And the reason is? . . .


Putting aside the fact that it's un-natural for organisms to live forever. An endless population of humans would simply grow unchecked until they exceeded their resources, at which point starvation and stress would begin to kill them. And while that would be 'natural', it wouldn't be much of a balance.
You present a human race with no ability to self govern. That was not implied in my proposition which, if you will remember, was not offered as proof, only as a subject for rhetorical rumination.

Interestingly, Adam and Eve were told to ". . .be fruitful and fill the earth. . . " Now, if you were in a restaurant and asked the waiter to fill your coffee cup, how would you react if he continued pouring until the table cloth were soaked? I'll bet you wouldn't leave a tip.

And, how did you decide it would be unnatural for humans to live forever?
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Reply Thu 12 Oct, 2006 10:52 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
Though it may seem to multiply elements, it may perhaps be the quintessential explanation in favor of free will.


Free will is not in question. It needs no explanation, it never has. You're just adding more and more unecessary complexity to everything in an attempt to rationalize and justify your own belief in a personal god. Give it up. The answer is obvious; your assumptions are wrong.

Free will is not in question in the natural world. It's only in question in your world.
If you are saying you believe in free will, you would be one of the few on this board holding such a position.

And, I must say, I find your sweeping dismissal of my arguments quite amusing, coming from one who professes a modicum of learning.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 12:47 am
Eorl wrote:
ros, very cool response. At least Cartman's anal probes make sense to me now.

neo, I'd be satisfied with a proper alternate theory. At the moment, the ID proposition is like pointing at a few missing bricks in the Great Wall of China and assuming that proves the thing was built by magic, and then proposing which kind of magic with no link between the magic and the evidence.


No, you'd point at the Great Wall of China and say it was built by a designer, or a group of designers, someone with a plan and purpose in setting the stones in such an arrangement and apparent order.

You would not assume that the stones all got into such an arrangement by random natural processes, would you?
0 Replies
 
Eorl
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 02:36 am
No, you wouldn't.

You'd look at all the evidence and conclude very quickly that it was a man-made phenomenom.

The surrounding natural environment, however, you would conclude to be natural.

Your attempt to twist my analogy into the reverse is just silly.

Where's your alternative theory? Put up or shut up real life !!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 03:11 am
Eorl wrote-

Quote:
How typical that none of those who support ID have an answer to this, the simplest of questions about the so-called ID theory.


Of course there are answers but who wants to go back to the beginning when there's a well established thread on the matter elsewhere.

The questions raised are just a watered down version of La Mettrie.

mega wrote-

Quote:
Yes, this is very typical. I always enjoy watching them squirm whenever they encounter such a question.


What hubris. I'm not squirming. It elementary stuff. Capable of being understood by 12 year olds.
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 05:38 am
spendius wrote:
Eorl wrote-

Quote:
How typical that none of those who support ID have an answer to this, the simplest of questions about the so-called ID theory.


Of course there are answers but who wants to go back to the beginning when there's a well established thread on the matter elsewhere.


Where is this well-established thread?

spendius wrote:
mega wrote-

Quote:
Yes, this is very typical. I always enjoy watching them squirm whenever they encounter such a question.


What hubris. I'm not squirming. It elementary stuff. Capable of being understood by 12 year olds.


If you're not squirming then answer the question.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 07:33 am
There are no questions to answer.

The thread is on Science and Mathematics. You can't miss it. It has going on 8000 contributions and 108,000 views.
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 08:04 am
I wouldn't dig through a dumpster to find a penny, nor will I dig through 7,600+ responses to find your answer to the question posed by Eorl.
0 Replies
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 08:46 am
The main problem with "intelligent design" is the attempt to make it scientific. Intelligent design was put forth as an alternative to the natural selection hypothesis. Do ID proponents have a methodology that would objectively show that an organ or organism was designed (rather than having evolved through natural processes)?
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 09:05 am
Quote:
I wouldn't dig through a dumpster to find a penny, nor will I dig through 7,600+ responses to find your answer to the question posed by Eorl.


Nor would I expect anyone designating himself "megamanXplosion" to do so. Quickies are in order. Instant gratification. No effort. No sacrifice. Gimme gimme. The one-eyed midget shouting the word "NOW!".

A total abdication of any scientific principle.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 09:21 am
neologist wrote:
You present a human race with no ability to self govern.


No I don't. I present the opposite.

neologist wrote:
Interestingly, Adam and Eve were told to


Stop right there. Adam and Eve didn't exist. It was just a story.

neologist wrote:
And, how did you decide it would be unnatural for humans to live forever?


I didn't decide anything. It IS un-natural, as we can clearly see demonstrated by every scrap of life on this planet.
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 09:28 am
neologist wrote:
If you are saying you believe in free will


Of course I believe in free will. I choose every single move I make. I choose what to write in this post, and I choose when to leave my chair.

neologist wrote:
you would be one of the few on this board holding such a position.


I doubt that. Unless you're defining "Free Will" in some way which I don't understand.

neologist wrote:
And, I must say, I find your sweeping dismissal of my arguments quite amusing, coming from one who professes a modicum of learning.


I dismissed your arguments from the perspecitve of naturalism.

If you want to discuss things like free will and adam and eve with me, then you have to describe the philosophical basis from which you want things considered. Otherwise, I start from a basis in reality, in which questions about Adam and Eve are non sequitir by default.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 09:50 am
ros wrote-

Quote:
Of course I believe in free will. I choose every single move I make. I choose what to write in this post, and I choose when to leave my chair.


Modern scientific thinking would laugh at such a delusion. You obviously know nothing of the Materialist Theory of Mind or Audley's work on the physiology of excitable cells.

And you the scientist eh ros? Free will is an entirely religious proposition.
0 Replies
 
megamanXplosion
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 09:56 am
Quote:
Nor would I expect anyone designating himself "megamanXplosion" to do so. Quickies are in order. Instant gratification. No effort. No sacrifice. Gimme gimme. The one-eyed midget shouting the word "NOW!".

A total abdication of any scientific principle.


I have been using my current username for a very long time. The username was chosen when I had my first foray into the world of web design and development. I created a web site that focused on providing reviews and multimedia for Capcom games. One of the game series I was most involved with was Mega Man X. The username I picked seemed logical. Heaven forbid I be uninventive with fake names everytime I encounter a new message board and continue using a particular fake name. Golly, it is things like that which make people egotistical one-eyed midgets!
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 10:08 am
Well- you must admit that it gives a distinct impression of a big-time guy going off in a burst of flashing lights.

Why pick Mega Man X to give one's attention to in the first place. And the impatience displayed over the already established thread is somewhat in character.

Anybody not interested in that thread is hardly interested in the subject except as a short-term whim.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 11:41 am
rosborne979 wrote:
neologist wrote:
You present a human race with no ability to self govern.


No I don't. I present the opposite.

neologist wrote:
Interestingly, Adam and Eve were told to


Stop right there. Adam and Eve didn't exist. It was just a story.

neologist wrote:
And, how did you decide it would be unnatural for humans to live forever?


I didn't decide anything. It IS un-natural, as we can clearly see demonstrated by every scrap of life on this planet.


Wow.

How neat to win every argument by simply shouting 'Stop right there. You're wrong.'

I guess you've settled everything , ros.

Cookies, anyone?
0 Replies
 
rosborne979
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 11:57 am
real life wrote:
How neat to win every argument by simply shouting 'Stop right there. You're wrong.'


It's not like I said anything extraordinary RL. All I said is that Adam and Eve didn't exist. The tooth fairy doesn't exist, Santa Clause doesn't exist, Leprechauns don't exist and Adam and Eve didn't exist. All those things are JUST as obvious. They are the same.

Are you really telling us that you belive Adam and Eve existed, and not just in an allegorical form? Let's be clear, go ahead and say it.
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 05:52 pm
rosborne979 wrote:
real life wrote:
How neat to win every argument by simply shouting 'Stop right there. You're wrong.'


It's not like I said anything extraordinary RL. All I said is that Adam and Eve didn't exist. The tooth fairy doesn't exist, Santa Clause doesn't exist, Leprechauns don't exist and Adam and Eve didn't exist. All those things are JUST as obvious. They are the same.

Are you really telling us that you belive Adam and Eve existed, and not just in an allegorical form? Let's be clear, go ahead and say it.


Yes, Adam and Eve existed. The story of Eden is not allegorical.

I've made no secret of it. That is my position.

Interesting also that science is looking at the possibility that all humans descended from one woman. I'm well aware that there is a great deal of debate about it, so don't come back to me with 'well, not everyone agrees that this the case'. Of course everyone doesn't agree.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 13 Oct, 2006 06:23 pm
rl
Quote:
Interesting also that science is looking at the possibility that all humans descended from one woman.


You realize that the "eve" reference in science is based upon extrapolation of genetic data using an evolutionary model? You do realize that?

Where science use a metaphor to make mDNA extrapolation more understandible, you want to make believe that geneticists are using this in a literal Biblical sense? Please rl, try to follow along and quit making up your own personal endings.

You know of course that sometimes scientists use the word "create" and they dont mean actual Biblical Creation?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/21/2021 at 11:07:31