-
05-23-12, 08:06 AM #21So let's examine that statement. Who wrote the Bible, man not a woman. That man or men were under some kind of psychological disorder for they heard things being told to them by some supernatural being...God. Did they question that God at all, trying to discern what exactly it was and why it all of a sudden wanted to speak only to them and not communicate to everyone so that God would be heard and understood by everyone as to what it was saying. Strange that only a handful of men could hear this God and only from time to time, which again suggests some kind of psychological disorder among those few men.These are the things science can't answer but bible can.
Then the Bible was written in two parts as well, the first part , the old testament was written by the Jews but the Christians wanted to put another spin on it so they started another chapter, the new testament, a few thousand years ago. Again men wrote this second chapter, I wonder why men are the only ones who get these supernatural speeches, but I digress, and they wrote what again was told to them by this supernatural entity they named God. They must have been afflicted with the same psychological disorder as the first men who wrote this book it would seem. But my point is that men wrote this book, not God itself, and God could just as easily talk to everyone to let them know it exists but only choose a few men to write what it said. Why should we trust what man writes about since we all know man is a story teller at heart.
-
05-23-12, 09:48 AM #22
I think IDists rely very much on this rationale. To say it looks designed is to form a conclusion outside of a relevant pool of knowledge. For the biologist, who studies form and function, homologous structuring is one of many kids of evidence favoring evolution over ID.
Your next point is also common with IDers:
A significant difference is that for each and every one of those, you've been able to attribute them to a real flesh and blood maker. None of the ID kind has been found. What have been found are the tools of nature that Darwin's work anticipates.Most thing that have a function, and look designed, usually are designed, in my experience.
Another thought that came to mind was the way some artists will throw paint at a canvas, or program a white noise source with a cello, etc. Some critics will say "it (looks/sounds) like (a mudslide/a boiler room)" etc. In this case, the thing that looks or sounds erratic is possibly even painstakingly planned.
The evidence against intelligent design includes congenital defects.
-
05-23-12, 11:04 AM #23F-in' *meow* baby!!!
- Posts
- 8,427
garbonzo,
Are these arguments that your dad has given you? The context of what you are posting isn't clear in the least.
-
05-23-12, 11:29 AM #24thou art wise oJjames R
- Posts
- 44,756
-
05-23-12, 12:53 PM #25Valued Senior Member
- Posts
- 1,531
I don't understand that sentence.
"Fit an idea"?Are you kidding me?
And trying to fit an idea of everything just happened from nothing works out?
I'm basically an agnostic when it come to the big questions. How the universe originated is something I don't know the answer to. Why reality exists in the first place, is something I don't know the answer to.
But I guess that I'm also an atheist in the sense that I don't think that the deities of the religious traditions literally exist, or that they provide satisfactory answers to the big questions.
The design argument is simply an appeal to an analogy. Humans design objects with functional form. Nature provides examples of objects with functional form that weren't designed by humans. So (the analogy goes) there must be an invisible super-powered analogue of a human craftsman out there somewhere that designed the things that humans didn't.If you really think our body, brain, internal organs, nature, animals, insects, scientific laws and so on is not the evidence of an intelligent design then you’re not an engineer.
The unstated assumption is that design is the only way to explain functional form.
I think that evolutionary theory has dramatically reduced the plausibility of the design argument over the last 150 years, by providing a credible and increasingly well-evidenced alternative account of how the functional form could have gotten there, that doesn't need to anthropomorphically imagine a hypothetical invisible craftsman.
-
05-23-12, 01:33 PM #26Valued Senior Member
- Posts
- 1,531
There's an e-book on one of my usb drives somewhere (maybe I'll go hunt it up this afternoon), in which an anatomist provides endless examples of what we might call odd design features of the human body. Features that start to make perfect sense if we look at them in terms of our species' evolutionary history.
Apparently it's even more dramatic if we look at it in terms of genomics. There are whole blocks of DNA code in humans that are pretty much identical to blocks of code in distantly removed animals like fish. That might not be the most effective way to encode what's happening today in humans. But if hundreds of millions of years ago these blocks of code proved vital for some aspect of early fetal development or cellular physiology that were critical for life, then natural selection will preserve those old ways of doing things pretty zealously. Code for phenotypic features that are less critical to survival, which might prove to be optional and have different selective value in different circumstances, tend to evolve a lot faster.
-
05-23-12, 01:55 PM #27
so are you so uninformed,that you could not discuss this issue?
Or would you rather just fall back to trolling your prejudices?
have you been reading along?
don't you have anything intelligent to add to the discussion?
have you learned anything new yet?
i suspect you think you already know everything..
come on Epictetus..step up to intelligent conversation!
-
05-23-12, 02:27 PM #28
-
05-23-12, 03:47 PM #29
-
05-23-12, 05:22 PM #30
??
already read that saturn..
least you could do is add an 'I agree' to the end of that post..
-
05-23-12, 08:32 PM #31
-
05-23-12, 11:08 PM #32˙
- Posts
- 13,821
-
05-23-12, 11:17 PM #33
-
05-23-12, 11:53 PM #34˙
- Posts
- 13,821
It really is no mystery.
People act as if they had a purpose, as if there was a purpose to their lives, they do so all the time.
-
05-24-12, 11:14 AM #35
-
05-24-12, 11:16 AM #36˙
- Posts
- 13,821
Go have some ice cream or something else you really really like.
-
05-24-12, 03:57 PM #37
-
05-24-12, 04:14 PM #38
You seriously think this?
Or are you including natural evolution somehow as "design" (by natural methods)?
I assure you, I do not think I am somehow "designed" by anything other than evolution, and I certainly don't think I have any purpose than I create for myself (based on my nature and nurture).
But then maybe you consider me mad?
-
05-24-12, 04:22 PM #39
-
05-25-12, 12:13 AM #40˙
- Posts
- 13,821
Similar Threads
-
By DiMiTri in forum General Science & TechnologyLast Post: 03-05-12, 04:12 PMReplies: 58
-
By Techne in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 12-02-11, 03:32 PMReplies: 94
-
By vhawk in forum General Science & TechnologyLast Post: 05-27-09, 02:59 PMReplies: 40
-
By visceral_instinct in forum Human ScienceLast Post: 04-16-09, 08:45 AMReplies: 47
-
By coberst in forum General PhilosophyLast Post: 04-10-08, 05:01 PMReplies: 5


You see! This is why I think we should move the Religion forum in with UFO sightings or pseudoscience.

Bookmarks