Intelligent Design

[TheBard]

Well, I do have an degree in engineering and have had a bit of school. So I wouldn't say i know nothing.

I used the term simple multi-celled to differentiate between a mouse and a bacteria.

People also said we'd never walk on the moon...funny thing science.

You obviously know nothing about "simple multi-celled organisms" as they are anything but "simple".

Man will never create life from non-living matter. Not now, not then, not ever! And only the tragically ignorant will believe otherwise.

But you are free to believe whatever you like.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

So lets reset.

The scenario:
Knight and fool came across an abandon camp fire in the forest and the logs are nicely placed in a tee-pee arrangement and there are similarly sized and shaped round stones placed in a circle around the fire.

Which of the following two arguments is an argument from ignorance?

Knight: cool some person built a camp fire lets roast marshmellows! :chew: (argument #1)

fool: A person? Don't be so sure! These stones could have just rolled together in this circular pattern and then a eagles nest might have fallen from the trees landing upside down in the middle of the stones. Finally a bolt of lightening struck the eagles nest and created this fire! Or maybe Big-foot, a beaver, a bird or possibly a alien from outer space could have created this campfire. (argument #2)

Knight: Yeah... maybe... :kookoo: * checks fool's backpack for recently used crack pipe *.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Well, I do have an degree in engineering and have had a bit of school. So I wouldn't say i know nothing.

I used the term simple multi-celled to differentiate between a mouse and a bacteria.

People also said we'd never walk on the moon...funny thing science.

Like I said... you are free to believe in any fantasy you desire. But as for me I do not believe that man will ever create life from non-living matter.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

One that you fear cause I can pierce your fog.

The only fog I see is the cloud coming from your crack pipe.

 

[aharvey]

Two particularly remarkable quotes from Knight, especially taken together and in the context of the topic at hand (“Intelligent design”)”

fool, first off animals are intelligent and created by God!

I doubt any of us had realized that when it comes to “intelligent design,” animals explicitly qualify as “intelligent.” So a bird’s nest is evidence of design by an “intelligent agent”: The bird!

Not to answer for Mr. 5020 but... if God designed the process in which snowflakes form, the snowflakes are designed!

Even though God doesn't create each and every snowflake in a "snowflake generator" the snowflakes are designed none the less.

God designs the way in which small droplets of water crystalize and therefore snowflakes are designed.

Now this example seems to indicate that everything, not just complex life forms and processes, is “designed by God.” It exists, therefore it must be designed, is that it? (Or do you just mean complex life forms, and snowflakes?) Better yet, you’re not just saying everything is designed by God, you’re saying that all natural processes were designed by God.

But that’s cool, because it simply serves to further catapult intelligent design outside of the realm of science. There is no possible way to test the hypothesis that all natural processes were designed by God. Thus, even if it’s 100% true, it would have no bearing on how anyone does science.

The trick, as IDers well know, is that everything that we have confirmed as being "designed" has had a human designer. (You can point to bird's nests if you want, but you're likely to run into worse trouble having such lax criteria for what qualifies as "design" and "intelligence.") Therefore, all criteria that have been used to "recognize" "design" are in fact only capable of recognizing human design!

Interesting double standard. Some folks refuse to accept the extrapolation "if change is correlated with time over short time intervals, then they're probably going to be correlated over longer time intervals" , even though there is no qualitative difference between the two conditions, no a priori (nonreligious!) reason for doubting the extrapolation.

These same folks, however, have no problem with a very different type of extrapolation: "If we can use a particular set of criteria to recognize some things designed by humans, then we can use the same set of criteria to recognize anything designed by any intelligent agent." Even though in this case there is a fairly drastic qualitative difference between the two conditions (human designers and -- is it safe to say -- supernatural? how about at least superhuman, given Knight's recent exclamation that humans will never be able to create life) designers.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I doubt any of us had realized that when it comes to “intelligent design,” animals explicitly qualify as “intelligent.” So a bird’s nest is evidence of design by an “intelligent agent”: The bird!

Are you rejecting the notion that birds are intelligent?

 

[Unbeliever]

Ah, but your test was between Creationism and Evolution, and by your admission all of the "societies that had no contact with the bible or Christianity had many different explanations for THE CREATION OF THE EARTH."

That's not what your test said. Your test said that none of them would believe in a young earth, which most of them do.

You're right. I broadened the scope without mentioning it. My apologies.

My attempt was to show that biblical creation is not obviously the way the earth was created. It required a text to make it known. Evolution, on the other, developed based on observations, not preconceived notions. The whole world is evolution's "holy book."

I wish there was a way to conduct my test, but Christianity has spread so far that I doubt there is someone we could both agree was unbiased.

That's ridiculous. Many people on here have said that if the Bible was proven false, we would abandon our faith. Not everybody, but most did.

Give me an example of something that would prove to you that biblical creation is wrong.

 

[fool]

One of us will quickly recognize the camp fire as man made and move on. The other will waste a bunch of time living in the fantasy world thinking that maybe big-foot or a beaver or a alien started the camp fire.

You can be a fool with little effort but why? Why not be smart and rational?

The point that you're oblivious to is that I'm talking about why we recognize that it's man made.
Let's you and me go encounter this camp fire, And I say "I can't imagine any explaination for this other than it was put here by Yaweh as a sign that he wants us to camp here tonight". You would look at me and say, "It could be, but that fact that you can't come up with another dosen't mean that's true". Yes? No?

 

[Mr. 5020]

You're right. I broadened the scope without mentioning it. My apologies.

My attempt was to show that biblical creation is not obviously the way the earth was created. It required a text to make it known. Evolution, on the other, developed based on observations, not preconceived notions. The whole world is evolution's "holy book."

I wish there was a way to conduct my test, but Christianity has spread so far that I doubt there is someone we could both agree was unbiased.

Wait a minute! You said that the test had already been run. Not only that, but those who were tested chose to believe in Creationism!

Give me an example of something that would prove to you that biblical creation is wrong.

I travel back in time and see Peter and John steal Jesus' body.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The point that you're oblivious to is that I'm talking about why we recognize that it's man made.
Let's you and me go encounter this camp fire, And I say "I can't imagine any explaination for this other than it was put here by Yaweh as a sign that he wants us to camp here tonight". You would look at me and say, "It could be, but that fact that you can't come up with another dosen't mean that's true". Yes? No?

What on earth are you talking about??? :kookoo:

You are so completely irrational you have lost all ability to maintain an intelligent conversation.

 

[Unbeliever]

What about Muslims?

I'm not sure what Muslims believe about creation. If they believe in the biblical account, then it also comes from the bible, not observation.

 

[fool]

The only fog I see is the cloud coming from your crack pipe.

That all you got?

 

[noguru]

Are you rejecting the notion that birds are intelligent?

I don't think so Knight. He is saying that a birds nest is evidence of intelligent design. That intelligent being is the bird. Just as a beaver damn is evidence of intelligent design, that intelligent being is the beaver.

This differs dramatically from saying that a snowflake is evidence of intelligent design.

 

[fool]

What on earth are you talking about??? :kookoo:

You are so completely irrational you have lost all ability to maintain an intelligent conversation.

It's a yes or no question.
Does the fact that I can't think of another explaination for a camp fire mean that the one I'm looking at was made by Yaweh for me and Knight to roast marshmellows around?

 

[Mr. 5020]

I'm not sure what Muslims believe about creation. If they believe in the biblical account, then it also comes from the bible, not observation.

You said that only Christians believed in the Biblical account of Creationism. Are you saying that you were wrong?

 

[aharvey]

Are you rejecting the notion that birds are intelligent?

What noguru said: For an intelligent designer to say that birds are intelligent means that the intelligent designer of the bird's nest is quite demonstrably the bird. Are you sure that's where you want to go?

 

[Unbeliever]

Wait a minute! You said that the test had already been run. Not only that, but those who were tested chose to believe in Creationism!

But they didn't believe in your version of creationism! If yours were correct, wouldn't everyone, even those who've never seen a bible, be able to determine it?

Why is evolution universal (i.e. all kinds of people believe it), but biblical creation is believed only by those who believe in the bible?

I travel back in time and see Peter and John steal Jesus' body.

Well, that's certainly reasonable! How about something that is a little more possible?

 

[Unbeliever]

You said that only Christians believed in the Biblical account of Creationism. Are you saying that you were wrong?

Yes. I was wrong. I know for a fact that some Jews believe in the biblical account of creation. Some Muslims may as well, I am not knowledgable enough of Islam to know for sure.

I should have said that those who believe in the Old Testament are the only ones who believe in biblical creation.

 

[Unbeliever]

Man will never create life from non-living matter.

What do you think living matter is made of? Non-living matter. Life is simply a biochemical process. A complex one, but one that can be understood nonetheless.

 

[fool]

Like I said... you are free to believe in any fantasy you desire. But as for me I do not believe that man will ever create life from non-living matter.

From the argument from ignorance link;
"Argument from ignorance is similar to but not equivalent to the argument from personal incredulity (also known as argument from personal belief or argument from personal conviction), where a person asserts that because they personally find a premise unlikely or unbelieveable, it can be safely assumed not to be true."