User Tag List

First 2345614 Last

Results 31 to 40 of 162

  1. #31
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    977

    Default

    Does anyone with a critical mind really take creationists seriously ?

  2. #32
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    But there is good reason to believe that both material monism and universal naturalism are false, and there are other logically possible, more probable, alternatives.
    really???....im dying to see this new "evidence" for a non naturalistic universe...it must of slipped out of my morning paper

    Quote Originally Posted by Peguy View Post
    Secular Creationism.
    You're really going to try and peddle that bullshit here? its intrinsically a religious idea. no matter what fucking name you give it. If people were created, than there has to be a designer with some sort of magical powers! It is INHERENTLY RELIGIOUS.

    Secondly, if you're referring to people like michael behe: he's been dealt with redundantly. He was soundly refuted by Kenneth Miller (a catholic i might add) in that 2005 trial. Behe basically wants the standards of science to be so low that astrology is acceptable in public school.

  3. #33
    & Badger, Ratty and Toad Mole's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    18,529

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilen View Post
    Does anyone with a critical mind really take creationists seriously ?
    God help me, but yes I do.

    I take them seriously because they are opposed to Social Darwinism.

    The Creationist recognised that Social Darwinism taught the survival of the fittest and it would mean every man for himself.

    The Creationists recognised that Social Darwinism was the exact opposite of love your neighbour as yourself.

    The Creationists also recognised that Darwin himself did not know the mechanism of evolution - and of course he didn't until the discovery of DNA.

    The Creationists did make a strategic mistake in confusing Social Darwinism with the Origin of Species.

    And so the Creationists came to oppose Evolution rather than Social Darwinism.

    So although the hearts of the Creationists were in the right place, they were wrong headed.

  4. #34
    Senior Member lowtech redneck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    3,705

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Owl View Post
    3) I don't know. Never heard of it.
    That's too bad, it was a pretty cool movie. Ah well.

  5. #35
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)

    this is an extensive treating of MANY creationist sources that try and peddle the "argument from probability"

    problems: 1) many creationist "want-a-be" "mathematicians" aren't legitimate PUBLISHING biologists and thus dont really know where to begin when they make up numbers. 2) natural selection is a kind of "force of nature" rather than it being totally random chaos. The planets in the solar system didn't randomly end up where they are. They got there via a natural process that arises inevitably from mass bending space-time (ie: an example of mindless nature giving rise to order). Evolution is a natural process that yields very different results than pure randomness.

    the biggest problem:

    "There is still the same, single, fundamental problem with all these statistical calculations, one that I mention in my review of Foster: no one knows what the first life was. People like Morowitz can try to calculate what is, at a minimum, possible, and laboratory experiments, like that which discovered the powers of tetrahymena (see Addenda C), can approach a guess, but these guesses still do not count as knowledge, and it is not sound to claim that simply because we don't know what it was, therefore we can't assume there was such a simple life form. And even if we accept such an argument, to go from there to "god" is essentially a god-of-the-gaps argument. When we did not know how the bumble-bee flew, was that an adequate ground for positing god as the answer, or was it instead cause for further scientific investigation aimed at finding out the natural explanation? All of science is the result of choosing the latter approach. Once there was a time when nothing was explained. Since then, everything which has been explained has been found to have a natural, not a divine, explanation. Although this does not prove that all future explanations will be of like kind, it shows that it is not at all unreasonable to expect this--and it is not a very reliable bet to expect the opposite."

  6. #36
    Senior Member Tayshaun's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5w4
    Posts
    172

    Default

    There is no knowledge about the origins of life, but the ID answer is way too convenient.

    I cannot help think the intelligence the ID proponents present is an intelligence man created in his own image (like God IMO). It helps give intelligibility to the universe and a reason - even if unknown - for our presence. Seeking meaning for life in such a way is anthropocentric at best. This, if anything, reveals a lack of perspective.

    This debate is virtually inexistent in most of Europe.

  7. #37
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tayshaun View Post
    I cannot help think the intelligence the ID proponents present is an intelligence man created in his own image (like God IMO). It helps give intelligibility to the universe and a reason - even if unknown - for our presence. Seeking meaning for life in such a way is anthropocentric at best.
    There is nothing inherently anthropomorphic about appealing to Aristotle's "proper forms" when attempting to understand the sctructure of our universe. There is a unique form to the Carbon atom and the Water molecule, but that doesn't mean that the carbon atom "wants to share it's electrons".

    Stop confusing the verbage of science with intelligible metaphysics.

  8. #38
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    There is nothing inherently anthropomorphic about appealing to Aristotle's "proper forms" when attempting to understand the sctructure of our universe. There is a unique form to the Carbon atom and the Water molecule, but that doesn't mean that the carbon atom "wants to share it's electrons".

    Stop confusing the verbage of science with intelligible metaphysics.
    linguistic superstition. all this crap about how every aspect of our universe had to be separately special and fined tuned at every level. Its actually quite simple: geometry. The geometry of space time is the most fundamental source of why anything is what it is.

    the boiling point of water was originally thought to simply be a brute fact. obviously its just the inevitable result of MORE fundamental laws pertaining to pressure, chemistry, quantum mechanics and such. Those are also based on even MORE fundamental facts about the physical structures of matter and the behavior of energy. It all reduces to patterns and geometry (ie each little thing isnt specially engineered with a purpose of function)

  9. #39
    desert pelican Owl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    717

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    really???....im dying to see this new "evidence" for a non naturalistic universe...it must of slipped out of my morning paper
    You're reading the wrong papers.

    Quote Originally Posted by Babylon Candle View Post
    Are the Odds Against the Origin of Life Too Great to Accept? (Addendum B to Review of David Foster's The Philosophical Scientists)

    this is an extensive treating of MANY creationist sources that try and peddle the "argument from probability"

    problems: 1) many creationist "want-a-be" "mathematicians" aren't legitimate PUBLISHING biologists and thus dont really know where to begin when they make up numbers. 2) natural selection is a kind of "force of nature" rather than it being totally random chaos. The planets in the solar system didn't randomly end up where they are. They got there via a natural process that arises inevitably from mass bending space-time (ie: an example of mindless nature giving rise to order). Evolution is a natural process that yields very different results than pure randomness.

    the biggest problem:

    "There is still the same, single, fundamental problem with all these statistical calculations, one that I mention in my review of Foster: no one knows what the first life was. People like Morowitz can try to calculate what is, at a minimum, possible, and laboratory experiments, like that which discovered the powers of tetrahymena (see Addenda C), can approach a guess, but these guesses still do not count as knowledge, and it is not sound to claim that simply because we don't know what it was, therefore we can't assume there was such a simple life form. And even if we accept such an argument, to go from there to "god" is essentially a god-of-the-gaps argument. When we did not know how the bumble-bee flew, was that an adequate ground for positing god as the answer, or was it instead cause for further scientific investigation aimed at finding out the natural explanation? All of science is the result of choosing the latter approach. Once there was a time when nothing was explained. Since then, everything which has been explained has been found to have a natural, not a divine, explanation. Although this does not prove that all future explanations will be of like kind, it shows that it is not at all unreasonable to expect this--and it is not a very reliable bet to expect the opposite."
    hmmm... how to respond.

    The linked author admits his own ignorance, and he is right to believe that we cannot infer that God exists from ignorance. But this sword cuts both ways, and neither can he infer that his own metaphysical assumptions are true. For all he knows, increased knowledge of the physical world may increase the improbability of abiogenisis and any form of macro evolution. And this points to one of the limits of science. Science, like religion, does not examine its own assumptions, and, as the author makes clear, it's these assumptions that will shape how one answers the question of origins. Philosophy is the discipline devoted to the critical examination of assumptions, and so the question of origins ultimately lies within the domain of philosophy.

    Alas, I have to work now. Perhaps I'll be back to edit this post. Perhaps we can make another thread dedicated to the God of the gaps. (BC, I believe you've mentioned this before). Anyway, I bid thee farewell.

  10. #40
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    type
    Posts
    9,100

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    But let's face it - Charles hid the Origin of Species for 21 years.

    Some say he was afraid of his wife.

    But we seem to forget he was completely ignorant of how the evolution of species occurred.

    I mean he just didn't know. And as it flew in the face of our creation story, perhaps he thought discretion was he better part of valour.

    Yes, we had to wait about 100 years before James Watson and Francis Crick discovered how the evolution of species occurred.

    Yes, it was the discovery of DNA that put the origin of species beyond reasonable doubt.

    So to argue today for Creationism or Intelligent Design is a lost cause.
    The fact that humans develop primitive gills as embryos kinda sealed the deal for me.

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution vs. Creationism
    By Frosty in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 04-18-2015, 03:44 PM
  2. Intelligent Design
    By Little_Sticks in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-26-2012, 01:52 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Worth vs. Intelligence
    By Jonny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 08:30 PM
  4. Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design - good take on this issue
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 07:20 AM
  5. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 05:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO