Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 11:08 am
(January 15, 2016 at 10:23 am)Delicate Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 10:13 am)Stimbo Wrote: PRATT = Points Refuted A Thousand Times.
Rubberduck arguments = from Richard Dawkins' coinage of "unsinkable rubber ducks" to describe the situation when one fundie is torpedoed, only to have another pop up in its place. What's the refutation of specified complexity?
Hold on - you can blow off citation requests, but I have to bring a note from home?
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 23918
Threads: 300
Joined: June 25, 2011
Reputation:
151
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 11:15 am
(January 15, 2016 at 9:32 am)Delicate Wrote: If I told you what specified complexity was, how it worked, and how it was supposed to generate testable predictions, would you grapple with it rationally or just make some dumb inane ad hominem attack or commit a well-poisoning fallacy or something?
The inane dismissive response choice (hold the ad hominem) would be my choice. Dress complexity any way you like and you're still saddled with all the same problems that people have expressed to you any number of times. (That's what leads to the ad hominems .. you poopy head.)
Posts: 9176
Threads: 76
Joined: November 21, 2013
Reputation:
40
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 11:16 am
(January 15, 2016 at 8:59 am)Delicate Wrote: (December 23, 2015 at 5:40 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Usually when they want to use that argument, they basically argue for deism, then make a giant leap from "creator god" to "my theistic god". How do you get from "the universe needed a creator" to "Yahweh/Allah/Jesus is lord"? You could google a long list of creator gods that people have worshiped, so all you've done is narrow it down to them at best. And they're not just different versions of the same guy. So you concede deism is true but not theism?
Lol some atheist you are.
No. I'm saying deism is as far as this argument would get you. I'm not a deist, but if you want to argue about some creator god that started everything, and left, then that doesn't bother me. It's mainly the religions that talk about a god wanting you to live a certain way, or being worthy of death, that I have a problem with.
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 11:18 am
(January 15, 2016 at 3:03 am)robvalue Wrote: I'll give AAT one last shot at the grand prize before I give up on him entirely.
Here is my question.
What does any of this matter? Why should we care if we are designed are not, from a practical point of view?
Surely you must think there is some payoff if you're prepared to jettison the scientific method over this one topic while claiming to be a science student.
So he can say "haha! I was right and you were wrong! All atheist bastards burn in hell!"
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 9914
Threads: 53
Joined: November 27, 2015
Reputation:
92
Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 11:23 am
(January 15, 2016 at 8:59 am)Delicate Wrote: (December 23, 2015 at 5:40 pm)Chad32 Wrote: Usually when they want to use that argument, they basically argue for deism, then make a giant leap from "creator god" to "my theistic god". How do you get from "the universe needed a creator" to "Yahweh/Allah/Jesus is lord"? You could google a long list of creator gods that people have worshiped, so all you've done is narrow it down to them at best. And they're not just different versions of the same guy. So you concede deism is true but not theism?
Lol some atheist you are.
Deli's back! Yay.....did you even bother to read all 40 something pages of this thread before jumping in and insulting people?
Nay_Sayer: “Nothing is impossible if you dream big enough, or in this case, nothing is impossible if you use a barrel of KY Jelly and a miniature horse.”
Wiser words were never spoken.
Posts: 3101
Threads: 10
Joined: September 7, 2015
Reputation:
49
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 11:29 am
Still no response to the clear and obvious refutations of Dembski?
Maybe he's actually reading the links I posted.
...
![[Image: 886813887726407309.gif]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=i.kinja-img.com%2Fgawker-media%2Fimage%2Fupload%2Fs--7AtwzDlG--%2F886813887726407309.gif)
A Christian told me: if you were saved you cant lose your salvation. you're sealed with the Holy Ghost
I replied: Can I refuse? Because I find the entire concept of vicarious blood sacrifice atonement to be morally abhorrent, the concept of holding flawed creatures permanently accountable for social misbehaviors and thought crimes to be morally abhorrent, and the concept of calling something "free" when it comes with the strings of subjugation and obedience perhaps the most morally abhorrent of all... and that's without even going into the history of justifying genocide, slavery, rape, misogyny, religious intolerance, and suppression of free speech which has been attributed by your own scriptures to your deity. I want a refund. I would burn happily rather than serve the monster you profess to love.
Posts: 1314
Threads: 14
Joined: December 1, 2015
Reputation:
9
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 11:41 am
(January 15, 2016 at 9:46 am)Delicate Wrote: I don't know that I consider you dumb clinically.
But the average tone and depth of conversation here, even when discussing substantive topics is remarkably bad.
I can see that stunting intellectual growth in general.
Also keep in mind I don't want to control conversations. That doesn't follow from anything I've said.
Rather if what you mean is "I wish we could guide discussions into substance but our hands are tied" then I sympathize.
No idea what PRATT and rubberduck arguments are.
Try google, you arrogant, strutting prick! That's what I'm going to say to the next ignorant asshole who gets in my face and tells me "Try Jesus!"
Mr. Hanky loves you!
Posts: 25314
Threads: 239
Joined: August 26, 2010
Reputation:
156
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 11:45 am
I already tried Jesus. I found him not guilty of existing.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:02 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 3:03 am)robvalue Wrote: I'll give AAT one last shot at the grand prize before I give up on him entirely.
Here is my question.
What does any of this matter? Why should we care if we are designed are not, from a practical point of view?
Surely you must think there is some payoff if you're prepared to jettison the scientific method over this one topic while claiming to be a science student.
I already answered this when someone else asked it. I think believing it was designed makes better predictions. For example, we would expect that organisms would need most of their DNA, which has turned out to be true despite what you've heard about junk DNA, retroviral DNA, or pseudogenes. They almost didn't sequence the regions of the human genome they thought to be junk due to their evolutionary presuppositions, which would have been a big mistake. We would also be more likely to look to the mechanisms at place in the cell to help us learn how to improve in our engineering skills. We would realize the harm of mutation, and we would be less likely to fill ourselves with carcinogenic chemicals. If we approach science from the point of view that we were designed, we will have a higher respect for ourselves, and will be more likely to turn to the cell to help us advance in our ability to write computer codes and stuff.
Posts: 624
Threads: 1
Joined: December 4, 2015
Reputation:
1
RE: Intelligent Design
January 15, 2016 at 12:04 pm
(January 15, 2016 at 4:01 am)pool the great Wrote: (January 15, 2016 at 1:05 am)AAA Wrote: Well my basic point is that the systems in the cell work together in such a way that if they were designed, the designer had incredible intelligence that is truly awe inspiring. No I'm not saying so complex, therefore God. it's: we know how it works, it works like a designed system, other explanations fall short, therefore designer is a reasonable conclusion.
What you're saying is:
* Designer had incredible intelligence that is truly awe inspiring.
* Stuff works like a designed system because other explanations are not good enough.
* Designer is a reasonable conclusion.
Forgive me for asking, but is this not what they mean by Circular Reasoning? No, you've got it backwards. It's 1. evidence points to it being designed, 2. If it truly was designed, it is a brilliant design with incredible mechanisms 3. the designer must be smart
|
