Skip to comments.
Darwin's Beagle ship replica plan [for his 200th birthday]
BBC News ^
| 19 July 2006
| Staff
Posted on 07/19/2006 3:55:15 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420, 421-440, 441-460, 461-464 next last
To: Dimensio
If it were not the nature of intelligent design to create and arrange matter so that it performs specific functions you might have a point. Unfortunately neither is the case.
To: Fester Chugabrew
If it were not the nature of intelligent design to create and arrange matter so that it performs specific functions you might have a point.
That "intelligent design" may be a component in the process of arranging matter "so that it performs specific functions" is not evidence that "intelligent design" is a necessary component in such a process, nor is it evidence that "intelligent design" was a component in the origin of the universe. That an event is possible is not evidence that an event occured. You have offered no evidence that "intelligent design" is the best possible explanation for the existence of the universe, and in fact you have not even specified the mechanics of this alleged "intelligent design" process nor have you offered a method to evaluate your claims.
Using a strawman to claim that I do not have a point does not actually invalidate my statement.
442
posted on
07/26/2006 11:15:02 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
As soon as you introduce the word "necessary" you imply, if not say outright, that you require proof as opposed to inference. I have never said organized matter performing specific functions "necessarily" involves intelligent design. It is no straw man to say you have no point, especially since you have no explanation for organized matter that performs specific functions. No possible explanation = no point. It could, however, be explained by intelligent design.
To: Fester Chugabrew
As soon as you introduce the word "necessary" you imply, if not say outright, that you require proof as opposed to inference
Incorrect. I am asking for evidence that your claim is a more reasonable explanation than any other, not "proof".
I have never said organized matter performing specific functions "necessarily" involves intelligent design.
Then, if "organized matter performing specific functions" can come about without "intelligent design", why is it more reasonable to believe that the universe came about through "intelligent design" than not?
It is no straw man to say you have no point, especially since you have no explanation for organized matter that performs specific functions.
I am not claiming a cause. You are. It is therefore your responsibility to show that evidence exists that shows that your proposed cause is the real cause. Thus far you have not done so.
It could, however, be explained by intelligent design.
That it "could" have been "intelligent design" is not in any way evidence that it was "intelligent design". Moreover, "intelligent design" itself is not a process, it is a modifier that can be applied to a process. You are asserting, without evidence, that a modifier applies to a process that you have not even specified.
444
posted on
07/26/2006 12:09:14 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
I am not claiming a cause. You are.No. I am suggesting a cause that is more likely than any other. You claim my suggestion is unreasonable yet offer no substitute. Since it is the essence of intelligent design to create and organize matter, it stands to reason that where there is organized matter, intelligent design may be involved.
To: Fester Chugabrew
No. I am suggesting a cause that is more likely than any other.
Why is this cause more likely than any other?
Since it is the essence of intelligent design to create and organize matter, it stands to reason that where there is organized matter, intelligent design may be involved.
You are attempting to argue that because a process "may" have occured it is reasonable to believe that the process did occur. That is not a logical inference.
446
posted on
07/26/2006 1:06:19 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
Why is this cause more likely than any other? Because it is the nature of intelligent design to organize matter in such a way as to be intelligible, consistent, and functional, just they way the physical universe in my neighborhood happens to be.
You are attempting to argue that because a process "may" have occurred it is reasonable to believe that the process did occur.
No. I am attempting to argue that because a process "may" have occurred it is reasonable to believe that it may have occurred. Not only so, but intelligent design most certainly does occur, and every time it does, the result is organized matter that performs specific functions.
To: Fester Chugabrew
Because it is the nature of intelligent design to organize matter in such a way as to be intelligible, consistent, and functional, just they way the physical universe in my neighborhood happens to be.
You have yet to explain why a different cause is less likely. As such, your claims are baseless conjecture.
I am attempting to argue that because a process "may" have occurred it is reasonable to believe that it may have occurred.
I have never denied that "intelligent design" may have occured. I have only stated that you have offered no logical reason to conclude that it is the most probable occurance, nor have you even offered an actual mechanism.
448
posted on
07/26/2006 1:41:36 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
You have yet to explain why a different cause is less likely. On the contrary, the likelihood is found in the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions. The essence of intelligent design (creating and arranging matter), the manner in which it becomes manifest (organized matter performing specific functions), and the intelligible nature of the physical universe all make the theory of intelligent design a reasonable one. If you want to argue that the above is unreasonable, or unscientific, then you'll have to provide positive evidence to support your negative argument.
To: Fester Chugabrew
On the contrary, the likelihood is found in the ubiquitous presence of organized matter that performs specific functions.
Why is it less reasonable to assume that a process not incorporating "intelligent design" is responsible for this?
450
posted on
07/26/2006 6:44:14 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
Because it is not the nature of non-intelligence and non design to produce intelligible or purposeful matter and functions. Reasonable people, like reason itself, expect entities to act according to their nature, and also expect, when things act according to their nature, they will be consistent. It is inconsistent with the concept of intelligent design for unintelligible substances and events to develop.
That is not to say one may not dismiss intelligible matter, its organization, and its functions as merely having the appearance of being intelligently designed. Evolutionists do that all the time, but they do not have a scientific argument. It is a personal philosophy whereby the evidence is waved away in favor of personal predilections.
Why is it more reasonable to believe what is written in a telephone book than to disbelieve it?
To: Oztrich Boy; Deadshot Drifter
452
posted on
07/27/2006 10:47:26 AM PDT
by
dread78645
(Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
To: Fester Chugabrew
Because it is not the nature of non-intelligence and non design to produce intelligible or purposeful matter and functions.
How have you determined this?
It is inconsistent with the concept of intelligent design for unintelligible substances and events to develop.
Please demonstrate that this claim is true.
453
posted on
07/27/2006 11:00:17 AM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
"Loss of 45 minutes and 5 IQ points" placemark
454
posted on
07/27/2006 11:43:21 AM PDT
by
dread78645
(Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
To: Dimensio
How have you determined this?By direct observation and experience.
Please demonstrate that this claim is true.
You just did, by creating and posting an intelligible message, using all the necessary elements of the physical universe to do so, many of which elements functioned to your advantage yet apart from your knowledge, all of which elements may be reasonably inferred as intelligently designed.
To: Fester Chugabrew
By direct observation and experience.
Please elaborate on your observations and experience.
You just did, by creating and posting an intelligible message, using all the necessary elements of the physical universe to do so, many of which elements functioned to your advantage yet apart from your knowledge, all of which elements may be reasonably inferred as intelligently designed.
How does this demonstrate that "intelligent design" does not normally produre "unintelligible substances and events" in at least equal proportions?
456
posted on
07/27/2006 4:28:01 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
Please explain why it is more reasonable to believe what is written in a telephone book than to disbelieve it.
To: Fester Chugabrew
Please explain why it is more reasonable to believe what is written in a telephone book than to disbelieve it.
The publishers of such books -- typically the phone company that services the area of distribution -- has a vested interest is providing accurate information. Moreover, a book that frequently contains errors without correction in subsequent volumes will no longer be trusted as accurate. How does this relate to your previous assertions. Also, why did you ignore my previous questions?
458
posted on
07/27/2006 5:52:14 PM PDT
by
Dimensio
(http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
To: Dimensio
So, when you use a phone book, you think to yourself first: "I am going to accept this information as true because the people who provided it have a vested interest in accuracy." I don't think so. As for ignoring your previous questions, I've been answering them steadily over the past few days. Why do you keep asking the same questions over and over? Where have you been?
To: Fester Chugabrew
Regarding the discussion a few days ago, between you and I on the matter of interpreting the Scriptures...there is currently an interesting thread running now on FR, which addresses this very subject, and the article which the post is about, addresses this very subject of interpretation of the Scriptures, and does so in a much better way than I can...might be worthwhile for you to take a look, so as to understand what I was talking about in our discussion...dont know if you will agree or not with the article, but certainly it shows that my thoughts about interpretation are hardly new...Who indeed, in the sole arbiter of which interpretation is the correct one?...I am sure that those who respond to the thread, will have interesting thoughts on this issue, which would involve evolution vs literal creation, as well as a whole host of other differences concerning Biblical interpretation...
Dont know if you would be interested in this or not, just thought I would pass it along...
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1673305/posts
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 401-420, 421-440, 441-460, 461-464 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson