tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post460110624571720458..comments2024-03-27T14:50:47.345-04:00Comments on <center>Sandwalk</center>: This is what Intelligent Design Creationist apologetics looks likeLarry Moranhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05756598746605455848noreply@blogger.comBlogger94125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-1004012094728093462015-06-05T10:42:33.763-04:002015-06-05T10:42:33.763-04:00pnyikos,
Intelligent design is, undoubtedly, a re...pnyikos,<br /><br />Intelligent design is, undoubtedly, a religious movement. You might sincerely hold to a different kind of intelligent design idea, but the movement is inherently religious. A political movement to try and inflict religion into science curricula.<br /><br />Now, as to your ideas. They don't solve anything. If you're going to come up with the idea that intelligence was involved on how life started on Earth, because you find it implausible that some biological structure could have formed by natural processes, then you're out of luck, because you would be proposing that some beings arose by natural processes elsewhere, and then did those designs. But wouldn't those beings also contain structures that you would find implausible to have arisen by natural processes? If our biological structures required intelligence, why would beings that can do those things not require to be also built by intelligent beings?<br /><br />You see? In the end, you're not solving anything. All you're doing is disguising the idea of gods behind some nebulous idea of prior life forms. But it won't work because, well, it's obvious that all you'd be doing is avoiding the necessary talk about how those beings came to be. In the end you go to gods-of-the-gaps all over again.<br /><br />If you think I'm wrong, please explain clearly. I don't see how you could escape the pathway from "implausibility means further back intelligent beings" until you get something of a god or gods.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-12433917645556135322015-06-02T19:35:00.143-04:002015-06-02T19:35:00.143-04:00Moran, are you laughing because people are ignorin...Moran, are you laughing because people are ignoring your comment and talking only about intelligent design of biological systems? You had written,<br /><em> It's really just an amazing coincidence that all Intelligent Design Creationists believe in gods. There's not a single one who thinks that the universe was designed by a bunch of immaterial, nonsentient, mathematicians who were just fooling around after the bar closed. </em><br /><br />Had my first post to this thread not mysteriously disappeared, ypu might have seen a sort of answer within a few hours of posting your LOL. The gist of it was that there are three main alternatives about our less-than-15 billion year old universe to choose from:<br /><br />1. It is everything that there is or was or ever will be.<br /><br />2. It was designed by an incredibly intelligent and powerful (but not necessarily immaterial) entity or team of entities that did not owe<br />their existence to it.<br /><br />3. There is a mind-bogglingly vast, perhaps infinite, multiverse with an appropriate number of universes, of which ours is just one, exhibiting all manner of possibilities of values for the fundamental physical constants (if there are any such constants at all--some universes may be too chaotic for their constituents to be describable), only a very narrow range being conducive to life.<br /><br />That last clause is what makes 1. implausible in comparison to 3. This is expounded on in a book, <em> Just Six Numbers </em> by Martin Rees, Cambridge Professor and Astronomer Royal of England, and a much more wide-ranging book by Paul Davies, <em> The Goldilocks Enigma </em>. Here is a short synopsis that gives the gist of the argument:<br /><br /><br />http://www.ichthus.info/BigBang/Docs/Just6num.pdf<br /><br />As for 2., it is actually made more plausible than 1, in my opinion, thanks to 3. The idea is that since there is a universe so wonderful that it was possible for intelligent life to arise in it, there may also be a universe vastly older and with more possibilities, in which beings so intelligent and powerful arose naturally, that they could manipulate some of the stuff of their universe (perhaps inside a black hole) to produce universes like ours from much less promising material.pnyikoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592853123275492816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-6431739513247864072015-05-30T11:19:37.491-04:002015-05-30T11:19:37.491-04:00You are giving only the most far out reason why ID...You are giving only the most far out reason why ID is not a religion. You may not be consciously erecting a strawman, but what you are describing is one of at least four ways ID is not a religion; and the last is something so non-religious that the atheist Francis Crick wrote a whole book, _Life Itself_, with it as the centerpiece. It is the hypothesis of directed panspermia, of which he and Orgel wrote an article a number of years earlier in <em> Icarus </em>19 (1973) 341-346. <br />Excerpt: <em> "Could life have started on Earth as a result of infection by microorganisms sent here deliberately by a technological society on another planet, by means of a special long range unmanned spaceship?"</em><br /><br />http://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/ps/access/SCBCCP.pdf<br /><br />Crick made the intelligent design connection in his book, with:<br /><br /> <em> "The senders could well have developed wholly new strains of<br /> microorganisms, specially designed to cope with prebiotic<br /> conditions, though whether it would have been better to try to<br /> combine all the desirable properties within one single type<br /> of organism or to send many different organisms is not<br /> completely clear."</em><br /> --Nobel Laureate Francis Crick, _Life Itself_<br /> Simon and Schuster, 1981, p. 137<br />One possible bit of special design is the bacterial flagellum, its genetically engineered bearers having been sent here ca. 3.5 billion years ago.<br /><br />Behe even mentions Crick's directed panspermia in his book, _Darwin's Black Box_ but since that has only to do with microbes, he puts far greater stress on a much more farfetched idea of the "master cell" having genes for all later major innovations, like the blood clotting cascade.<br /><br />In the following talk.origins post of yesterday evening, I suggested yet another non-religious form of ID to a believer in human-programming UFO -humanoids. It has the raw material for a rather realistic science fiction novel, of "aliens" whose planetary system came within a fraction of a light year to our solar system, enabling mass colonization ca. 550 million years ago, lasting several million years. The Cambrian explosion would then be their lasting legacy.<br /><br />Subject: Re: why no search on venus instead of mars?<br />Date: Fri, 29 May 2015 15:00:17 -0700 (PDT)<br />https://groups.google.com/forum/#!original/talk.origins/UeKYqRPBmLI/vVdlHodtMLgJ<br />Message-ID: b6e0c046-421b-4df3-8181-505e1b10cf87@googlegroups.com<br /><br />Of course, I don't actually take this scenario seriously, but on the other hand, I have posted myriads of lines in talk.origins as to why I think directed panspermia is a more likely hypothesis for how life started ON EARTH than is the general "consensus" that it is due to abiogenesis either on earth or Mars or Venus. I talked about this on another Sandwalk blog, earlier this week, in reply to the ubiquitous Diogenes.<br /><br />pnyikoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02592853123275492816noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51116139726685318542015-05-29T10:20:48.152-04:002015-05-29T10:20:48.152-04:00And the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of ...<i>And the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence if we would expect there to be such evidence, given the existence of the thing. Do you think there would be evidence for god, given his existence?</i><br /><br />Well, there was apparently evidence everywhere, back in the day - pillars of cloud by day and fire by night, seas splitting, plagues, loaves and fishes, rising from the dead, etc., etc. Then as more and more observing equipment becomes available, until you can't jaywalk without Homeland Security knowing about it, The Big Boss suddenly turns into Shy Boy. Can you think of other examples showing the same pattern (lots of oral history written down, followed by opportunity for actual observation with no observations recorded)?<br /><br />I can: Bigfoot, Nessie, leprechauns.... This type of pattern doesn't look good for the Big Guy's existence.judmarchttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03111006189037693272noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-48448736314304567312015-05-29T07:35:57.996-04:002015-05-29T07:35:57.996-04:00Most interesting that the simple request for Joe G...Most interesting that the simple request for Joe G. to produce evidence that Newton wrote of 'chance and necessity' went unanswered.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-24677325061055045302015-05-29T07:32:22.826-04:002015-05-29T07:32:22.826-04:00JAQing off is so honest and logical. A spectacula...JAQing off is so honest and logical. A spectacular example of the vacuous nature of the anti-evolutionist's intellectual toolkit.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-45747669414022817472015-05-29T07:30:58.101-04:002015-05-29T07:30:58.101-04:00I guess that means God is real. How profound.I guess that means God is real. How profound.nmanninghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14767343547942014627noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-68591997793102737282015-05-28T20:58:06.349-04:002015-05-28T20:58:06.349-04:00"Inquirer"
True atheist is someone who ..."Inquirer"<br /><br /><i>True atheist is someone who has scientific proof that excludes the need for the existence of higher being to explain unknowns in nature. Dawkins and others have nothing but wishful thinking that they sell to the naïve as science.</i><br /><br />No idiot. A true atheist doesn't need "scientific proof that excludes the need for the existence of higher being to explain unknowns in nature." Thinking that gods are default explanations for unknowns in nature, as you do, is beyond idiocy.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-10551605487427919342015-05-28T18:23:34.813-04:002015-05-28T18:23:34.813-04:00This is where "true atheism" begins and ...<i>This is where "true atheism" begins and ends. On assumptions that there would be no scientific discoveries if there were no true atheists. </i><br /><br />Firstly, who ever said such a thing?<br />Secondly, nevermind. You make no sense at all. You layer incoherencies and then wrap them into a roll. Who has the time to unravel your nonsensical statements?SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-2304767568514661262015-05-28T16:28:56.055-04:002015-05-28T16:28:56.055-04:00This is where "true atheism" begins and ...This is where "true atheism" begins and ends. On assumptions that there would be no scientific discoveries if there were no true atheists. The problem is that those assumptions have no merit because they are just a big part of the new atheists' propaganda.Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-21497753710459827642015-05-28T08:47:19.985-04:002015-05-28T08:47:19.985-04:00Really?
Give a few examples that others can also ...Really?<br /><br />Give a few examples that others can also laugh not just me.Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-18899172578725283192015-05-28T06:25:44.602-04:002015-05-28T06:25:44.602-04:00True atheist is someone who has scientific proof t...<i>True atheist is someone who has scientific proof that excludes the need for the existence of higher being to explain unknowns in nature.</i><br /><br />Then unfortunately for you, all of human experience and learning is converging on True Atheism. Shall we compare the explanations for "unknowns in nature" of today with those from 100, 500, and 1000 years ago? Shall we consider how much of our modern fact-based understanding of the world comes from theology vs scientific research?<br /><br />As is typical for the average god-goggled commenter here, you might want to think a little deeper about your ideas before posting.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14867187036533865732015-05-28T05:39:50.571-04:002015-05-28T05:39:50.571-04:00True atheist is someone who has scientific proof t...True atheist is someone who has scientific proof that excludes the need for the existence of higher being to explain unknowns in nature. Dawkins and others have nothing but wishful thinking that they sell to the naïve as science.Jasshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00012083978513644307noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-33182759138691951282015-05-27T16:45:33.298-04:002015-05-27T16:45:33.298-04:00ID is not religion because they can believe in hum...ID is not religion because they can believe in human-programming UFO -humanoids. And that is the reason why we should take them seriously?Tuomo "Squirrel" Hämäläinenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11543274707131718316noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-54735179664283734642015-05-26T20:15:03.363-04:002015-05-26T20:15:03.363-04:00Newbie, Dawkins has claimed many times that he is ...Newbie, Dawkins has claimed many times that he is an atheist. But most atheists put a fair bit of thought into the god question and almost inevitably conclude they cannot be 100% certain of anything in this universe, let alone god. It is often those who do not think so much about these matters who are nominally or deeply religious.<br /><br />The reason the atheist cannot be certain there is no god, is because any god (ie ominpotent entity) could arrange that it be absolutely invisible to human senses, and thus appear not to exist when it really does. Such is the peril of dealing with a hypothetical omnipotent entity. This is why spending much time on the god question is a waste of time, except to point out how ridiculous most people's beliefs are, and to prevent the spread of irrationality whenever possible.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-8079158041693148682015-05-26T17:14:38.277-04:002015-05-26T17:14:38.277-04:00I'm afraid that compelling evidence doesn'...I'm afraid that compelling evidence doesn't make a scientist certain. It just makes him or her assign a very low probability. As for what people thing, have you thought about looking for other statements by Dawkins? Maybe he says somewhere that he's an atheist. Of course just because he's an atheist doesn't make him a true atheist. A true atheist seems to be rather like a true Scotsman.<br /><br />And the absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence if we would expect there to be such evidence, given the existence of the thing. Do you think there would be evidence for god, given his existence?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-22590391565935054272015-05-26T17:10:07.655-04:002015-05-26T17:10:07.655-04:00Well, if Carl Sagan thought that an atheist had to...Well, if Carl Sagan thought that an atheist had to be one convinced with absolute certainty, then that's what he meant when he talked about atheism. That does not mean that everybody today agrees to that way of defining atheism. Most atheists today mean atheist in the sense that they're not convinced that there's gods, not that they know with certainty that there's no gods. It's important for you to learn what it means to the person you're arguing with.<br /><br />For example, as of most recent experience, people who call themselves just "agnostic," tend to be arrogant imbeciles who give the idea of a god a lot of weight. They even write "God" with a capital "G." That does not mean that I will think that these guys who call themselves mostly atheists, but clarify that they are agnostic atheists (or soft atheists), are the same as those arrogant imbeciles (they're not). I check the context and the people I'm talking to.<br /><br />So that's my message. Make sure that you understand who you're talking to.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-29149432738080739852015-05-26T16:16:31.119-04:002015-05-26T16:16:31.119-04:00I couldn’t possible know what other people think a...I couldn’t possible know what other people think and even more so scientists. I’m glad someone has that ability. <br /> I quoted the entire article to avoid the usual counterargument of quote mining. <br /><br />But I started off on this thread with the quote that <i>true atheist is someone who is certain that God doesn’t exist because he has compelling evidence against the existence of God.</i><br /><br />I don’t think what someone else thinks constitutes as compelling evidence more so if that someone claims to be a scientist.Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-52876622896930549402015-05-26T13:45:04.129-04:002015-05-26T13:45:04.129-04:00Newbie,
First, if you want to make a point, don&#...Newbie,<br /><br />First, if you want to make a point, don't quote many paragraphs of which only one little bit is relevant. Second, you misunderstand how scientists think and speak. Nothing is 100% certain, only certain enough for all practical purposes. "Very very low" is as close to a probability of zero as we ever get. Dawkins is an atheist.John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-15185760590681228532015-05-26T12:44:24.219-04:002015-05-26T12:44:24.219-04:00"Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God do..."Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist<br />He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.<br /> He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.<br />The two men were taking part in a public “dialogue” at Oxford University at the end of a week which has seen bitter debate about the role of religion in public life in Britain.<br /> The discussion, in Sir Christopher Wren’s Sheldonian Theatre, attracted attention from around the world.<br />As well as being relayed to two other theatres, it was streamed live on the internet and promoted fierce debate on the Twitter social network.<br /> For an hour and 20 minutes the two men politely discussed "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin" touching on the meaning of consciousness, the evolution of human language – and Dr Williams’s beard.<br /> For much of the discussion the Archbishop sat quietly listening to Prof Dawkins’s explanations of human evolution.<br />At one point he told the professor that he was “inspired” by “elegance” of the professor’s explanation for the origins of life – and agreed with much of it.<br />Prof Dawkins told him: “What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”<br />Dr Williams replied that he “entirely agreed” with the “beauty” of Prof Dawkins’s argument but added: “I’m not talking about God as an extra who you shoehorn on to that.”<br /><b><i>There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.<br />The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.</i></b><br /> <br />An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”<br />Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.<br />“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.<br />He also said that he believed it was highly likely that there was life on other planets.<br />At one point he discussion strayed onto the theoretical question of whether a traditional cut throat razor could be described as a more complicated thing than an electric shaver.<br />There was laughter as the Archbishop said he would attempt an answer before adding: “Not that I know much about razors.”<br />During a wide-ranging discussion the Archbishop also said that he believed that human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless “in the image of God”.<br />He also said that the explanation for the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis could not be taken literally.<br />“The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, they were nonetheless not inspired to do 21st Century physics,” he said.<br />When Prof Dawkins suggested that he believed the Pope took a rather more literal interpretation of the origins of humans, the Archbishop joked: “I will ask him some time.”<br /> <br />It is worth noting that Richard Dawkins said that he less than certain of his beliefs and not that."<br /> <br />Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-63324886728770765582015-05-26T11:04:23.567-04:002015-05-26T11:04:23.567-04:00Are you certain that the pope shits in the woods?Are you certain that the pope shits in the woods?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-51462270154494099602015-05-26T09:41:29.803-04:002015-05-26T09:41:29.803-04:00Are you certain that Richard Dawkins calls himself...Are you certain that Richard Dawkins calls himself an atheist?<br />Newbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-74349387485477442582015-05-26T06:56:26.735-04:002015-05-26T06:56:26.735-04:00It's of course a poor definition. It is not po...It's of course a poor definition. It is not possible to be certain that god does not exist, and the number of atheists making such a claim would be quite low. Of course, there are compelling reasons to think that the god almost all christians have ever imagined does not exist, but one would require the intellect of a seven year old to believe in that god anyway.. But then come along the sophisticated theologians to advise that god is something else altogether. The god concept becomes immune to evidence, either for or against.SRMhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07299706694667706149noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-9136425983798236152015-05-25T23:07:38.579-04:002015-05-25T23:07:38.579-04:00By that definition, Richard Dawkins isn't an a...By that definition, Richard Dawkins isn't an atheist. Are you certain it's a good definition?John Harshmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06705501480675917237noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37148773.post-14036911917378939872015-05-25T22:12:12.125-04:002015-05-25T22:12:12.125-04:00"An atheist is someone who is certain that Go..."An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence."- Carl SaganNewbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12112647387206975751noreply@blogger.com