View previous topic | View next topic

Darwin

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

eggshaped
48423.  Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:01 pm Reply with quote

Gray, I think you should get to writing a book with a reasoned argument against ID.

I'd pay 20 quid for a book which put across the Dawkins mantra without his sixth-form-debating-team style reasonings.

...well, I'd get it on paperback at least.

 
djgordy
48425.  Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:13 pm Reply with quote

The argument against ID is simple. There was a long running (over 1300 posts) about it on one of the BBC boards, into which I stuck my oar every so often and I made the point repeatedly.

ID is self contradictary. The ID argument is that intelligent and complex beings like ourselves could only have arisen through the intervention of an intelligent agent. But since that agent must itself be intelligent and complex then there must have been a prior intelligent designer for that agent, and so on ad infinitum.

If the IDers say that the designer arose through some other means other than being designed then they have to admit the possibility that we did not arise through the intervention of a Designer.


Last edited by djgordy on Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:39 pm; edited 1 time in total

 
eggshaped
48426.  Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:26 pm Reply with quote

If I was an ID-iot (and I'm not), I would claim that god trancends time, so need not be created.

In fact, I'd probably find some biblical rhetoric to back myself up as well.

 
Quaintly Ignorant
48427.  Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:32 pm Reply with quote

That's where ID-iots ( :-) ) differ from creationuts. ID-iots do not specify whom the intelligent creator is but djgordy is right, eventually logic brings us to a point: who created the creator? It is here where their theory lets them down and they are exposed as the creationuts they truly are.

 
eggshaped
48428.  Mon Jan 30, 2006 5:33 pm Reply with quote

For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Isaiah 57:15

What say thee to that, heathen?

 
samivel
48438.  Mon Jan 30, 2006 6:33 pm Reply with quote

I say 'Bollocks"! ;)

 
djgordy
48444.  Mon Jan 30, 2006 7:37 pm Reply with quote

eggshaped wrote:
If I was an ID-iot (and I'm not), I would claim that god trancends time, so need not be created.

In fact, I'd probably find some biblical rhetoric to back myself up as well.


As Quaintly Ignorant says, the IDers can't specify God as the Designer because then the 'theory' stops masquerading as science and becomes explicitly religious. Which means that it cannot be taught as science.

 
dr.bob
48465.  Tue Jan 31, 2006 5:00 am Reply with quote

But it cannot be taught as science anyway because it's not scientific. The fundamental principles of science are measurability and testability, yet ID postulates that life was created by something that is inherently unmeasurable and therefore can't be tested.

But, of course, I'm preaching to the choir here.

I would like to express my sincere thanks for teaching me the term ID-iot, though. Priceless :)

 
Caradoc
48860.  Wed Feb 01, 2006 5:57 pm Reply with quote

eggshaped wrote:
For thus saith the high and lofty One that inhabiteth eternity, whose name is Holy; I dwell in the high and holy place, with him also that is of a contrite and humble spirit, to revive the spirit of the humble, and to revive the heart of the contrite ones.

Isaiah 57:15

What say thee to that, heathen?


Well they would say that, wouldn't they.

 
Barsabbas
828160.  Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:27 am Reply with quote

Back to Darwin. I believe there was a question about who first came up with the theory of evolution (or something along those lines) can anyone remember the answer? If so please post.

Thank you,


Barsabbas.

 
Barsabbas
828161.  Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:29 am Reply with quote

I must also say on the Dawkins matter, I think he is the type of person who would believe in god or at the very least say god bless you to someone.

 
Jenny
828191.  Fri Jul 01, 2011 9:11 am Reply with quote

I think you may be thinking of Alfred Russel Wallace.

Barsabbas wrote:
I must also say on the Dawkins matter, I think he is the type of person who would believe in god or at the very least say god bless you to someone.


You haven't read The God Delusion have you?

And welcome to the forums, Barsabbas :-)

 
Zebra57
828358.  Fri Jul 01, 2011 7:22 pm Reply with quote

Welcome to the Forum Barsabbas

 
Barsabbas
828392.  Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:56 am Reply with quote

Thank you Jenny and Zebra57 for welcoming me to the Forum.
Also thank you Jenny for providing useful information :) and no I haven't read it although I may just go buy it......

 
Jenny
828492.  Sat Jul 02, 2011 3:55 pm Reply with quote

It's worth a read, though IMHO he has a drearily conventional notion of God.

 

Page 3 of 4
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group