[quote]RATTLEHEAD wrote:
How is it proof of ‘Intelligent Design’?
[/quote]
It doesn’t.
[/quote]
I agree it doesn’t. What gives intelligent design theories probability is the tremendous mathematical improbability of accident. However, the only viable counter claim to it, is the many worlds hypothesis, which I don’t believe is a strong objection in the end. Yes, it’s mathematically possible, in that a model can be created in which it could maybe possibly happen, but there is not a single solitary shred of evidence of any chance of actuality. Science requires evidence. Further, it’s the mathematical probability is much smaller than that of intelligent design.
It of course helps if one understands what the intelligent design theory actually is claiming, versus most ad hoc bro-philosophy interpretations of it.
However, the Cambrian explosion is no more a slam dunk for Intelligent Design then any other event in the universe. [/quote]
The many worlds hypothesis did not arise out of a need to explain evolution. It arose out of fundamental physics.
[/quote]
Yes it rose out of a need to explain quantum physics. It’s a theory based on absolutely no evidence and created to reconcile mathematical anomalies. Same with dark matter, Schwarzschild wormholes, string theory and dozens of other speculative theories.
[/quote]
It’s not a theory.
[/quote]
It didn’t arise to explain anything. It was stumbled upon and is no more than an untested mathematical possibility.
Most calculations I have seen put the odds at 1 in 4 x 10^17 chance of happening accident.
[/quote]
And they are darts launched by blind men at invisible targets in the pitch dark. The odds that the universe would be as it is are incalculable without our old friends, grossly monumental assumption and groundless guessing.
And holding the variable of God’s existence in the positive is an enormous assumption and thus nullifies the calculation. Given that the goal is to argue that God exists by showing that the physical variables of the universe must have been “set” by God, surely you can identify the logical fallacy in assuming god’s existence as a parameter.
In other words, I’m sure you know that I won’t accept a calculation of probability which assumes God’s existence as evidence that God created the physical variables of the universe. Which renders the probability meaningless, as I said in my first post.
Neither, because neither set of odds is calculable, or even exists at all.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, there is no possible universe in which “man was made from dust by the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible” is included among the “whats right is right and people should just know it” category (not any more than any other creation myth, anyway), so the quote doesn’t even apply in a narrow sense.
[/quote]
Man is essentially made from ‘dust’. The raw materials that make up your physical existence will spend most of it’s existence not living. Already our physical make up has spent a lot more time existing in a non-living state than it has in a living state.
I would say science and the Bible agree on this point, we’re made of dirt.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, there is no possible universe in which “man was made from dust by the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible” is included among the “whats right is right and people should just know it” category (not any more than any other creation myth, anyway), so the quote doesn’t even apply in a narrow sense.
[/quote]
Man is essentially made from ‘dust’. The raw materials that make up your physical existence will spend most of it’s existence not living. Already our physical make up has spent a lot more time existing in a non-living state than it has in a living state.
I would say science and the Bible agree on this point, we’re made of dirt.[/quote]
The material is not the point of contention–dust or mud or clay is fine as a paraphrase. The point of contention has to do with god–a particular, Judeo-Christian God–clumping it together and breathing on it.
If you would like to offer positive proof for the Genesis account of creation–proof that is parallel to the Dawkinsian kind I’ve described–then you’ll be the first to ever accept the challenge.
Edit: In other words, beat the evolutionary scientists, Hindus, Greeks, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, and thousands of folk-traditionists. What specific positive evidence of your exact account of creation makes you right and them wrong?
[quote]honest_lifter wrote:
For those that believe in the Theory of Evolution, what explanation can be given for the Cambrian Explosion? If, in fact the Cambrian Explosion cannot be explained with Darwinism/Evolution, what other conclusion can/must be drawn?[/quote]
There are a lot of potential solutions. And we all know that “explosion” is not the best term because it’s not like all of these creatures suddenly just showed up all at once. These were changes over millions of years which, while rapid would still be consistent with evolution. There was also life prior to this period so I don’t quite understand how this could be used to show as proof for intelligent design.
That evolution happened is a fact in the Stephen J. Gould sense, in which it would be perverse to deny it.
[/quote]
The same Stephen J. Gould that proposed “punctuated equilibrium” to help explain the lack of transitional fossils? That Stephen J. Gould?
[/quote]
Do you understand punctuated equilibrium?
It was Goulds way of saying that you need a selective event to occur in order for species to diverge/change, because some wouldn’t be able to survive as well. He wasn’t bringing anything new to the table, just playing with words.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
What is your specific, positive evidence for the claim that man exists because god fashioned him from clay and breathed life into him?[/quote]
‘…men should behave according to an absolute moral standard, one that transcends logic. What’s right is right, and what’s wrong is wrong. The difference between good and bad and between right and wrong are givens, not arguments subject to discussion or justification, and a man should know the difference.’ - Nitobe Inazo Bushido: The Soul of Japan[/quote]
That kind of thing doesn’t fly in this kind of discussion.
We are talking about what we can discover or reason to be, and what we can discover and reason not to be. Old Nitobe’s mushy and meaningless tautologies don’t carry water across that particular desert.
To put this differently, these discussions tend to follow a predictable pattern:
A discussion of theism/atheism begins in evidentiary and logical terms. As with the present case, this is often initiated by a theist.
The case for Judeo-Christian theism is subjected to evidentiary and logical scrutiny.
Judeo-Christian theism is (groundlessly) claimed to be exempt from evidentiary and logical scrutiny.
Once the criticisms become sharp and precise, an answer like the one you’ve given becomes inevitable. Now, I wouldn’t want to profess to believe something which stands on a foundation of such mealy quicksand. But if I did, and I knew that I was always going to end up with step 3, I’d avoid step 1.
[/quote]
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
By the way, there is no possible universe in which “man was made from dust by the God of the Judeo-Christian Bible” is included among the “whats right is right and people should just know it” category (not any more than any other creation myth, anyway), so the quote doesn’t even apply in a narrow sense.
[/quote]
Man is essentially made from ‘dust’. The raw materials that make up your physical existence will spend most of it’s existence not living. Already our physical make up has spent a lot more time existing in a non-living state than it has in a living state.
I would say science and the Bible agree on this point, we’re made of dirt.[/quote]
The material is not the point of contention–dust or mud or clay is fine as a paraphrase. The point of contention has to do with god–a particular, Judeo-Christian God–clumping it together and breathing on it.
If you would like to offer positive proof for the Genesis account of creation–proof that is parallel to the Dawkinsian kind I’ve described–then you’ll be the first to ever accept the challenge.
Edit: In other words, beat the evolutionary scientists, Hindus, Greeks, Zoroastrians, Wiccans, and thousands of folk-traditionists. What specific positive evidence of your exact account of creation makes you right and them wrong?[/quote]
This has never been done no matter how many times you ask it.
Pat,
If I understand things correctly, I see that based on metaphysics you’re able to come to the conclusion that a God must exist, how do you bridge the gap to be able to say the Christian God is the one that exists and not a different one? or is this not what you say/believe?
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
I’m not sure why the idea that a God designed all this… And then set the wheels in motion of evolution to happen is really all that controversial…
Seems just as likely as all the universe just kind of, happening one day long, long ago…
[/quote]
Because the majority of those who believe in creationism lack the education and intellect to understand what evolution actually is. I mean, you have people who believe the Earth is a few thousand years old. Do you think they have the requisite education and even brain wiring to comprehend evolution?
What smh is asking for can be easily found on several creationist websites.
[/quote]
No it can’t.
But let’s test the theory. Look at what I’m specifically challenging theists to come up with–positive evidence in support of the positive claim, analogous to the evolutionary biologist’s claim of abiogenesis and natural selection, that, and I quote, “the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being. The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden, and there He put the man whom He had formed.”
Now, link me to this specific positive evidence of these specific claims. You don’t have to make the argument yourself–send me to somebody reputable who’s made the argument.
Just make sure it’s actually what I’m talking about, and not just a list of creationist equivocations. It should offer direct positive evidence* for the specified claim. Because why make a claim that can’t be evidenced?
Edit: Note that I’m not asking for proof. I’m asking for the equivalent of Dawkins’ parade of physical and experimental evidence. I’m asking for something that you can show me or prove to me that says, “See, this adds credibility to my otherwise meaningless claim.”
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just make sure it’s actually what I’m talking about, and not just a list of creationist equivocations. It should offer direct positive evidence* for the specified claim. Because why make a claim that can’t be evidenced?
Edit: Note that I’m not asking for proof. I’m asking for the equivalent of Dawkins’ parade of physical and experimental evidence. I’m asking for something that you can show me or prove to me that says, “See, this adds credibility to my otherwise meaningless claim.”[/quote]
To do so would be a sin. It would be heresy. Blasphemy. Asking God for proof He exists would be an incredible act of hubris. Not even Jesus stooped so low to prove he was the son of God.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just make sure it’s actually what I’m talking about, and not just a list of creationist equivocations. It should offer direct positive evidence* for the specified claim. Because why make a claim that can’t be evidenced?
Edit: Note that I’m not asking for proof. I’m asking for the equivalent of Dawkins’ parade of physical and experimental evidence. I’m asking for something that you can show me or prove to me that says, “See, this adds credibility to my otherwise meaningless claim.”[/quote]
To do so would be a sin. It would be heresy. Blasphemy. Asking God for proof He exists would be an incredible act of hubris. Not even Jesus stooped so low to prove he was the son of God. [/quote]
If this is what you want to go with, then go ahead with it, but whoever takes this route should never again imply that their worldview is a reasoned one, or that it can stand alongside worldviews that follow from evidence.
“I am the truth, but you don’t EVER ask me to prove I’m the truth.” OK, if you say so.
[quote]smh_23 wrote:
Just make sure it’s actually what I’m talking about, and not just a list of creationist equivocations. It should offer direct positive evidence* for the specified claim. Because why make a claim that can’t be evidenced?
Edit: Note that I’m not asking for proof. I’m asking for the equivalent of Dawkins’ parade of physical and experimental evidence. I’m asking for something that you can show me or prove to me that says, “See, this adds credibility to my otherwise meaningless claim.”[/quote]
To do so would be a sin. It would be heresy. Blasphemy. Asking God for proof He exists would be an incredible act of hubris. Not even Jesus stooped so low to prove he was the son of God. [/quote]
Miraculous acts such as walking on water, turning water into wine and dying and coming back to life would perhaps by used as to prove he was the son of God.