Religions > Atheism > Re: An Intelligent Design Rant for Christopher A. Lee (Re: RefutingPaley -- 200 years And Counting)
| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Christopher A. Lee" |
| Date: |
10 Aug 2004 06:54:01 PM |
| Object: |
Re: An Intelligent Design Rant for Christopher A. Lee (Re: RefutingPaley -- 200 years And Counting) |
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:48:16 +0000 (UTC), Steve Knight
<whooly@sonic.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC),
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
big snip
It would seem then, unless others refute what is found in this post,
that intelligent design is not an irrational position to hold.
Refutations and attempted refutations would be greatly appreciated, as
we can only benefit from coming closer to the truth.
The argument from odds has been played out.
Why is it harder accepting natural biogenesis (like everything
natural in reality) than it is to assume some Magic Being designed
life? Who designed him/her/it?
Besides, the 'design' sucks. Who in their right mind would create a
Carbon based life form? Silicon is much more stable.
It has been explained to him several times that he has no way of
determining design.
I'm a brick mason and I could design a life form a million times
better than some drunk god. Aren't gods supposed to do anything?
I don't know why he keeps addreessing his rubbish to me. I killfiled
him a while back.
He has ignored all my points apart from demanding that I "prove" some
of the conclusions of QM.
Warlord Steve
BAAWA
www.sonic.net/~wooly
.
|
|
| User: "Phil Osopher" |
|
| Title: Re: An Intelligent Design Rant for Christopher A. Lee (Re: RefutingPaley -- 200 years And Counting) |
15 Aug 2004 03:02:39 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:54:01 +0000 (UTC), "Christopher A. Lee"
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:48:16 +0000 (UTC), Steve Knight
<whooly@sonic.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC),
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
big snip
It would seem then, unless others refute what is found in this post,
that intelligent design is not an irrational position to hold.
Refutations and attempted refutations would be greatly appreciated, as
we can only benefit from coming closer to the truth.
The argument from odds has been played out.
Why is it harder accepting natural biogenesis (like everything
natural in reality) than it is to assume some Magic Being designed
life? Who designed him/her/it?
Besides, the 'design' sucks. Who in their right mind would create a
Carbon based life form? Silicon is much more stable.
It has been explained to him several times that he has no way of
determining design.
The I. Kant Syndrome: "I can't, so you can't either!"
.
|
|
|
| User: "John Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: An Intelligent Design Rant for Christopher A. Lee (Re: RefutingPaley -- 200 years And Counting) |
17 Aug 2004 02:58:01 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 15 Aug 2004 20:02:39 +0000 (UTC), Phil Osopher
<phil@address.invalid.easynews.com> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 23:54:01 +0000 (UTC), "Christopher A. Lee"
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 22:48:16 +0000 (UTC), Steve Knight
<whooly@sonic.net> wrote:
On Tue, 10 Aug 2004 17:28:14 +0000 (UTC),
nicodemus-asks@jesusanswers.com (Nico Demusopelous) wrote:
big snip
It would seem then, unless others refute what is found in this post,
that intelligent design is not an irrational position to hold.
Refutations and attempted refutations would be greatly appreciated, as
we can only benefit from coming closer to the truth.
The argument from odds has been played out.
Why is it harder accepting natural biogenesis (like everything
natural in reality) than it is to assume some Magic Being designed
life? Who designed him/her/it?
Besides, the 'design' sucks. Who in their right mind would create a
Carbon based life form? Silicon is much more stable.
It has been explained to him several times that he has no way of
determining design.
The I. Kant Syndrome: "I can't, so you can't either!"
How, then, would you go about determining design? How does designed
life differ from life which is not designed? And if all life is
designed, how do you go about demonstrating this difference? If there
is no non-designed life to serve as a control group, how do you test
your hypothesis? How do you prove your claims? How do you test for
design using the scientific method?
Or is your argument for design more along the lines of, "I don't
understand how this could have come about by purely natural means,
therefore it must have been designed", ala Demski and Behe?
Intelligent Design "theory" is not science. It isn't even really a
theory, since a true scientific theory is based on testable objective
evidence, and ID proponents have none. When you strip away ID's
pseudoscientific trappings, what you're left with is nothing more than
a modernized version of William Paley's long since refuted watchmaker
argument.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
