Alaska Darin Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 Just because it is an internet message board, does not mean that people have to be rude. True, I have learned to expect it ... example: Darin. I have learned to expect that he will be an ass no matter what. Yet it still doesnt make it right or respectable. I'm not rude to everyone. Try and figure out why. Yes, yes Darin I know ... my opinion matters just as little as everyone elses.Listen man. Im sure there is a book out there that someone could bring into a conversation that you have not read ... is that not very plausible? 846306[/snapback] If it's one of the great and lauded works of fiction, the answer would be no - and I'd read them all by the time I was your age.
Bungee Jumper Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 Actually it demonstrates your lack of knowledge. The word science, in it's essential and perennial definion (not the nominal Merriam Webster meaning), is knowledge of laws and principles. It comes from the word scire in Latin, and it commonly called scientia. Evolution has no principle, it is a hypothesis that has developed into theory with micro-evolution as the horse it uses to change it from an hypothesis to a theory. Since you want to tell me how intelligent design proponents argue why not use the actual argument first and then analyze it. Intelligent Design isn't based on theory, but on the principles of causality: material, formal, final, etc.. You are totally incorrect. There is inductive and deductive logic. Intelligent design comes from inductive, not deductive logic. You're argumentation starts from deduction, where as intelligent design starts at induction and works together in theodicy through deduction. Why don't you learn this stuff before you fulfill the statement of Lincoln who tells us that those who open their mouths dispel all doubt they are a fool. Rigorous science? Hardly: no proof of macroevolution, not one missing link that is verifiable, etc.. Yet Darwin states that if enough missing links are not found his belief is false. You should read Darwin. Read how Darwin says all his hypothesii are incorrect without enough verification of changing of species. Oh please, you haven't a clue between the logical application of induction and deduction and you are going to own someone? Intelligent design is very simple (although this is an over-simplification): For every design there is a Designer There is a design in the world with definite intelligence The cause cannot go to infinite regression because of the finiteness of matter, and matter has not of itself neither intelligence nor design by itself Hence the Designer must be without matter for all matter is in contigent existence There are other ones that maybe might help you: All motion requires something something to move it and give it an impetus There cannot be an infinite regression in motion for nothing in the material universe can be both the mover and the one moved Hence there must be an unmoved Mover to create motion It's teliological principles based on induction, whereas evolution has no proof to be valid, still remains without necessary evidence to prove anything close to conclusive, and lacks transitory species (even presently there are no species in transition). It's funny how so many liberals deny Intelligent Design, then tell us how the environment is destroyed when men fool around with the design of the environment with pollution, and mass hunting of animals which cause ecological disasters. Why not the survival of the fittest? Darwin said we would just adapt and evolve so bring it on ecological disasters, bring it on evolution, we'll just grow into angels. Many ID deniers also live for evolution yet cannot find the reason for homosexuals who seem to be increasing in number which add nothing to the species surviving. Can someone explain that to me? 846215[/snapback] Why do people insist on arguing with me when they have absolutely no idea what they're talking about?
EC-Bills Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 Many ID deniers also live for evolution yet cannot find the reason for homosexuals who seem to be increasing in number which add nothing to the species surviving. 846215[/snapback] Okay, it may be me being a bit groggy this morning, but you are claiming there is no evolutionary reason for homoesexuals. Correct? If so, what would be the ID explanation for homosexuals and who designed them?
Alaska Darin Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 Okay, it may be me being a bit groggy this morning, but you are claiming there is no evolutionary reason for homoesexuals. Correct? If so, what would be the ID explanation for homosexuals and who designed them? 846390[/snapback] God loves an abomination?
Bungee Jumper Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 Okay, it may be me being a bit groggy this morning, but you are claiming there is no evolutionary reason for homoesexuals. Correct? If so, what would be the ID explanation for homosexuals and who designed them? 846390[/snapback] The explanation is typically something like: "We can't know the motivations of the Designer; the fact that he designed them as such is explanation enough."
daquixers_is_back Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 Don't diss Darin. True he's a smartass, but the difference between a smartass and a dumbass is a smartass actually knows what he's talking about I never "diss" Darin. In fact I always try to be nice to everyone. I don't mean to be rude or any disrespect, but in this case you don't know wtf you are talking about. There is a book It is called Don Quixote (i may have misspeeled, but i apologize since drinking and typing is bad, mmmkay). Its not some obscure text written by Ann Coulter. Its like kind of a classic of Western literature Read the book Understand the book Formulate your own opinion...yes my friend, think for yourself! Yes, and my point is this. I could bring up a reference from a book (not any obscure text) and Im sure there is a book out out there that you dont know. Then I could simply say "Well there is a book and you should have read it ... blah blah blah ... and because you havent had the chance to read it. Well then. Your an idiot" Does that make any sense to you?
daquixers_is_back Posted November 23, 2006 Posted November 23, 2006 I'm not rude to everyone. Try and figure out why. If it's one of the great and lauded works of fiction, the answer would be no - and I'd read them all by the time I was your age. 846334[/snapback] You have already given your explanation. Becaue I am an "idiot" (according to you) ... and you the smarter one, has decided to not ignore me, but instead to respond to whatever I may say, in some sort of smartass remark. Because thats the smarter and more mature thing to do. Well hey if thats what you want, they go for it. Its just pathetic though.
UConn James Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 Yes, and my point is this. I could bring up a reference from a book (not any obscure text) and Im sure there is a book out out there that you dont know. Then I could simply say "Well there is a book and you should have read it ... blah blah blah ... and because you havent had the chance to read it. Well then. Your an idiot" Does that make any sense to you? 846483[/snapback] Sorry, but the fact that you've never ever heard of Don Quixote before now says a lot about your level of attention, education, curiousity, and bridging from that, your intelligence. And no, I don't mean this as a 'diss' --- just as a sad fact not exclusively reserved to you. But whatever, your English teacher can give everyone A's so you can all have intact self-esteems, go to Yale, start your own charities that garner 5 turkeys for a soup kitchen and go on the Today show for it (if you are attractive), then sulk in the corner when you find out that real life doesn't meet your expectations.
mike1011 Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 Okay, it may be me being a bit groggy this morning, but you are claiming there is no evolutionary reason for homoesexuals. Correct? If so, what would be the ID explanation for homosexuals and who designed them? 846390[/snapback] With the moral liberals such as Darin, Bungee and yourself it's no wonder decent conversation degrades itself to sarcasm. Did it ever occur to you that people who believe in ID believe that homosexuality isn't created as a genetic disposition, just like murderers. Do you guys even think things through or does watching insane amounts of TV warp the intellectual process? Bear in mind ID does not equal anti-evolution, the world was made in 6 days, etc.. It doesn't mean any of that. -Aristotle who believed in ID and he believed the world always existed -Protestant fundamentalists who believe ID believe the world was created in 6 days, -Catholic Scholastic Age IDs believed in the beginning of the world without definition of the literal understanding of a 6 day creation -Some of the Neo-Scholastics of the 20th century believed in ID and evolution only on the reasonable conclusion that the lesser which evolved into something greater must come from a pull from above (God) rather than a push from below (naturalistic evolution). This is called Deistic evolution. None of the following is contradictory, yet they run in certain contraries as to the specifics.
daquixers_is_back Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 Sorry, but the fact that you've never ever heard of Don Quixote before now says a lot about your level of attention, education, curiousity, and bridging from that, your intelligence. And no, I don't mean this as a 'diss' --- just as a sad fact not exclusively reserved to you. But whatever, your English teacher can give everyone A's so you can all have intact self-esteems, go to Yale, start your own charities that garner 5 turkeys for a soup kitchen and go on the Today show for it (if you are attractive), then sulk in the corner when you find out that real life doesn't meet your expectations. 846710[/snapback] I actually agree with your post completely. I received mostly A's - B's in English and currently have somewhere above a 92 in my current English (open seminar) class in college ... none of my teachers or profesors (that I can remember) ever had us read Don Quixote or mention it. On the other hand, whether the book Don Quixote would have really raised my knowledge level much higher is an entirely different question.
Alaska Darin Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 With the moral liberals such as Darin, Bungee and yourself it's no wonder decent conversation degrades itself to sarcasm. Did it ever occur to you that people who believe in ID believe that homosexuality isn't created as a genetic disposition, just like murderers. Do you guys even think things through or does watching insane amounts of TV warp the intellectual process? Bear in mind ID does not equal anti-evolution, the world was made in 6 days, etc.. It doesn't mean any of that. -Aristotle who believed in ID and he believed the world always existed -Protestant fundamentalists who believe ID believe the world was created in 6 days, -Catholic Scholastic Age IDs believed in the beginning of the world without definition of the literal understanding of a 6 day creation -Some of the Neo-Scholastics of the 20th century believed in ID and evolution only on the reasonable conclusion that the lesser which evolved into something greater must come from a pull from above (God) rather than a push from below (naturalistic evolution). This is called Deistic evolution. None of the following is contradictory, yet they run in certain contraries as to the specifics. 846718[/snapback] Whooooooooooooooooooo HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I'M A MORAL LIBERAL! Who created God, zealot? Oh, I know. He's just always been there.
Alaska Darin Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 You have already given your explanation. Becaue I am an "idiot" (according to you) ... and you the smarter one, has decided to not ignore me, but instead to respond to whatever I may say, in some sort of smartass remark. Because thats the smarter and more mature thing to do. Well hey if thats what you want, they go for it. Its just pathetic though. 846485[/snapback] That another judgement, spirtual guy?
X. Benedict Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 It's teliological principles based on induction, whereas evolution has no proof to be valid, still remains without necessary evidence to prove anything close to conclusive, and lacks transitory species (even presently there are no species in transition). It's funny how so many liberals deny Intelligent Design, then tell us how the environment is destroyed when men fool around with the design of the environment with pollution, and mass hunting of animals which cause ecological disasters. Why not the survival of the fittest? Darwin said we would just adapt and evolve so bring it on ecological disasters, bring it on evolution, we'll just grow into angels. Many ID deniers also live for evolution yet cannot find the reason for homosexuals who seem to be increasing in number which add nothing to the species surviving. Can someone explain that to me? 846215[/snapback] Why would anyone insist on teleological causes? What is the teleology of the human appendix? And just so you are on sound theological ground, angels don't procreate and therefore are not subject to Natural Selection.
UConn James Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 Whooooooooooooooooooo HOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! I'M A MORAL LIBERAL! Who created God, zealot? Oh, I know. He's just always been there. 846790[/snapback] Congratulations, AD. It must be a proud day for you. You may have something there. If God and his processes are so well designed, then it begs the question... who was his Intelligent Designer?
UConn James Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 What is the teleology of the human appendix? 846797[/snapback] It used to be an internal direct-line to God, like the red phones b/w the Kremlin and the White House. God got too many "Could you do something about this athlete's foot I've got?" calls and decided to phase it out.
X. Benedict Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 It used to be an internal direct-line to God, like the red phones b/w the Kremlin and the White House. God got too many "Could you do something about this athlete's foot I've got?" calls and decided to phase it out. 846803[/snapback] Prehistoric version of Vonage?
X. Benedict Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 Bear in mind ID does not equal anti-evolution, the world was made in 6 days, etc.. It doesn't mean any of that. -Aristotle who believed in ID and he believed the world always existed -Protestant fundamentalists who believe ID believe the world was created in 6 days, -Catholic Scholastic Age IDs believed in the beginning of the world without definition of the literal understanding of a 6 day creation -Some of the Neo-Scholastics of the 20th century believed in ID and evolution only on the reasonable conclusion that the lesser which evolved into something greater must come from a pull from above (God) rather than a push from below (naturalistic evolution). This is called Deistic evolution. None of the following is contradictory, yet they run in certain contraries as to the specifics. 846718[/snapback] Intelligent Design claims to be a scientific theory. To claim that the scholastics believed in ID is quite inaccurate. Science for the scholastics included only deduction - Aquinas's causal argument was deductive but it was not an argument from design. The Prime mover was not by necessity a "designer" There are medieval writers that clearly believe in God as a designer but never claimed it met the standard for medieval science which was limited only to deduction.
mike1011 Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 Intelligent Design claims to be a scientific theory. To claim that the scholastics believed in ID is quite inaccurate. Science for the scholastics included only deduction - Aquinas's causal argument was deductive but it was not an argument from design. The Prime mover was not by necessity a "designer" There are medieval writers that clearly believe in God as a designer but never claimed it met the standard for medieval science which was limited only to deduction. 846809[/snapback] Science in the scholastic age was deductive and inductive. Science, according to the perennial definition had it's peak in theology and philosophy. Aquinas's doctrine on motion to the First Mover is inductive, Aquinas's doctrine on the plenitude of being is inductive, and Aquinas's doctrine on final cause is inductive. The only one's that are deductive is matter and contingent being (proofs 2 & 3 as they are commonly known). His causal argument from from matter was not design, but from final cause it most certainly was, which shows you to be in error when you say I was inaccurate that the scholastics did not believe in ID: The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world. We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result. Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end. Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. -Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#2 Article #3 And as St. Thomas would respond: And thus is the reply to the rest of your argument. St. Thomas Aquinas was not the only scholastic or the father on the scholastic age, there are many other writings, but having 5 minutes to reply and knowing his writings very well I know where to find it online. St. Albert the Great, Scotus, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bonaventure, et al. used inductive and deductive logic on the proofs of God.
EC-Bills Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 With the moral liberals such as Darin, Bungee and yourself it's no wonder decent conversation degrades itself to sarcasm. 846718[/snapback] That's funny. I thought I was asking a legitimate question. But I guess I am a moral liberal now becaue I was asking a question on ID based off your words. Did it ever occur to you that people who believe in ID believe that homosexuality isn't created as a genetic disposition... 846718[/snapback] I realize what a portion of the religous community thinks. But unlike some these folks, I actually know gay people, who in turn know more gay people. The majority of them will tell you they were born that way. , just like murderers. Do you guys even think things through or does watching insane amounts of TV warp the intellectual process? 846718[/snapback] You're right. It must be the TV, because it is simply not possible that I can think for myself and ask questions.
X. Benedict Posted November 24, 2006 Posted November 24, 2006 Science in the scholastic age was deductive and inductive. Science, according to the perennial definition had it's peak in theology and philosophy. Aquinas's doctrine on motion to the First Mover is inductive, Aquinas's doctrine on the plenitude of being is inductive, and Aquinas's doctrine on final cause is inductive. The only one's that are deductive is matter and contingent being (proofs 2 & 3 as they are commonly known). His causal argument from from matter was not design, but from final cause it most certainly was, which shows you to be in error when you say I was inaccurate that the scholastics did not believe in ID: -Summa Theologica, St. Thomas Aquinas http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm#2 Article #3 And as St. Thomas would respond: And thus is the reply to the rest of your argument. St. Thomas Aquinas was not the only scholastic or the father on the scholastic age, there are many other writings, but having 5 minutes to reply and knowing his writings very well I know where to find it online. St. Albert the Great, Scotus, Suarez, Bellarmine, Bonaventure, et al. used inductive and deductive logic on the proofs of God. 846820[/snapback] My point was not really the proofs. Aquinas's design argument #5 was inductive and therefore not science. To claim he was a proponent of ID is anachronistic. The Franciscans, Scotus, Ockham, mostly reject the teleological arguments and for the most part subscribed to radical contingency. Anselm for his part uses an a priori argument that in its age could be considered scientific because it is solid deduction. The problem is that science in the scholastic age was not based on the scientific method because it predates Bacon. Natural philosophy was pre-scientific method. Maybe in Aquinas you find the antecedents of ID, but to say he subscribed to it is weak because Aquinas predates scientific theory.
Recommended Posts