Honestly, if I were to scrutinize this at level that creationism is scrutinized, I could, rather easily, show how this is somewhat to mostly nonsensical. I mean, we could just start with this referencing a quote where the words "missing link" are nowhere to be found. Answering to that and then the little side debate one could have for that could be short lived or 18 more pages of thread discussion. The rest of what is being said here, some of which includes terms that are not 'scientific' would allow for a field day, if you know, all we are bringing to the table is scrutiny and deeming that good / righteous debate strategy.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Intelligent Design is a Fact- Evolution is a Theory!
- Thread starter Dante Writer
- Start date
Honestly, if I were to scrutinize this at level that creationism is scrutinized, I could, rather easily, show how this is somewhat to mostly nonsensical. I mean, we could just start with this referencing a quote where the words "missing link" are nowhere to be found. Answering to that and then the little side debate one could have for that could be short lived or 18 more pages of thread discussion. The rest of what is being said here, some of which includes terms that are not 'scientific' would allow for a field day, if you know, all we are bringing to the table is scrutiny and deeming that good / righteous debate strategy.
How is it more accurate? You are making statements of connotations. Thus appealing to emotion. How about all parties who hold assumption in premises (be they theological or scientific) now get to use the word confidence, if indeed that is the 'more accurate' term. If anyone tries to say, 'that is just faith' and somehow imply 'confidence is greater, and is what we use,' then we, I dunno, ignore such people from now on?
Twilight Hue
Twilight, not bright nor dark, good nor bad.
I like your op. It's along with how I interpret id as it's defined, but I think the "spark" itself rose naturally giving way to more complexity.
Inorganic material btw is just as vital and revelent as to our existance. There is definitely interaction between inorganic and organic that leads to simple and complex forms.
Because when using a secular definition "faith", it's synonymous with "confidence".
But when the context is one of religion's relationship with science, the connotation of religious faith applies.
To use "confidence" leads to correct inference.
To use "faith" leads to conflating the basis for both religion & science.
It would be either an error or a rhetorical trick.
To comment upon connotations of words is not an appeal to emotion.
It's analysis of language, & consequent effects.
...for you. If it is truly synonymous, then it is truly an either-or proposition. Both are equally fine.
...for you. Religion's relationship with science could plausibly allow for confidence, as the two are synonymous.
...for you. Perhaps you could expound on the basis of religion and science without using the words faith and confidence? Or even with them, and we could all see if what you are purporting is fair and accurate for both.
I see what you are currently suggesting as a rhetorical trick. One endeavor gets to use both, whenever it chooses. Likely to go with confidence, as that is more righteous (for some) and leads to justification in premises as not based on 'mere belief' but something more, such as 'valid assumptions.' The other endeavor better stick to faith, for all it has is 'mere belief' and nothing more.
...is how I read what you are conveying.
Oh, come on....you can't just repeat my claim as a counter argument.
I expect more from you!
I provided more, and you selected this conclusion as if this is only thing I countered with.
It was the only potentially significant thing I saw.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Yup, but you know how confusing it gets after a long day of sweating in the quote mine. You load 16 lies and whata ya get? Another day older and deeper in debt.I think anyone who's ever read any Dawkins or heard him speak, already knows the answer to that.
Good point I'll try to keep that in mind.
What? You'd have him burn his Daft Card?
If you could, you would and since you haven't ...
Faith is belief based, confidence is backed by evidence, at least as I understand the suggestion.
I started to. You didn't address that point I raised, thus no rebuttal. I win.
Faith is trust based. Confidence is trust based. Trust is faith based. Trust is confidence based. Your personal connotations are noted.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Pigeon Chess, and your not even a good player.
Noted, but clearly not understood.
***MOD POST***
Everyone, please keep Rules 1 and 3 in mind while posting.1. Personal Comments About Members and Staff
Personal attacks and name-calling, whether direct or in the third person, are strictly prohibited on the forums. Critique each other's ideas all you want, but under no circumstances personally attack each other or the staff. Quoting a member's post in a separate/new thread without their permission to challenge or belittle them, or harassing staff members for performing moderation duties, will also be considered a personal attack.
3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:
1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.
2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.
3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.
We staff members are watching this thread. Do be sure to follow the rules. Thank you for your cooperation.
Milton Platt
Well-Known Member
But some of the soft "stinky cheeses" are pretty damn good.......
Ouroboros
Coincidentia oppositorum
But poor canaries. They suffocate on all the quote words.
Sapiens
Polymathematician
No canaries in a quote mine, only dodos.But poor canaries. They suffocate on all the quote words.
Please scrutinize.
Thanks for the dictionary definitions, but they in no way address my point. Perhaps I wasn't clear, so I will attempt to reword.
Intelligent design as a concept has existed forever, basically. The key thing you seem to be missing there when comparing the definition you have provided, with the OP you write, is that intelligent design isn't talking about the evolution of existing life via cross-breeding or genetic manipulation, but rather the creation of life (or the universe) itself. So sure...if a scientist takes inanimate objects and infuses them with life, they could be considered an intelligent designer. Victor Frankenstein is the dramatic example, but obviously the life form doesn't need to be complex.
However, in terms of common usage, to suggest this is what Intelligent Design is falls into one of two buckets.
Deliberate obfuscation or plain naivety.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Text_of_The_Wedge_Strategy
Dante Writer
Active Member
"when comparing the definition you have provided, with the OP you write, is that intelligent design isn't talking about the evolution of existing life via cross-breeding or genetic manipulation, but rather the creation of life"
No here is my OP:
"We can now clone animals with no natural selection involved in the process to create a living organism.
We create genetically modified animals and plants in labs all the time and that food you eat today is probably a result of intelligent design that happened in a lab.
Intelligent design is not creationism. Intelligent design does not require a God or even a genius and has nothing to do with magic or super natural powers.
Intelligent design is the application of science to create living organism or modify genes and DNA to produce changes in organisms."
I have said in my responses many times that ID does not replace some mechanism of evolution being involved. I believe in some mechanism of evolution and natural selection within a species to produce variations is an accepted science fact.
I admit to liking Limburger.