Limburger helps avoid attention.Are you desperate for attention?
Never mind - rhetorical question!
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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Limburger helps avoid attention.Are you desperate for attention?
Never mind - rhetorical question!
So, let me ask you this question: How is "intelligent design", as you are using it, any different than basic "science"? If you view the two as the same, why use the term "i.d.", especially since "i.d." is almost always used in theological context, and just use the term "science"?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.
"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.
- the theory that life, or the universe, cannot have arisen by chance and was designed and created by some intelligent entity.
The title is a follow up on my other discussion about Intelligent design and why it is not creationism and required no God or Super Natural power.
There were many in those discussions that were still associating creationism with intelligent design to dismiss the idea so this is their chance to prove that Intelligent Design is not a fact if they can.
Once we establish that Intelligent Design is not creationism then we can look at how that could be applied to the formation of life on earth and other planets.
No you are hijacking the discussion.
If you don't like the topic go start your own discussion.
I am on the side of science and ID is science. Evolution is many theories that has many holes and does not address the origin of life.
Together they might explain how life came to form on this planet or on other planets we may visit in the future.
"So it's just a word game."
No it the difference between factual and verified science and non factual religiosity and theories of evolution.
"But I don't call it "Intelligent Design" because that would be misleading."
Probably would be in your case but like I said it does not require a God or a genius.
"The origin of life isn't part of evolution."
Right- let's just ignore how no life forms could not start through evolution and focus on other stuff.
"As for the holes, it's more interesting to not know everything."
One of those holes is where did that life originate so it could evolve. Without that your theory falls apart.
"Evolution has superior explanatory power"
Great then explain to everyone here how evolution happens from life that did not exist before?
You DO realize that the theory is properly ONLY a biological one, right?.
We need life to first EXIST in order for TOE to apply. TOE doesn't have anything to SAY about how life actually began. That's why many religious people have no problem believing TOE and a creator god.
But there are experiments and evidence that show how life could POSSIBLY come from non-living matter.
___________________________
It serves no purpose to point to our IGNORANCE as if it proves your point. You should learn to avoid such an argument "ad ignorantiam".
I know you didn't ask, but just in case there are people who are wondering about the fallacy, allow me to explain it a bit in context with your thinking:
FIRST OFF.. it's important to note that saying that someone is building an argument from ignorance IS NOT insulting their person. ( calling them "ignorant" ) I urge those who are not completely aware of the meaning to look it up. Argument from ignorance means an argument BUILT from ignorance. We can be very knowlageable and intellectually honest and STILL use an informal logical fallacy.
OK, on to the explanation:
Just because we know NOTHING ( are ignorant ) about X doesn't mean that Y is true.
To say otherwise is to commit the fallacy known as "argument from ignorance", and invalidates any argument.
Now, X and Y can be any two different ideas at all.. this rule applies about any two ideas.
So, we can replace X with "abiogenesis" and Y with "I.D.".
We would get:
Just because we know NOTHING ( are ignorant ) about abiogenesis doesn't mean that I.D is true.
____________________________
Scientists will reject papers that are based on faulty evidence and fallacious reasoning, and that's why the I.D. theory or creationism theory are not considered to be acceptable in science. Apologists aren't so strict, because it's their job to make the Bible seem at least plausibly true in the wake of modern science and thinking. Evidence isn't on their side, so they avoid it or deny it's true. Reason isn't on their side either, so they mangle it and hope believers wont notice very much.
These are pretty good tactics, a lot of people don't understand TOE, but think it's wrong on little or no evidence and on very bad reasoning, such as the argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Pigeon Chess, and your not even a good player.
Noted, but clearly not understood.
Please scrutinize.
There were three distinct points in my reply, each requiring detailed analysis.State the same in another thread, tag me in that and I shall.
Yeah, your right, I'll drop the ad hominum and apologize for it.Nonsensical and ad hom. Keep trying.
Yeah, your right, I'll drop the ad hominum and apologize for it.
You are, in fact, a passable Pigeon Chess player.
Oh, I thought you were having a problem with being described as a "bad" Pigeon Chess player. "Pigeon Chess player" is, IMHO, an accurate description of your basic approach to debate.This is addressing the ideas up for discussion and not the personas of the people you are in discussion with?
Oh, I thought you were having a problem with being described as a "bad" Pigeon Chess player. "Pigeon Chess player" is, IMHO, an accurate description of your basic approach to debate.
Do you really want to play, "is not, is too, same to you, sticks like glue," as well?Nope, just the idea that you chose to make it about me rather than the ideas up for discussion. To me, your characterization of me is entirely on you. Says nothing about me, in reality. Just comes across as a tactic of logic whereby it is seemingly plausible to discredit an assertion by thinking one has made valid claims about the person, due to subjective certainty in the characterization.
Do you really want to play, "is not, is too, same to you, sticks like glue," as well?
Glad to hear it.Not really. If I observe it again, I'll just use the report button and let the moderators sort it out.
It is not a semantic argument and evolutuonists have tried to lump ID into creationism so they can avoid the fact that evolution is not the only way life can be started on a new world.
This opens up the discussion so we can start looking at other methods planets can be made livable and form life without spontaneous life forming from inorganic materials.
Something that evolution does not and can not address.
Thought that might get your attention so before you rush to post your arguments read:
It is is intelligent design not natural selection and is intended to produce an organism with specific traits.
.