| Creation & Evolution Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too. |
 | | 
23rd April 2004, 05:19 PM
| | Personification of "why".
24    
| | Join Date: 18th March 2004 Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 86
Blessings: 108,363
Reps: 22 (power: 0) | | proof? of what, the bias? off topicness? use your noodle, the tiny gray one beside your name will do.
You made a claim, please support it.
__________________
The Strongbow |
23rd April 2004, 05:37 PM
| | Senior Member
 
| | Join Date: 14th April 2004
Posts: 510
Blessings: 97,543
Reps: 97 (power: 0) | | Originally Posted by ForeRunner Being picked up by Buddhists? Do you have any statistics for this? Buddhism is about the last place I would expect ID to go.
No functions of random variables to back this up.
William Dembski said that he was speaking to Buddists and Moslems.
ID theory has nothing to say about a designer(s). It is minimalist. You look at some object or objects and determine intelligent design. That is all. |
23rd April 2004, 05:38 PM
|  | Regular Member
| | Join Date: 18th March 2004
Posts: 375
Blessings: 108,454
Reps: 503 (power: 0) | | | proofs are for scientists, and/or people with time to amuse people of your ilk, im an artist, i can go around making all the outrageous unsubstantiated claims that i wish. in addition to my own general apathy, the fact that you took that site at face value without investigatings its claims on your own (hey if its online its gotta be true) leads me to believe that youre immune to proofs anyhow. theres some logic for ya, thatll hafta suffice.
"prove this, prove that wah, wah, wah" hahahaha dude you know what i said was true, youre just trying to get me to do your homework, so to speak. |
23rd April 2004, 06:00 PM
| | Personification of "why".
24
| | Join Date: 18th March 2004 Location: Kitchener, Ontario
Posts: 86
Blessings: 108,363
Reps: 22 (power: 0) | | proofs are for scientists, and/or people with time to amuse people of your ilk, im an artist, i can go around making all the outrageous unsubstantiated claims that i wish. in addition to my own general apathy, the fact that you took that site at face value without investigatings its claims on your own (hey if its online its gotta be true) leads me to believe that youre immune to proofs anyhow. theres some logic for ya, thatll hafta suffice.
You are joking, right? 
As for the validity of that site, I know the guy who made it. He posts on Internet Infidels under the name Oolon Colluphid, and many of the entries on his site are suggested to him by people on the boards. All are researched by many people before they are added.
As for you, if you're going to continue like this, I'm just going to ignore you.
__________________
The Strongbow |
23rd April 2004, 06:11 PM
|  | Not so Newbie
30 
 | | Join Date: 28th November 2003
Posts: 1,765
Blessings: 63,613
Reps: 9,696,570 (power: 9,707) | | Originally Posted by mythbuster No functions of random variables to back this up.
Oh, I see how this works. You make a statement and it is up to the other person to show that you are wrong. In that case... ID is not making inroads in Buddhism, prove me wrong. Originally Posted by mythbuster William Dembski said that he was speaking to Buddists and Moslems.
That doesn't mean they believe him. Besides, a few people of a particular group believing something doesn't mean that it is being intgrated into the teachings. Originally Posted by mythbuster ID theory has nothing to say about a designer(s).
Sure it does, It says that there has to be one. Buddhists don't believe in a god (Theravada at least). Originally Posted by mythbuster It is minimalist.
Nonsense is a better adjective. Originally Posted by mythbuster You look at some object or objects and determine intelligent design. That is all.
Luckily nothing natural has been found that requires a designer. |
23rd April 2004, 06:27 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 4th April 2004
Posts: 4,700
Blessings: 112,453
Reps: 52,404 (power: 66) | | Originally Posted by mythbuster ID theory has nothing to say about a designer(s). It is minimalist. You look at some object or objects and determine intelligent design. That is all.
No, you look at some object and state "intelligent design!" without any form of support whatsoever.
__________________
The Bellman himself they all praised to the skies--
Such a carriage, such ease and such grace!
Such solemnity, too! One could see he was wise,
The moment one looked in his face! |
23rd April 2004, 06:38 PM
| | Veteran
| | Join Date: 11th December 2003
Posts: 1,210
Blessings: 108,977
Reps: 1,425 (power: 12) | | | The basic problem with ID is that no IDer has ever figured out a way to tell what is intelligently designed and that which is not designed. There is no test for it - despite Dembski's claims. Until he can make a significantly succinct definition of what is and what is not designed, he is no better than Paley. The problem with philosophers like Dembski is that they believe a lot of complex words can be substituted for real tests. |
23rd April 2004, 06:42 PM
| | Veteran
| | Join Date: 11th December 2003
Posts: 1,210
Blessings: 108,977
Reps: 1,425 (power: 12) | | You look at some object or objects and determine intelligent design.
Umm - how? Please show me a test that can be used to determine whether something is designed by and intelligence versus something "designed" by natural processes. No IDist has ever developed a sufficiently rigorous test yet. |
24th April 2004, 01:02 AM
| | Senior Member
| | Join Date: 14th April 2004
Posts: 510
Blessings: 97,543
Reps: 97 (power: 0) | | | Intelligent design makes no claim about the designer. Some designed objects are irreducibly complicated. Those that have this type of complexity point to a designer. This is not a proof, but an idea, or another way of looking at the world around us especially biology. |
24th April 2004, 01:13 AM
|  | I Have Been Complexified!
45 
| | Join Date: 16th March 2004
Posts: 989
Blessings: 111,892
Reps: 1,851 (power: 11) | | Some designed objects are irreducibly complicated
Name 'em
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
See profile for details | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
