PsychoSarah
Chaotic Neutral
Perhaps it is a result of her only talking about what she disagrees with most of the time?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Maybe I am wrong, but I see many posts in a different light, than simply adding a super natural component to the TOE.
I agree. Her main problem seems to be a need to "prove" the existance and impact of the designer.Honestly, I think she is relatively ok with the TOE. All she does is add a "guiding force" component.
Once, we have been through this *many* times with Just. You cannot provide evidence that intelligent design is not a factor, you cannot provide evidence that an intelligent design is a factor. Currently, ID is a religious belief and not a matter of science as there is no empirical evidence for ID.
The other thing, and what we had to try to explain to Just with no success, is that science does not propose this. As has been asked so many times, show any scientific paper or publication that makes the claim the an intelligent designer does not exist. There are some individuals pushing this but it their private opinion just as the assertion that an intelligent designer is involved is a personal opinion.
ID as it is presented by the Discovery Institute is primarily a religious issue and not an empirical one. The same for your idea that the appearance of design implies the fact of design, it doesn't. The appearance of design may imply the possibility of design but it could also simply be how an observer who is hardwired to detect pattern and design perceives the phenomenon and as such many things can look designed but are not.
In otherwords, the appearance of design means the appearance of design to an observer and nothing more.
Dizredux
I agree. Her main problem seems to be a need to "prove" the existance and impact of the designer.
I agree that there is a designer (religious faith) but I feel that, at least right now, that cannot be demonstrated and has to be taken on faith alone.
That works for me but others may have different mileage (this forum is a very good example of that.) but since I am just exploring the issues and not really trying to convince anyone, it is not a problem to me unless dishonesty comes into play.
Dizredux
Evolution as a process that is unguided and unplanned is a position I disagree with in the area of evolution period.
Really?
1. Loudmouth claims that for one to accept ToE one must accept that the biodiversity of life is the product of only a naturalistic process and is sufficient to explain all life on earth.
Sorry, but if you want to buy into that it is your choice but evolution is a label and that label is devised to explain the processes we see in life. It does not necessitate the belief that one accept only natural causes are the reason behind life on earth.
2. The measurements are not some sort of pattern or something we don't understand. We do understand and the extreme precision of those measurements are mathematical and necessary to our universe and life.
Perhaps it is a result of her only talking about what she disagrees with most of the time?
Really?
1. Loudmouth claims that for one to accept ToE one must accept that the biodiversity of life is the product of only a naturalistic process and is sufficient to explain all life on earth.
Sorry, but if you want to buy into that it is your choice but evolution is a label and that label is devised to explain the processes we see in life. It does not necessitate the belief that one accept only natural causes are the reason behind life on earth.
2. The measurements are not some sort of pattern or something we don't understand. We do understand and the extreme precision of those measurements are mathematical and necessary to our universe and life.
Once, we have been through this *many* times with Just. You cannot provide evidence that intelligent design is not a factor, you cannot provide evidence that an intelligent design is a factor. Currently, ID is a religious belief and not a matter of science as there is no empirical evidence for ID.
The other thing, and what we had to try to explain to Just with no success, is that science does not propose this. As has been asked so many times, show any scientific paper or publication that makes the claim the an intelligent designer does not exist. There are some individuals pushing this but it their private opinion just as the assertion that an intelligent designer is involved is a personal opinion.
ID as it is presented by the Discovery Institute is primarily a religious issue and not an empirical one. The same for your idea that the appearance of design implies the fact of design, it doesn't. The appearance of design may imply the possibility of design but it could also simply be how an observer who is hardwired to detect pattern and design perceives the phenomenon and as such many things can look designed but are not.
In otherwords, the appearance of design means the appearance of design to an observer and nothing more.
Dizredux
I don't see LM as saying the anyone must accept the product of *only* a naturalistic process. I do agree that the naturalist process are sufficient to explain life as we know it at least right now. That does not mean that God cannot be involved but it very much looks like he uses natural processes to do his work.Really?
1. Loudmouth claims that for one to accept ToE one must accept that the biodiversity of life is the product of only a naturalistic process and is sufficient to explain all life on earth.
Who in a scientific setting has indicated that evolution necessitates the belief of *only* natural causes are involved?Sorry, but if you want to buy into that it is your choice but evolution is a label and that label is devised to explain the processes we see in life. It does not necessitate the belief that one accept only natural causes are the reason behind life on earth.
That is as you see it and that is fine but many others do not see it this way. For myself, I feel God made us well adapted to our environment and not that our environment was adapted to insure our existence.2. The measurements are not some sort of pattern or something we don't understand. We do understand and the extreme precision of those measurements are mathematical and necessary to our universe and life.
I sincerely wish that everyone could be so fair minded and honest as you are on here. We disagree on many things but you are always respectful and fair. Thank you.
Right now, there is no scientific evidence to either rule in or rule out the existance of God.No Diz, I am not trying to prove the existence of God. I am trying to show that there is evidence to support the existence of God. Evolution as a process that is unguided and unplanned is a position I disagree with in the area of evolution period.
I do agree that the naturalist process are sufficient to explain life as we know it at least right now. That does not mean that God cannot be involved but it very much looks like he uses natural processes to do his work.
And I repeat, if you believe the current Theory of Evolution is pseudoscience then I have a bridge in good shape to sell you...half price...today and today only.
Dizredux
I like your sales pitch. (Not so much the snake oil) Pity you couldn't get: 'Buy one, get one free' in, though. It always creases me up, after I saw an American cartoon of a tall American bible salesman, complete with solar topi, offering to a robe-clad, urban-hatted Iraqi peasant, sitting on the ground, two bibles for the price of one, and when he declined, shooting him.
I agree with this 100%.
What about you Oncedeceived?
Cool story. Have any others?
If you both agree that the natural processes are sufficient to explain life as we know it, you must know a lot more than atheist scientists, who admit they can't explain the origin of life, all of whose attempts to prove abiogenesis having resulted in complete failure.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?