ddunbar: I like how you made a false distinction between ID and evolution. ID is just a different perspective on how evolution occurs. I agree with the rest of what you said. A teleological perspective is certainly capable of producing conclusions that are testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and from which predictions can be made.
You're right, I should have expanded upon it. ID, while it can embrace evolution, is not science. Whereas, Evolution is. Edit: WAIT!!! A Teleological perspective is capable of producing conclusions that are testable, verifiable, falsifiable, and from which predictions can be made? Of course. Conclusion: Everything is intelligently designed. Test: Can't find anything that isn't intelligently designed therefore, everything is intelligently designed. Falsification: The one thing we thought wasn't intelligently designed turn out to be intelligently designed after all. Prediction: any new thing found will of necessity be intelligently designed. LOL. No but seriously. I'm drawing a blank. (har, har) Tell me two things of a teleological perspective that are testable. Just two things.
I see you editted out that lying accusation directed towards me. Good thing. That would have been inappropriate. When I asked you directly on a number of occasions, you dodged the question repeatedly. The onus is not on me to go look up an arbitrary page to see where you said you are a theist. Page 358 you say? When I log in, we're only up to page 116. Can't remember which page we're up to when not logged in. The onus was on you to answer the question. That sort of diversion and concealment does little to help credibility along. You know, just like when politicans dodge and evade. It looks like they have something to hide and protect. And guess what, they do and that's why they do it. But again, I take full responsiblity for not having re-read the opening post of this thread and my ensuing posts that occured because of my failure to re-read it. Had I re-read it, I'd know better than to get involved. The first two sentences clearly illustrate that you're intent on revisionism and intellectual dishonesty. I know, I'm being facetious and scathing. It's because I'm just so upset at myself for being sucked into an impossible situation. But I do have good news. I didn't miss any of my favorite TV shows this week. I got to see 24, Heroes (tivo'd), Jericho, Lost(tivo'd), Smallville, CSI NY, CSI and Shark. The latter to were repeats though. You might ask, what's up with Smallville? I know. I can't explain the hold it has on me. Might have something to do with Lana, Chloe, and Lois. Well, It's Friday and the Sun is going down. These are the last hours I'll be available for this thread. So get your jabs in knowing that while I can't post anymore, I'll still read while's there's daylight. And if you get good jabs in, take heart in knowing that I'll seeth knowing I can't rebut. Signing off. *thumbs up*
ddunbar: No, you're laughable. You can't even keep track of what is said here. You accuse me of hiding my theism which is false and now you claim I never said I believe something is designed. Well, I've said over and over again that I think certain things in nature look designed. ddunbar: No, it is a simple fact. That I believe in God doesn't mean I have to believe that God designed the cell. Back 40 years ago scientists viewed the cell as a simple bag of solution. Based on that I wouldn't have inferred it was designed. But now scientists are describing the cell thusly: I now infer the cell was designed. Based not on religious revelation but on empirical data. ddunbar: Bull. My last references were to Science News and Cell.
ddunbar: The non-teleological perspective: Conclusion: Nothing is intelligently designed. Test: Can't find anything that is intelligently designed therefore, nothing is intelligently designed. Falsification: The one thing we thought was intelligently designed turned out to not be intelligently designed after all. Prediction: any new thing found will of necessity not be intelligently designed.
La-de-da. 1. You never said to me when asked that you are a theist. Not once. 2. You never said you "believe" things are designed when discussing with ME! I have no idea what you may have said a few hundred posts back. Your painstaking plotting to attempt to distance ID from theology implies that you do not simply believe things are designed but rather accept as evidence what appears as design. That's what prompted me to question you on your beliefs which you dogded repeatedly. The record will show. Uh-huh. Sure. Tell yourself whatever you need to believe to help you sleep better at night. Like I said, I'm no stranger to ID propaganda or the oft quoted material they use to support their position. It is how you were exposed to the material. It is also how you interpret the material. My fine friend, I've been around the block a few more times than you might think. I'm well versed in these matters. I've read all but the most current things pertaining to ID. I can't be fooled. At least not as easily as you're attempting.
And with that we can conclude that you haven't a clue about the scientific method. Not surprising. Else, how could you adamantly and promiscuously be a proponent of ID? But you'll say, "but you're a proponent of ID too, hypocrit!" And indeed I am. The difference is, I only support it conceptually and philosophically as it is in accord with my beliefs. But I don't attempt to support it scientifically. How could I?
Teleologist: I infer the cell was designed. Based not on religious revelation but on empirical data. The Rationalist: Okay, that's fair. Upon what are you basing this inference? Teleologist: I infer that the cell was designed because it looks designed to me. The Rationalist: Errr... okay, but the problem is, there is no empirical data to support that inference. 'It looks designed to me' is not empirical data. http://www.answers.com/main/ntquery?gwp=13&s=inference Inference is "The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true." In this case, the fact that 'cells appear designed' to you does not mean that is generally assumed to be true. You may assume it to be true, but this only means that your statements carry as much weight as someone else who says 'I infer that Flying Spaghetti Monsters created life on earth. I am inferring this because I assume it to be true that the reddish glow at sunset is the residue of their blessed Spaghetti'. Assumptions about the truth of a premise and inferences based upon those assumptions are nothing but assertions until verified by factual data. In this case there does not now, nor will there ever exist any data which can prove that life on earth was designed by God. That is why belief in God is called 'faith'. It is believed without need of proof. I have my own faiths. I don't happen to have faith in the existence of God, but I have some others. However, I do not claim that empirical data back up my faith-based beliefs when this is clearly not the case.
ddunbar: I answered the question two weeks ago. Sorry you missed it. At that time I explained why I thought the question was irrelevant and that's been my position since then. I will continue to not answer questions about what I believe. They are irrelevant whether you think they are or not. What's relevant is what I hypothesize based on empirical evidence not what I believe theologically. If you had your way we would be bogged down in theological debates from now on. Not interested.