The point is apparently going over your head, or under it... Belief in any theory is not about science, it is about a belief system. Talk about evolution means nothing, nothing at all, it is just that...talk. Research and testing matter, results matter...nothing else. So diseases try to survive the cures offered by modern medicine. So? This is something new? Why isn't this just as possibly by design as by chance? Not a single evolutionary theory supporter here can say why it is that biological organisms try to survive and adapt. So diseases try to adapt to survive. That is their nature. You can't explain why it is their nature, and you can't say this nature is not by design. Research and testing is one thing, theory is another, and a disease researcher and scientist doesn't have to believe evolution to develop and test new medicines, doctors prescribing existing medicines doesn't have to believe in evolution, nor does the patient taking the medicine, nor do the people in are involved with testing new medicines, blah, blah, blah. Modern medicine is based on empiricism, not belief in any particular theory. Even when the cause of a disease is not entirely known, cures and effective remedies can still be applied. Imagine a doctor factually guilty of malpractice at a trial for malpractice, and the defense he offers to the jury under examination is: "But, but, but...I believe in evolutionary theory..."
Stu, I'll try to make this... semi-quick. On dictionaries: Yes, dictionaries are the ultimate reference for a language. All the more so for words that are not new. Dictionaries catalogue common and therefore accepted use of a word in a given language. They even catalogue colloquialism. That is to say, improper use of a word given its still common use. On Logic: Seeing that, it's not at all logical that babies are atheist. It takes a stretch of the immagination given the official and common use of the word. On conceptualization: depends on the constructs of the conceptualization. If the constructs themselves are conceptualizations, then the conceptualization is nothing more than an allegory. As is the case with the conceptualization of babies as atheist and atheist as simply meaning "without god(s)." If one accepts the conceptualization that atheist simply means without god(s), then naturally, one would extend that logic to the conceptualization of babies as atheist. However, in the real world, that is to say, reality, as even defined by dictionaries, there quite possibly is no such thing as a person who is without God. They simply don't believe in God. Such an anomalous individual might have some mututation worth looking into since it is a common understanding that humans are hardwired to conjured up thoughts of god(s). Always have, everywhere and throughout known history. And of course what makes humans so ready to accept thoughts of god(s). On Language evolution: It evolves from common usage or some officiate using a word in a certain manner that makes his/her use an official definition. It also evolves from creating new words to address new concepts or technology. Lastly, it evolves from colloquialisms that reach the status of common use for a broad community of speakers. Conclusion: This is why the conceptualization of babies as atheist has a significant hurdle to overcome if the concept is to be included as a definition of atheist. What is uses as its basis is part fantasy, part junior etymologist, and part allegory. It relies heavily on the concept that being an atheist is nothing more than being without god(s). Then it tries to paint the "a" before "theos" as being without God inspite of the fact that the Greeks who created the compound never used it in such a manner as simply being without God but instead used it disparagingly in the form of "godless" - or one who conciously rejects the Greek gods. So while your logic is tight, given what you believe about your conceptualizations, there's no meaningful basis for me to accept your conceptualizations that violate all official and common understanding of babies, atheism, and of course history and therefore no basis for me to accept your definition of atheism. Hence, I fall back on the official definition of atheism which, by itself without prefix, fails in its ability to apply to any non-cognitive humans. It's that simple. It has nothing to do with my theist persuasion as it matters not if babies are born atheist. It has zero impact on or implication for theism. This is officially my last word on the subject. If you insist that relying on accreditted dictionaries for the definition of a word that is hundreds of years old is being close-minded, so be it. But I ask that you'll pardon me for not advocatiing chaos in language. Language's stability and proper evolution, as catalogued in dictionaries, is what makes even this post comprehensible to those who communicate in English. If there is a word in this post or of others that someone might not understand, they can look it up. They may find that I or someone else used a word wrongly or may find that the word was used correctly only the actual meaning of the word I or someone else used, in the context in which it was used, is being used in its alternate meaning(s). And then there's misspellings...
BTW, can anyone give me a link to Teleologist's empirical data post? Been away for a week and am sure I missed it. TIA.
Yes, it's unfortunate. ZTroll has set the bar high for intellectual dishonesty on this site, but Teleologist is making a hard run at the record in this thread, first with the revelation that he hadn't read the authors he was citing and now this pitiful lie. Absolutely shameful how he fabricated this and then, instead of simply keeping his mouth shut and not responding to requests for a link, attempted to make up reasons why he wasn't going to provide the 'empirical data'. At least he seems to have figured this out. He is now simply not responding to requests for the 'empirical data' that lies at the root of his ID/Creation argument. This is the best tactic when you have been caught in a lie. All the proponents of the idea that ID is not Creation rebranded have faded away under the withering heat of the light of objective inquiry. The only two left are Z and T. T's credibility is now zero after the 'empirical data' fiasco. That leaves us with... guess who? Thread now clearly closed.
Clearly closed, indeed. Wow, I was reading through the pages I missed and what a smoke screen. I remember pulling that sort of tactic when I was a child. Paraphrased: "I'm not telling because you won't believe me. Hmmpf!" Empirical data... in this case, data interpreted through the eyes of one who believes things were created. 'Cause he ain't talking about empirical as derived from experimentation...
And the exact same type of human eyes in atheists interpret what looks designed as not possibly designed without full knowledge of a designer... Really, common sense can be applied. Do a Ben Franklin close. On one side, note all the things that we know of that look designed that we know for a fact are not designed... and on the other side, note all the things that looked designed and we do know for a fact they are designed...(no inference process allowed, of course) and the bottom line is that nature appears designed, by empirical data, that is if you believe observation by man is empiricism, and if you believe the simplest explanation is the most probable, and if you believe that you trust you eyes first until you have reason to doubt other wise... I reckon that those who look at nature, and notice it appears designed (the vast majority), will have the same observation each and every time (the test to see if observation is constant), but will overlay their non design belief system over simple observation to reinforce the indoctrination and conditioning process seen in the non design crowd.
Zx10, my friend. The flaw in your thinking is thus: Most of the world believes there's a designer as most of the world is theist. So naturally things will look designed to them. As it does to me. Or perhaps you. And certainly T. But, a truly rational person will ask, "well, it looks designed perhaps, but where is the designer or does one even exist?" If you can't prove a designer, you can't posit design with any stringency. You can believe it or have a hunch, sure. But beliefs and hunches aren't science. (science just observes the development of life on Earth and isn't quite seeing the point where a designer came in - given the clasical understanding of the method of the "designer" - wink wink nudge nudge.) For what we know to be designed, we know for a fact that there's a designer. If we didn't, we wouldn't assume it. So T's basis for this thread is nonsensical. An observation of design (what T calls empirical data) is directly proportional to one's belief in a designer. There's no two ways about it. So while ID might not be wholly 6 literal day creationism, it's creationism nonetheless. Regardless of Dembski's smoke screen which laughably attempts to include ET as the possible ID. Given his theism and affliations to theist groups, we all know what he truly means. Which of course squarely puts ID in the realm of creationism. Oh and let's pretend for a moment that Dembski was sincere about an ET as possibly being the ID - the question remains, who designed the ET who's the ID for Earth? And so on and so forth. Until of course you reach an ultimate ID - a polite euphemism for GOD. I'm going to have to bookmark this post as my boilerplate response to this thread if it somehow continues to live on. This thread's longevity is almost mystical.