Re: [OriginsTalk] Re: Directed or undirected? (undirected to be directed?)
From: stewart8724 <art1st@...>
Sent: Monday, April 9, 2012 2:13 AM
Subject: [OriginsTalk] Re: Directed or undirected?
Intelligent Design infers from evidence in nature that life was designed, but experience shows us it is entirely possible to infer that which was not implied.
Kamran: What experience showed you that? By the way for an intelligent person who is able to read the evidence in nature, the inference does not imply that life was designed, it hits him in the face with a deafening mental sound.
The inferences ID makes rely on a precursor, that there is a God.
Kamran: The evolutionists would like it to be that way, but a Creator's handy work and presence is revealed everywhere, whether there was a precursor God or not. You can not delete/ignore the evidence just because any person presenting it to you may have always guessed a God by blind faith or religious upbringing. And by the way, in most cases the "precursor God" would be a very different entity than the Creator that emerges from the science-based evidence and the logical inference of this evidence.
There is absolutely no scientific reason to believe such a creature exists and no reliable evidence whatsoever for one.
Kamran: Sure, for one who insists to look the other way, or can't read and logically interpret any part of the mountain of scientific evidence.
As such any theory based on this premiss falls into the realms of theology, ideology or simply bad science.
Kamran: Again, evolutionists would like it to be
that way. Mankind sets direction for himself and, as far as he can influence
it, does not leave his affairs to undirected events. So to assume that “conscious
direction” has been the fruit of an “unconscious and undirected” nature/process
is a logical fallacy.
Our sense of direction and science have an intervening
influence on each other. Good science is
one that enhances our sense of direction and bad science is one that
presupposes our direction, or lack of it.
Good science does not leave any room for free-standing
theology or ideology. Good science
keeps digging and if there is going to be any room for theology and ideology,
these will only be logical extensions of the foundations formed by scientific
evidence. In other words, the only
expressions of theology and ideology we should allow are those that gain credibility
from scientific evidence.
This is the inference I draw from the evidence you have provided.
Kamran: No worries, lagging behind the truth, or any part of it, is not a crime.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
- --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "gluadys" <g_turner@...> wrote:
>. . . .
> --- In OriginsTalk@yahoogroups.com, "stewart8724" art1st@ wrote:
>rifle. They are both pointing the same direction, the barrels are
> > Here's a question that I once had a prolonged dispute about.
> > You have two guns set side by side, one is a pistol the other a
parallel to the ground and there is no wind. Then they are fired
simultaneously, Which bullet hits the ground first?
They will both hit the ground at the same time. The downward vector
(acceleration toward earth's center) components are identical as is the
distance from the ground for both guns. The result would be the same if the
rifle (or pistol) was fired horizontally and a rock was dropped from the
same distance above the ground. This is a variation of the old monkey/rifle
story wherein a monkey drops from a tree and a rifle is fired horizontally
at it from another tree at exactly the same time. The monkey dies because
the bullet and the monkey drop at the same rate.