Sorry. I've studied a lot of biology, ID, and the history of their conflict. I'm quite proud of that. (perhpas too much so?)
I'm not an apocalyptist by any means, but the ID debate represents a fundamental misunderstanding in US society. One that imo, is dangerous for the future of our society, science, and Christianity.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
Your argument, i.e. that proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes is not sound as your premise, i.e. that an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily.
Originally posted by SpearofDestiny
No, my freind. A Hypothesis is a Guess.Please google "The Scientific Method"
lol, yeah. It's sad how sometimes something like "evolutionary theory" can be totally misinterpreted and ignored by someone because of semantic mistakes like this one. But we'd be much better off if we called ID a hypothesis rather than a theory.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
No, just implying it.
Your argument, i.e. that proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes is not sound as your premise, i.e. that an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily.
Sans unnecessary information, I think it is supposed to read:
"Your argument is not [as] sound as your premise."
That argument being that "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes."
I never made this argument. I didn't imply the argument, either. In fact, I suggested that it might be the correct line of thought rather than intelligent design theorists' beliefs.
Then we come across this: "...your premise, i.e. that an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily."
I didn't read that correctly, and it's not because I lack the appropriate mental faculties.
Here's how I believe it is supposed to be translated (correct me if I'm wrong): "...your premise, i.e., that an intelligent agent directing natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily."
Or, taken out of pretentious-pseudophilosophical speech: "ID violates Ockham's razor."
This wasn't my premise. My premise was that we see things as being designed because we design things (based on the idea of anthropic principles).
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
I re-read what you posted. I shouldn't respond when I'm tired, because it leads me to validate inadvertently a high level of fail.The lack of commas marking appositives hurts my brain. I'll try to sort this out.
Sans unnecessary information, I think it is supposed to read:
"Your argument is not [as] sound as your premise."
It is supposed to be phrased, the way that it is phrased.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
That argument being that "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes."I never made this argument. I didn't imply the argument, either. In fact, I suggested that it might be the correct line of thought rather than intelligent design theorists' beliefs.
You implied that "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes" by suggesting that "we should look at our designed things from the perspective of 'they look evolved.'"
🙄
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Then we come across this: "...your premise, i.e. that an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily."I didn't read that correctly, and it's not because I lack the appropriate mental faculties.
Here's how I believe it is supposed to be translated (correct me if I'm wrong): "...your premise, i.e., that an intelligent agent directing natural processes multiplies entities unnecessarily."
Or, taken out of pretentious-pseudophilosophical speech: "ID violates Ockham's razor."
This wasn't my premise. My premise was that we see things as being designed because we design things (based on the idea of anthropic principles).
That "an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes," or if you prefer, "an intelligent agent is responsible for directing natural processes," is a complex premise, i.e. an unstated but logically necessary presumption of the argument, "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes."
🙄
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
It is supposed to be phrased, the way that it is phrased.
You implied that "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes" by suggesting that "we should look at our designed things from the perspective of 'they look evolved.'"🙄
That "an intelligent agent is responsible for natural processes," or if you prefer, "an intelligent agent is responsible for directing natural processes," is a complex premise, i.e. an unstated but logically necessary presumption of the argument, "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes."🙄
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Then your grammar fails.Um...no, I didn't. I think I just explained how I didn't.
Stop putting words in my mouth. I said no such thing, and I implied no such thing. You just assumed that I did because we Christians always have these sneaky, ulterior motives up our sleeves.
You fail. The argument “. . . we only see things as being designed because we design things,” i.e. “Natural things are not the result of design processes,” therefore “. . . we should look at our designed things from the perspective of ‘they look evolved,’” i.e. “Designed things are the result of evolutionary processes,” commits the logic fallacy of Non-Sequitur.
Who is putting words in your mouth? If it is not your argument that "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes," then explain the following:
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
What if people have it reversed? Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo[QUOTE=9680362]Originally posted by inimalist
lolactually, its really likely that people who believe in Evolution do have a predisposition to look at things in the natural world and say "gee, that looked like it evolved".
Ding-ding-ding, we have a winrar! [/QUOTE]
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."
People people people, lets all take a deep breath and stop.
Your about to get into the "Im arguing this, not that" argument...which goes round in circles...
I suggest, Zeal Ex Nihilo re-posts his belief as clearly as possible, then Adam_PoE can post his response. That way we wont have Adam telling Zeal Ex Nihilo what he's arguing and you will get back to the argument at hand.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
You fail. The argument “. . . we only see things as being designed because we design things,” i.e. “Natural things are not the result of design processes,” therefore “. . . we should look at our designed things from the perspective of ‘they look evolved,’” i.e. “Designed things are the result of evolutionary processes,” commits the logic fallacy of Non-Sequitur.
Who is putting words in your mouth? If it is not your argument that "proponents of evolution are simply imposing evolutionary patterns on designed processes," then explain the following:
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
It was actually just the reversal of looking at things from the perspective that they were designed. Therefore, it does follow.
The contrapositive of “Natural things are not the result of design processes,” is "Artificial things are the result of design processes," so no, it does not follow.
Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Apparently, I was on a potent hallucinogenic and misread his post completely, as every other post of mine in this thread indicates otherwise.
What posts would those be? The posts I quoted are your only contributions to the topic of this thread.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
The contrapositive of “Natural things are not the result of design processes,” is "Artificial things are the result of design processes," so no, it does not follow.
What posts would those be? The posts I quoted are your only contributions to the topic of this thread.
What if people have it reversed? Rather than things in nature appearing to have a design, what if human-designed things appear to have evolved?
The point is, we only see things as being designed because we design things. Instead, perhaps we should look at our designed things from the perspective of "they look evolved."
No one else is on-topic. My topic was not about intelligent design as a whole but rather evolution appearing as design (and vice-versa).