Morality Defined

So how do we know anything?
Click to expand...

Apparently Mott thinks we know things by Science theory. I maintain that Science theory is only a theory, a possibility. You continue to argue against the possibility of Intelligent Design, as an explanation for origin. Apparently, you know this because of something, you haven't really said why you know it. I maintain it is a theory, that it is indeed possible life originated through intelligent design. I haven't said that ID is a fact, I only maintain it is a theory, a possibility. Based on the improbability of randomness being responsible for numerous and complex predictable patterns found in life. I can't prove my theory, but considering no alternative theory for origin has been suggested, it seems as reasonable as nothing.
 
But the origin of life has nothing to do with morality, which is a set of behaviors and attitudes which facilitate cooperative and mutually beneficial relationships.
 
Yes, please give me an example of predictable complex patterns which occur completely randomly without intelligent input. This should be interesting!!

The Giants Causeway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/nature/uk/content/images/gallery/1582_giants_causeway.jpg

http://www.danheller.com/images/Europe/Ireland/CausewayCoast/giants-causeway-bw-big.jpg



Crystals and Snowflakes have already been discussed. No two are alike, so they are not predictable, and are also dependent on non-random chemical and environmental input, and do not qualify.

Are you referring to the creationist myth that speciation through evolution is a result of random events?

No two genetic allele combination are the same, and no genetic mutations are random. Like the formation of snowflakes, genetic mutations are caused by chemical changes, by cause and effect.
 
If you have hidden your post, you haven't presented your post.

I might have posted it, and you can see it but a mental block is preventing you from recognising it.

The point is, and it is a point Rene Descartes went through centuries ago, that you can never be sure, never know 100%.

You are looking at your screen, and making the assumption that the computer isn't misleading you, that your senses aren't misleading you, that your mind isn't misleading you.

Haven't you read your Descartes Dixie?
 
Dixie, you have totally ducked and dived my point.

Do you recognise that absolute knowledge is something that we cannot possess? Nothing can be proved. You cannot even prove that your own senses are not lying to you and you cannot even prove to yourself that you are even reading this.

Do you thus recognise that we must then look at methods in which we can come to know things?

Do you accept that repeated observation has demonstrated itself to be the only reliable method of knowng existence around us? It has given us every piece of knowledge we have, from our understanding of the life cycles of plants to the understanding that recognised and harnessed of electricity.

Can you think of any other methods by which we successfully know things?
 
I take it you would like to turn to speciation through evolution or intelligent design?

What makes you believe that complex things automatically require a designer?
 
AnyOldIron said:
I take it you would like to turn to speciation through evolution or intelligent design?

What makes you believe that complex things automatically require a designer?
Click to expand...

I don't. I believe it is possible they do.

This is the point of my entire argument, and you can't see it because you simply don't want to see it. You have offered nothing to refute my theory, nothing to suggest another alternative, and you readily admit we can't definitively "know" for certain, yet you seem to know for certain, there is no possibility of intelligent design. Can you explain that dichotomy?
 
AnyOldIron said:
Yes, please give me an example of predictable complex patterns which occur completely randomly without intelligent input. This should be interesting!!

The Giants Causeway.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/earth/nature/uk/content/images/gallery/1582_giants_causeway.jpg

http://www.danheller.com/images/Europe/Ireland/CausewayCoast/giants-causeway-bw-big.jpg



Crystals and Snowflakes have already been discussed. No two are alike, so they are not predictable, and are also dependent on non-random chemical and environmental input, and do not qualify.

Are you referring to the creationist myth that speciation through evolution is a result of random events?

No two genetic allele combination are the same, and no genetic mutations are random. Like the formation of snowflakes, genetic mutations are caused by chemical changes, by cause and effect.
Click to expand...

The Giant Causeway patterns look pretty random to me, I see no two that are completely identical. They are similar, but not predictably the same and not consistent. Proving again, consistent predictable patterns are not the result of randomness.
 
Dixie said:
The Giant Causeway patterns look pretty random to me, I see no two that are completely identical. They are similar, but not predictably the same and not consistent. Proving again, consistent predictable patterns are not the result of randomness.
Click to expand...

The natural laws will produce certain patterns.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Dixie, you have totally ducked and dived my point.

Do you recognise that absolute knowledge is something that we cannot possess? Nothing can be proved. You cannot even prove that your own senses are not lying to you and you cannot even prove to yourself that you are even reading this.

Do you thus recognise that we must then look at methods in which we can come to know things?

Do you accept that repeated observation has demonstrated itself to be the only reliable method of knowng existence around us? It has given us every piece of knowledge we have, from our understanding of the life cycles of plants to the understanding that recognised and harnessed of electricity.

Can you think of any other methods by which we successfully know things?
Click to expand...

If absolute knowledge is something we can't possess, then it is inherently impossible for us to be absolute that life didn't originate through intelligent design. To make this assumption on any basis, is closed minded and foolish, and contradicts the very principle you just described.

We have repeatedly observed complexity and intricacy found in living organisms, and in the entire scope of life forms observed on the planet. Not only is there immense complexity and pattern to life, but all life forms seem to support each other in an even more elaborately intricate cycle. The life forms are supported by very specific environmental prerequisites and requirements, which are also intricate and complex. We can observe precise consistent and predictable patterns, only as the result of intelligent input. We can observe that randomness has never produced consistent predictable patterns. We can observe that the laws of our universe and physics, are consistent and predictable, and these enable all of the elements for life to exist.

Given these observations, it is not out of the realm of possibility that intelligent design may be responsible for origin of life. This doesn't mean "A GOD" or any particular and specific entity. It simply means intelligent input could possibly be responsible for origin of life. If you contradict Scientific principles, and conclude this to be impossible, you are doing so out of nothing more than a personal conviction of faith to the contrary.
 
AssHatZombie said:
Rain falls in a predictable pattern. Down. It's not intelligent design. It's just a pattern.
Click to expand...

Hey guys... try to follow this... I SAID... CONSISTENT... PREDICTABLE... COMPLEX.... PATTERNS! Are you sure you are able to read all those big words and comprehend them all at one time? Please refrain from your stupid examples until you let this soak into your pinhead mush-brains a while, you are embarrassing me.
 
Dixie said:
Hey guys... try to follow this... I SAID... CONSISTENT... PREDICTABLE... COMPLEX.... PATTERNS! Are you sure you are able to read all those big words and comprehend them all at one time? Please refrain from your stupid examples until you let this soak into your pinhead mush-brains a while, you are embarrassing me.
Click to expand...

So you've qualified your idiocy with more irrelevancies. Good job.
 
AssHatZombie said:
So you've qualified your idiocy with more irrelevancies. Good job.
Click to expand...

No, you've not met my challenge because you can't. All you can do is continue to hurl baseless insults at me, like a 3rd-grader. It's okay, really it is, I never expected you to meet my challenge, because it is quite impossible, which is why I issued it. It doesn't bother me for people like you to call me names and hurl insults, I am very used to it here, and it doesn't phase me a bit, in fact, it kind of confirms to me that I have made a point you can't refute. Whenever I see one of your juvenile snipes, I just laugh out loud and think... poor idiot.... poor foolish idiot! Your remarks are the source of much pleasure in my life, I assure you. Keep up the good work... and hey, if you need some vasaline for that fist in the ass problem, see Beefy, he has a private stash!
 
Dixie said:
No, you've not met my challenge because you can't. All you can do is continue to hurl baseless insults at me, like a 3rd-grader. It's okay, really it is, I never expected you to meet my challenge, because it is quite impossible, which is why I issued it. It doesn't bother me for people like you to call me names and hurl insults, I am very used to it here, and it doesn't phase me a bit, in fact, it kind of confirms to me that I have made a point you can't refute. Whenever I see one of your juvenile snipes, I just laugh out loud and think... poor idiot.... poor foolish idiot! Your remarks are the source of much pleasure in my life, I assure you. Keep up the good work... and hey, if you need some vasaline for that fist in the ass problem, see Beefy, he has a private stash!
Click to expand...


Your challenge makes no sense. Patterns don't require a designer. Adding those extra descriptors are meaningless, patterns, being patterns, already have some form of regularity in them, thats why they're called patterns. You're a moron.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top