Freethought & Rationalism ArchiveThe archives are read only. |
05-19-2003, 02:51 PM | #1 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orient, OH USA
Posts: 1,501
|
Even better than propagandaweb...
...is a quote made by evolskeptic on Creationtalk.
To quote... "Do not let the evos con you. The specious sub-optimal design argument was competently disposed of over two hundred years ago by Archdeacon William J. Paley in his classic "Watchmaker Argument:" "Neither, secondly, would it invalidate our conclusion [that the found watch had a designer], that the watch sometimes went wrong or that it seldom went exactly right. The purpose of the machinery, the design, and the designer might be evident, and in the case supposed, would be evident, in whatever way we accounted for the irregularity of the movement, or whether we could account for it or not. It is not necessary that a machine be perfect in order to show with what design it was made: still less necessary, where the only question is whether it were made with any design at all. ... "There cannot be design without a designer; contrivance without a contriver; order without choice; arrangement without anything capable of arranging; subserviency and relation to purpose without that which could intend a purpose; means suitable to an end, and executing their office in accomplishing that end, without the end ever having been contemplated or the means accommodated to it. Arrangement, disposition of parts, subserviency of means to an end, relation of instruments to a use imply the presence of intelligence and mind." Natural Theology, 1802. Not that it ultimately matters, but the inverted retina of vertebrates is NOT evidence of sub-optimal design: http://www.arn.org/docs/odesign/od19...dretina192.htm " Show just how much creationism Has (n't) evolved in the last 200 years or so. In Darwin Bubba:boohoo: :banghead: :banghead: :banghead: |
05-19-2003, 03:37 PM | #2 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Boston
Posts: 699
|
I wasn't aware that bad philisophical arguments had anything to do with observational science.
|
05-19-2003, 03:54 PM | #3 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Kansas City USA
Posts: 68
|
Even better at CreationTalk.com, try this thread:
http://www.creationtalk.com/message-...3b1c3d806#6524 The person's argument, marklondon2003, basically is we all know God exists. Until someone can prove that He doesn't, then He does and deep down inside we all know this. Why, you ask? Well because marklondon knows what everyone really believes. Another gem from this comedian: Quote:
Which you can find here :banghead: Enjoy! D |
|
05-19-2003, 03:58 PM | #4 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Orient, OH USA
Posts: 1,501
|
Actually, I've run into several creationists who are much dumber in person than the ones we debate on the internet. I told one creationist that evolution was a "robust" theory...he told me that he didn't know what the word "robust" meant!
Bubba |
05-19-2003, 06:02 PM | #5 |
Contributor
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Proud Citizen of Freedonia
Posts: 42,473
|
I despise the watchmaker argument so much, its almost as bad as Pascal's Wager. But atleast Pascal's Wager doesn't ignore its own logic.
1) Everything must have a designer 2) Well..., except god 3) Therefore god must exist. That's all it boils down to. Sure, at times, very brief ones, I think that the universe had to of had a supreme being to create it. But then I can't get past the where does god come from issue. Anti-evolutionists have no problem with their own paradox. That just shows the arrogence. |
05-19-2003, 07:01 PM | #6 |
Regular Member
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 204
|
well, i believe santa claus exists because i want him to exist. What is this argument called, the Argument of Belief?
|
05-20-2003, 01:57 AM | #7 | |
Veteran Member
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Vienna, Austria
Posts: 2,406
|
Quote:
Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You contribute to the solution of a problem by reducing it to a smaller one! Regards, HRG. |
|
05-20-2003, 09:48 AM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: San Narcisco, RRR
Posts: 527
|
Quote:
KC |
|
05-20-2003, 12:17 PM | #9 | |
Regular Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 169
|
Quote:
|
|
05-20-2003, 12:22 PM | #10 |
Veteran Member
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: Heaven
Posts: 6,980
|
Simply deny their premise. It works great, especially if you point out that rivers display fractal patterns (provided you look at the right scale)--an intricate design. Yet, all it takes for them to occur is water flowing across dirt! No design their, but a pattern nonetheless. Since their premise is invalid, then their whole argument is invalid.
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|