Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Bubba · 05-19-2003, 02:51 PM

...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:

beoba · 05-19-2003, 03:37 PM

I wasn't aware that bad philisophical arguments had anything to do with observational science.

ruby-soho · 05-19-2003, 03:54 PM

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:

I am way beyond the stage of being restricted to a particular subject. My knowledge covers all boundaries. There are only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility. Spontaneous generation, that life arose from non-living matter was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That leaves us with the only possible conclusion that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God. I will accept that because I want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose not to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible; spontaneous generation arising to evoltion.

[emphasis and mispellings all his]

Which you can find here :banghead:

Enjoy!

D

Bubba · 05-19-2003, 03:58 PM

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

Jimmy Higgins · 05-19-2003, 06:02 PM

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.

johngalt · 05-19-2003, 07:01 PM

well, i believe santa claus exists because i want him to exist. What is this argument called, the Argument of Belief?

HRG · 05-20-2003, 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jimmy Higgins
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.

Proponents of the design argument want to solve a smaller problem (explaining the apparent or actual design of life etc.) by reducing it to a larger problem (explaining the existence, methods and motivations of the alleged designer).

Sorry, it doesn't work that way. You contribute to the solution of a problem by reducing it to a smaller one!

Regards,
HRG.

KC · 05-20-2003, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by johngalt
well, i believe santa claus exists because i want him to exist. What is this argument called, the Argument of Belief?

It's an Argument from Personal Credulity.

KC

Slavik91 · 05-20-2003, 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by johngalt
well, i believe santa claus exists because i want him to exist. What is this argument called, the Argument of Belief?

Wishful thinking, I think.

Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ · 05-20-2003, 12:22 PM

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.

05-19-2003, 02:51 PM	#1
Bubba 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:

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

05-19-2003, 03:37 PM	#2
beoba 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, 03:58 PM	#4
Bubba 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
Jimmy Higgins 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
johngalt 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, 12:22 PM	#10
Jesus Tap-Dancin' Christ 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.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.