Bartok

A decent post, sure enough. However, allow me to suggest a few things. I will even set aside my own musical tastes and continue to use our bare-midrifted teeny-bopper as an example.

What about those fans who do not see her music as fixed or finished, who DO see potential for her to evolve and change and adapt as a singer?

What about those fans who do not see her as the only aspect of her music? They see the importance of every drum beat, every backup singer, the engineering process, etc.? That is, what if they accept the entire process with all its glitches and do not necessarily see her as the sole center of the CD's existence?

Setting this analogy aside, I'll now speak a little more plainly. While Paley's version of ID nowadays seems a little silly as we now have Darwin's findings, what about the more progressive versions of the theory, the adherants who do take the findings of biology and physics more seriously, who see the universe as a constant state of flux and recognize the importance of caring for the world rather than just their own species?

To those who still adhere to Paley, this argument works just fine. However, to more progressive types it may seem that Ms. Spears is recording a duet with up-and-coming pop sensation MC Straw Man.

madmax2976

If this is all you have in the way of evidence, I guess we don't have to go much further. I suspect you just weren't breastfed as a child and your childhood mammories are just haunting you.

So enough of this tit for tat reparte. Either make your premises sound or reword your argument. In the process you'll have to discount some of the reasonable explanations: drugs, simple growth(notice how she is obviously older in the pictures where she's more well endowed), clothing at the time of the pictures, and excercise. Having caught clips of her in that recent movie wearing just a bikini top I didn't notice her being all that large.

Calling someone a liar or implying that they are is no simple thing and a good skeptic is going to call you on it every time. So put some support into your premises so you can lift it up a notch and we can separate it from a poor argument. There's too much wiggle and jiggle room in it right now.

Mike Carmichael

Actually, there was a time when I saw the matter as being, I believe, much the same as you do.

I wish I had a Rattlesnake for every time someone told me, “ I was once an atheist just like you.” I wouldn’t have to worry about rats or most theists running around the house. Anyway, that’s what it sounds like. But I digress.

You believe that it is somehow unreasonable for them to accept one theory while arguing against others as if their very lives depend upon them being as they say.

I don’t believe that it is unreasonable. It is very reasonable to reject theories which have no basis in fact, while accepting other which do. In the three examples I have given, Theory Of Gravity, the Evolution Theory, and Intelligent Design, only one lacks any basis in fact.
Their very lives do, in fact, depend on things being as they say. Bertrand Russell once said,
“ People would rather die than to think enough to change their ideas, and in fact, most do.”
To lose what they have to lose, that is the very way that they see things, the way that their family and friends see things, the very fabric of their lives is threatened.

What is unreasonable is that they refuse to investigate what they believe, out of this fear. Or worse, comfortable ignorance.

The problem is that there is simply nothing unreasonable about this in itself. Christians in this group are absolutely convinced (and I do not think that I can sufficiently emphasize the degree) that non-Christian scientists are deceived and deceiving others as to the nature of the evidence, and that they (these Christians) are interpreting it correctly.

That’s cool. But where is their proof? Where is there any proof, anywhere, that supports them?
By and large, most scientists in this country are christians of some sorts. The pope himself has supported evolution. Intelligent Design folks are no more and no less than creationists. Period.

On the other hand, they have no quarrel with the current interpretation of evidence having to do with gravity, and so there is nothing at all unreasonable about not calling it into question.

I would bet you my last floppy disk that you couldn’t find one person in ten that could tell you, even vaguely, how gravity works. They support the theory of gravity without the slightest understanding of how it works.

Now that is unreasonable. It doesn’t matter one whit whether or not a theory is valid or not. What matter is whether or not you’ve studied the evidence, if you support that theory. Blind assertion of the truth is no more honorable than blind assertion of an outright lie.

Given their beliefs about the evidence, I think that they function exactly how every one else does.

Not everyone.

Why does the average Christian not see that Christian advocates of ID and Creationism might be biased and be cautious to accept their interpretations of the evidence? Many of them do, but less so than they believe non-Christian scientists to be biased and always trying to discount a theory that would suggest the involvement of an intelligent designer.

And their views on christian scientists who support the same theories?

I personally try to comment on matters such as this evidence only so far as I believe my experience and knowledge to allow.

Smart move, especially considering the company you’re keeping here. You show a pretty good understanding of the thought processes of those who believe ID, and of those who do not. The question I’d like to ask you is what does the evidence show you?

Theists must define a God capable of meeting the requirements of their dogma

Kewl.

Thinking Freely,
Mike Carmichael

Mike Carmichael

What about those fans who do not see her as the only aspect of her music? They see the importance of every drum beat, every backup singer, the engineering process, etc.? That is, what if they accept the entire process with all its glitches and do not necessarily see her as the sole center of the CD's existence?

More power to them. Music, as I have said, is a metter of taste. I have a hard rock friend who drums. He's a big fan of Emmy Lou Harris because she has good drummers. It's like watching a T-Rex eat a salad, I tell you.

While Paley's version of ID nowadays seems a little silly as we now have Darwin's findings, what about the more progressive versions of the theory, the adherants who do take the findings of biology and physics more seriously, who see the universe as a constant state of flux and recognize the importance of caring for the world rather than just their own species?

I said it once, I'll say it again, ID is creationism. Period. If there are those among them who take science serious, good for them.

I miss how ID could relate to better care for the earth, not just our species. Haven't heard that version of it, I supposse. Could you expound, please?

However, to more progressive types it may seem that Ms. Spears is recording a duet with up-and-coming pop sensation MC Straw Man.

Again, if there is more to ID than creationism, I have not see it. I'll be happy to look but the " DEsign" part if ID suggests a Designer. Hard to get past that, regardless of what else good there is to be found.

Thinkign Freely,
Mike Carmichael

Mike Carmichael

Either make your premises sound or reword your argument.

How about this: " The woman is making a living more on her frontage, than her abilities to front a song." ?

This eliminates the need for us to make an up close inspection for scar lines, or torture any surgeons for the truth.

Not that the inspections would be unpleasent, but I suspect even in the name of truth we'd be arrested.

I'll let you do the talking.

Now that I've rearraged my assertion, do you find it firmed up? Or is it in need of further support?
My replies aren't landing where I want them to land?

WTF?

Thinking Freely,
Mike Carmichael

rainbow walking

Looks like you rustled some Brittany feathers rather than theist ires...eh Mike
<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" /> <img src="graemlins/boohoo.gif" border="0" alt="[Boo Hoo]" />

tronvillain

I recall seeing those links before, and they are rather unconvincing evidence for breast implants. Now, while I enjoy looking at Britney, her appearance isn't the reason I occasionally listen to her music, though it is one of the reasons I occasionally watch her videos.

Bartok

More power to them. Music, as I have said, is a metter of taste. I have a hard rock friend who drums. He's a big fan of Emmy Lou Harris because she has good drummers. It's like watching a T-Rex eat a salad, I tell you.

It seems the line between analogy and reality has been lost here. No worries.

I said it once, I'll say it again, ID is creationism. Period. If there are those among them who take science serious, good for them.

There are those who do like the argument from design who no longer adhere strictly to the Genesis account or Paley's version of the theory. I would not automatically equate creationism with ID as "creationism" seems to imply reading Genesis 1 as a real event. My view, anyway.

I miss how ID could relate to better care for the earth, not just our species. Haven't heard that version of it, I supposse. Could you expound, please?

What I was attempting to get at was the human-centric thought prevalent in the original post (bacteria becoming immune to antibiotics, creating further inconveniences for humans). That's something I have not completely worked out for myself, but I just figured I'd challenge that and see where it would take us.

In the end, yes, ID is a form of creationism. However, when arguing against one form of that form, it is irrelevant to those who may subscribe to another form. A theist may like the argument from design, but that theist may be a little more up-to-date in his or her thinking than a theory a couple hundred years old. It would be the same as if a theist came on here arguing against the original Darwinian theory of evolution. He'd be laughed out of the forum.

madmax2976

<strong> Now this I can completely concur with. Particularly since I find her vocal abilities barely more than passable - maybe not even that good.

However, this is my opinion and your opinion. The other opinions of others may vary greatly. I have no delusions that my opinions or yours are right and theirs are wrong.

Now on with your argument..:

<strong> This would be an ad hominem attack. Your not specifically addressing their arguments but rather are attempting to win by attacking their character, making them supposedly as "irrational" as Spear's fans. However it is only your opinion that Spear's fans are in some way irrational. You haven't supported this apart from your subjective opinion. Therefore your analogy is misguided at best.

<strong> More rhetoric and character assassination. The only way to "win" against IDsts are to expose their arguments directly. Point out their poor research and/or command of the issues.

<strong> [quote]
If you?re working with WordPerfect word processing software, and hit the spell check once you?ve typed the word ?creationism?, the best fit the software comes up with is ?cretinism?. Rightfully so.
</strong>[/quote

Blatant ad hominem.

<strong>Disregarding the further personal attacks, ID theories need not say anything about the theory of evolution and could be compatible with or complementary to it.

<strong> I don't think they would ever say one has "nothing" to do with the other. I would expect them to say that religious beliefs can be left out of the question of whether ID has any merit. I would probably concur.

<strong> They may be "smug" about it, but that is irrelevant to whether they have a case. Good scientists can be "smug" as well - I suspect a good number of them are to some degree.

They are arguing the patterns are evidence for a personal, intelligent creator being. You would argue that natural physics are the reason for the patterns. Thus all you've done here is to reiterate the essence of the debate - not argued against ID theory.

<strong> Just for the record, Michael Behe is an IDst and an evolutionist. So is Dembski - one of, if not the chief proponent of ID. Thus your obviously stereo-typing here.

<strong> Your preoccupation with evolutionary theory suggests you don't really understand the ID arguments. Certainly there are IDsts who argue against evolution, but that does not mean they all do.

<strong> I highly expect this is true, but then it would be best ot address those of the ID crowd who are not so obviously misguided and ignorant of the facts. You could defeat all the "anti-evolutionary" IDsts and ID theory could still be viable.

<strong> This may all be true, but your going to have to acutally prove its true and not just assert it. This will mean dealing with the specific arguments they make rather than just stating their knowledge is "woeful". They could just easily turn around and say the same about you or me.

<strong> Again you've attacked ID as being "silly" but with nothing more than an analogy - and a completely false analogy as far as I can tell. Please explain more clearly how this analogy applies to ID.

<strong> As far as I can tell your argument is a very poor one. You haven't critiqued or even listed a single ID argument (like Dembski's information argument). You haven't discussed any opposing data in detail. You've engaged in false analogies, unsupported assertions and character attacks.

Sorry, but you'll have to back to the drawing board on this one.

Bartok

Exactly. I had to assume that we were speaking of Paley and not more recent (and more sensible) ID arguments. Please give us more to work with, Michael.

Questioning assumptions,
Bartok