info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Intelligent Design Designer(s) evolved
75 views
Skip to first unread message
Pro Plyd
Feb 24, 2018, 7:45:03 PM2/24/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
The irony... the irony...
- Col Kurtz
- Col Kurtz
R. Dean
Feb 25, 2018, 10:40:03 AM2/25/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2/24/2018 7:43 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
> The irony... the irony...
>
And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
which may be even more supportive of intelligent
design?
>
> - Col Kurtz
>
> The irony... the irony...
>
And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
which may be even more supportive of intelligent
design?
>
> - Col Kurtz
>
Bob Casanova
Feb 25, 2018, 2:10:03 PM2/25/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:38:31 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
So where did the designer come from? "He always existed"
answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
supernatural.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
supernatural.
--
Bob C.
"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
- Isaac Asimov
R. Dean
Feb 26, 2018, 2:20:03 PM2/26/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On 2/25/2018 2:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:38:31 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 2/24/2018 7:43 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>> The irony... the irony...
>>>
>> And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
>> which may be even more supportive of intelligent
>> design?
>
> So where did the designer come from? "He always existed"
> answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
> supernatural.
>
Rather than the universe being eternal, as most scientist
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:38:31 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 2/24/2018 7:43 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>> The irony... the irony...
>>>
>> And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
>> which may be even more supportive of intelligent
>> design?
>
> So where did the designer come from? "He always existed"
> answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
> supernatural.
>
including Einstein thought, why not an eternal designer?
Until Hubble discovered an expanding universe, Einstein
stood by his eternal universe. After Hubble's discovery
he admitted he was mistaken. He had fudged his numbers
so as to purge his general relative theory of a universe
with a beginning and and end. He later called this the
greatest blunder of his career.
The question remains why could an eternal universe have
been so convincingly believed, but an eternal designer?
Bob Casanova
Feb 27, 2018, 12:45:03 PM2/27/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Mon, 26 Feb 2018 14:17:28 -0500, the following appeared
lessons from Ray? But see below.
>Until Hubble discovered an expanding universe, Einstein
>stood by his eternal universe. After Hubble's discovery
>he admitted he was mistaken. He had fudged his numbers
>so as to purge his general relative theory of a universe
>with a beginning and and end. He later called this the
>greatest blunder of his career.
That's "not even wrong". He called his addition of a
"cosmological constant" to his GR equations, added in order
to account for a static universe, his greatest error,
*after* Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, not
static.
>The question remains why could an eternal universe have
>been so convincingly believed, but an eternal designer?
Because we see the universe, and until Hubble showed
otherwise the simplest assumption was that it was static. No
designer, OTOH, has ever been seen, or even demonstrated to
be required for the universe to exist; it's a religious
belief, nothing more.
in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>On 2/25/2018 2:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:38:31 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 2/24/2018 7:43 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>> The irony... the irony...
>>>>
>>> And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
>>> which may be even more supportive of intelligent
>>> design?
>>
>> So where did the designer come from? "He always existed"
>> answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
>> supernatural.
>Rather than the universe being eternal, as most scientist
>including Einstein thought, why not an eternal designer?
Why invoke a belief which has been refuted? Been taking
>On 2/25/2018 2:05 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:38:31 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>>
>>> On 2/24/2018 7:43 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>> The irony... the irony...
>>>>
>>> And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
>>> which may be even more supportive of intelligent
>>> design?
>>
>> So where did the designer come from? "He always existed"
>> answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
>> supernatural.
>Rather than the universe being eternal, as most scientist
>including Einstein thought, why not an eternal designer?
lessons from Ray? But see below.
>Until Hubble discovered an expanding universe, Einstein
>stood by his eternal universe. After Hubble's discovery
>he admitted he was mistaken. He had fudged his numbers
>so as to purge his general relative theory of a universe
>with a beginning and and end. He later called this the
>greatest blunder of his career.
"cosmological constant" to his GR equations, added in order
to account for a static universe, his greatest error,
*after* Hubble showed the universe to be expanding, not
static.
>The question remains why could an eternal universe have
>been so convincingly believed, but an eternal designer?
otherwise the simplest assumption was that it was static. No
designer, OTOH, has ever been seen, or even demonstrated to
be required for the universe to exist; it's a religious
belief, nothing more.
Bob Casanova
Feb 28, 2018, 12:55:03 PM2/28/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 27 Feb 2018 10:40:06 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
Upon reflection, this may be a restatement of what Dean
meant to post with his reference to an "eternal universe".
If so, sorry, but my comments above and below still stand.
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
meant to post with his reference to an "eternal universe".
If so, sorry, but my comments above and below still stand.
Pro Plyd
Mar 15, 2018, 11:35:03 PM3/15/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:38:31 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 2/24/2018 7:43 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>> The irony... the irony...
>>>
>> And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
>> which may be even more supportive of intelligent
>> design?
>
> So where did the designer come from? "He always existed"
> answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
> supernatural.
>
This is where one is supposed to stop thinking.
> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:38:31 -0500, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>
>> On 2/24/2018 7:43 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>> The irony... the irony...
>>>
>> And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
>> which may be even more supportive of intelligent
>> design?
>
> So where did the designer come from? "He always existed"
> answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
> supernatural.
>
Bob Casanova
Mar 16, 2018, 2:35:03 PM3/16/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:32:46 -0600, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<inv...@invalid.invalid>:
Apparently; Tony has that bit down perfectly.
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<inv...@invalid.invalid>:
Pro Plyd
Mar 20, 2018, 10:15:02 PM3/20/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:32:46 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
> <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:38:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 2/24/2018 7:43 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>> The irony... the irony...
>>>>>
>>>> And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
>>>> which may be even more supportive of intelligent
>>>> design?
>>>
>>> So where did the designer come from? "He always existed"
>>> answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
>>> supernatural.
>>>
>>
>> This is where one is supposed to stop thinking.
>
> Apparently; Tony has that bit down perfectly.
>
Of course, to stop something, it must be first started, and
> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:32:46 -0600, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
> <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>
>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:38:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>> On 2/24/2018 7:43 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>> The irony... the irony...
>>>>>
>>>> And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
>>>> which may be even more supportive of intelligent
>>>> design?
>>>
>>> So where did the designer come from? "He always existed"
>>> answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
>>> supernatural.
>>>
>>
>> This is where one is supposed to stop thinking.
>
> Apparently; Tony has that bit down perfectly.
>
ID/creationism is a substitute for that, i.e., thinking.
ID/creationism is proof from incredulity writ large.
Bob Casanova
Mar 21, 2018, 12:40:04 PM3/21/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 20 Mar 2018 20:11:13 -0600, the following appeared
start".
>ID/creationism is proof from incredulity writ large.
Of course, combined with proof from ignorance.
in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
<inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:32:46 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
>> <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:38:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/24/2018 7:43 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>>> The irony... the irony...
>>>>>>
>>>>> And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
>>>>> which may be even more supportive of intelligent
>>>>> design?
>>>>
>>>> So where did the designer come from? "He always existed"
>>>> answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
>>>> supernatural.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is where one is supposed to stop thinking.
>>
>> Apparently; Tony has that bit down perfectly.
>>
>
>Of course, to stop something, it must be first started, and
>ID/creationism is a substitute for that, i.e., thinking.
Point. I was unjustifiably equating "stop" with "never
<inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Thu, 15 Mar 2018 21:32:46 -0600, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Pro Plyd
>> <inv...@invalid.invalid>:
>>
>>> Bob Casanova wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Feb 2018 10:38:31 -0500, the following appeared
>>>> in talk.origins, posted by "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/24/2018 7:43 PM, Pro Plyd wrote:
>>>>>> The irony... the irony...
>>>>>>
>>>>> And why not, as new discoveries are made by scientist
>>>>> which may be even more supportive of intelligent
>>>>> design?
>>>>
>>>> So where did the designer come from? "He always existed"
>>>> answers nothing, as does any invocation of the unevidenced
>>>> supernatural.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is where one is supposed to stop thinking.
>>
>> Apparently; Tony has that bit down perfectly.
>>
>
>Of course, to stop something, it must be first started, and
>ID/creationism is a substitute for that, i.e., thinking.
start".
>ID/creationism is proof from incredulity writ large.
0 new messages