RSS 2.0 Feed

» Welcome Guest Log In :: Register

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   
  Topic: For the love of Avocationist, A whole thread for some ID evidence< Next Oldest | Next Newest >  
Cedric Katesby

Posts: 55
Joined: Aug. 2006

(Permalink) Posted: Jan. 26 2007,06:28   

{at the party}
[Cedric and Advo are sitting down. Advo's long awaited rundown of her scientific argument for ID is about to begin.  Don joins them and Cedric gets him a comfy chair too.]
I do not claim to be able to have good recall

Never mind. Fortunately for us all, this party is happening over the Internet.  If you forget something, you can just do a quick check-up of your facts at the appropriate reference site of your choice and then pop back into the discussion.  I do it all the time. (conspiratorial wink)
But many of these are just baiting questions...

Advo, as the guy who got you the comfy chair, I promise you I am not interested in baiting you.
I WILL be on your case about getting straight answers from you, however!  Your time is precious and you have a life to lead and e-mails to send etc.  Well yeah, but then again so do the rest of us.
I don't want you to give me the runaround and just have you wave your hands in my face if I ask you a straight question.  That kind of selfish and dishonest behaviour does not make me happy at all.  I'll be fair and direct and honest in this discussion and I trust that you will do the same. Deal?
...the answers are readily available if you read up in the various discussions.

No doubt they are, I'll get around to reading them one day when I find the time.  But right now, we're here at the party.  What say you let your hair down, cast caution to the wind and give me your rundown of your understanding of a scientific argument for ID?  Here, let me top that glass up for you...
[Cedric and Don look expectantly at Advo]
By the way, I think space aliens have interfered on ths planet, but it doesn't touch the important questions.

Don: I didn't see that one coming!

[Cedric's eyes bulge slightly in disbelief but waits patiently for Advo to begin her rundown of a scientific argument for ID]

Then Advo begins...
The God of my understanding is blah, blah, blah a divide between pure atheism, blah, blah Deists, theists, religionists...blah, blah...Because once you posit a God, blah, blah  God universe blah...

[Cedric says nothing but the ghostly images of Dempski and DaveScot start jumping up and down frantically.  They look rather upset]

I envision the natural world unfolding in a step by step way, however I think this whole shebang isn't chance, and isn't a result of willy nilly interactions of matter.

[Cedric waits patiently for Advo to begin her rundown of her version of a scientific argument for ID.]

I don't find a tinkering God at all satisfying, and I think of the whole universe from its inception as one unified system. The parts of ID that I think are strong are the information arguments, and also the IC arguments. I liked the Meyer paper for a pretty readable rundown of the information arguments.

Ahah! See? See?? SEE!!!
(Especially you, Louis! :)
I plan on collecting that drink, bucko.)    :) :) :)
I just KNEW that if I was POLITE and endlessly PATIENT that I could finally get Advo to give me her scientific argument for ID!
Wow, sometimes I impress even myself!

[Cedric rushes over to the stereo and turns it off, much to the annoyance of the other guests]

Well People, Advo is finally warmed up and is going to launch into her much-anticipated scientific argument for ID.  Apparantly, she's going to touch on information arguments, IC arguments and will borrow heavily from the Meyer paper.

(Sorry for the interuption there, Advo.  Go ahead. Let's get into the meat of it.)

I suppose it is offensive that a bunch of people are not only  into ID, but in their minds they know good and well who did it, the God of the Bible. But I see ID as simply that we are at a crossroads right now - there are two possibilities. Either things are accidental or they are designed, and the two can be told apart.
I just don't find Darwinian mechanisms compelling. I don't expect either side to win, although I think ID is correct. I think we are working on a puzzle that is very, very hard, and without enough pieces we keep trying to interpret the whole.
Neither Dawkins nor the fundies will get their desire, because neither are correct in their assumptions. IMHO

[Cedric's jaw drops open. His drink falls from his suddenly useless fingers onto the floor and rolls under the sofa.]

  459 replies since Jan. 22 2007,04:54 < Next Oldest | Next Newest >  

Pages: (16) < [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... >   

Track this topic Email this topic Print this topic

[ Read the Board Rules ] | [Useful Links] | [Evolving Designs]