Yes, it's the correct section.
What if I told you that Disney Land appeared in Orlando by itself from a screw with a very high density, making rides which are very complex. And that they built themselves in long time. And that no one at all looks after these machines. And that Disney characters roaming around, came there by chane, with no one creative behind them.
Would you?
2006-11-10 09:21:12 · 14 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
1. No, because DisneyLand never appeared in Orlando. It appeared in Anaheim, California and not even Walt Disney World appeared in Orlando. It appeared in Lake Buena Vista, Florida (Orlando is right outside.)
2. No, because "with no one creative behind them" is very untrue. Walt Disney and his fellow Imagineers were all very creative.
3. No, because this statement makes no sense.
2006-11-13 02:58:41 · answer #1 · answered by Katlyn ♥ Disney 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
If Disney LAND, which is in Anaheim, suddenly appeared in Orlando way across the country, yeah I'd be pretty curious as to how THAT came about.
"Q: Please describe the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose.
A: Well, the word "mechanism" can be used in many ways. … When I was referring to intelligent design, I meant that we can perceive that in the process by which a complex biological structure arose, we can infer that intelligence was involved. …
Q: What is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes?
A: And I wonder, could—am I permitted to know what I replied to your question the first time?
Q: I don't think I got a reply, so I'm asking you. You've made this claim here (reading): "Intelligent design theory focuses exclusively on the proposed mechanism of how complex biological structures arose." And I want to know, what is the mechanism that intelligent design proposes for how complex biological structures arose?
A: Again, it does not propose a mechanism in the sense of a step-by-step description of how those structures arose. But it can infer that in the mechanism, in the process by which these structures arose, an intelligent cause was involved.
The interrogation goes on like this for pages and pages. Like the theorist in the Monty Python sketch, Behe throws up a blizzard of babble: process, intelligent activity, important facts. What process? What activity? What facts? He never explains. He says the designer "took steps" to create complex biological systems, but ID can't specify the steps. Does ID tell us who designed life? No, he answers. Does it tell us how? No. Does it tell us when? No. How would the designer create a bacterial flagellum? It would "somehow cause the plan to, you know, go into effect," he proposes.
Can ID make testable predictions? Not really. If we posit that a given biological system was designed, Rothschild asks, what can we infer about the designer's abilities? Just "that the designer had the ability to make the design that is under consideration," says Behe. "Beyond that, we would be extrapolating beyond the evidence." Does Behe not understand that extrapolating beyond initial evidence is exactly the job of a hypothesis? Does he not grasp the meaninglessness of saying a designer designed things that were designed?
2006-11-10 17:43:49 · answer #2 · answered by KC 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
what would you think if I told you an invisible man in the sky reached forth his finger and said a few magic words and created an entire man in the blink of an eye. Then, for some unexplained reason took a rib from that man's side and created another human being with different plumbing, then put them in a garden and told them to reproduce but the only way they could do that was to disobey him first, get kicked out of that wonderful garden,and then spend the rest of their existence among hardship and pain. the guy gets to work his butt off by the sweat of his brow for 700 years and the woman gets to bear children in pain and suffering eventually to become the slave of a wicked world - nice plausible plan, eh? oh, and by the year 2000 he's no where to be found while the objects of his creation kill each other and commit all manner of atrocities.
Oh what am I thinking - that IS what you believe
2006-11-10 17:36:13 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First of all, Disney WORLD is in Orlando....Disney LAND is in Cali....get your geography straight so I can concentrate on the actual question.
As for the actual question....would you rather me believe that Walt Disney himself is god, and he created Disney World in 7 days?
Oh, no....see, that's not the point, right? The point is you want me to think that a "creative" force made something even more complex than Space Mountain from thin air in 7 days...and that this being isn't even a person, it just is.
MMMhmmmmm....
I'm thinking I am believing your Disney World idea more.
2006-11-10 17:32:59 · answer #4 · answered by Heck if I know! 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a fallacy, first off, because Disney LAND is in Anaheim, California. Not Orlando, Florida.
So, your analogy is moot. Not to mention hypothetical, cos we know how both LAND and WORLD were made.. by man, with scewdrivers and cranes and other nifty tools.
2006-11-10 17:35:02 · answer #5 · answered by umwut? 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No. Also wouldn't believe that mice can talk and ducks wear sailor suits just because the guidebook says it's true.
2006-11-10 17:50:00 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
You bet. I may have to research this. I can even get funding. Yes this rocks! the things I am doing that make me feel guilty are ok to do now! Thank you so much!
2006-11-10 17:25:42 · answer #7 · answered by Bye Bye 6 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You really need to get an education.
2006-11-10 19:36:16 · answer #8 · answered by ? 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
No...but I don't beleive Michael Eisner is God either.
2006-11-10 17:24:27 · answer #9 · answered by Shalvia 5 · 1⤊ 1⤋
No, I would not believe you. And if I thought you were half serious, I would suggest you double check your meds.
2006-11-10 17:23:29 · answer #10 · answered by Yngona D 4 · 1⤊ 2⤋