6
   

A question about intelligent design

 
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 09:56 am
I could eat the big purple figs all day long.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 10:27 am
@edgarblythe,
I thought all figs were purple when ripe? I do like fig newtons even if they are also a little too sweet for my taste. Hey, maybe that's the significance of the fig in the Bible -- it's an omen that Newton would come along, and with Galileo, bust the Catholic plutocracy wide open. Their wounds haven't really healed yet today, even if they've called off the vendetta on Darwin and evolution. Of course, that's as phony as a two dollar bill produced with a scanner and printed on recycled paper.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 10:43 am
I don't pay attention to the Biblical aspects of figs. I was disappointed when my purple fig died, but the yellow is doing very well. The taste of yellow is, to me, inferior to purple.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 10:51 am
@wandeljw,
wandeljw wrote:

Good point, engineer. In fact ID proponents are attempting
to change the definition of science to include the supernatural.
I dissent. Too many scientists take an intellectually arrogant position, which implies closed-mindedness.
Up to the moment of the Wright Brothers' success we had scientists telling us
that heavier than air flight is impossible, and that consideration thereof
is science fiction and "supernatural".

There was a Congressman in the Abraham Lincoln Administration
who offered a bill to close the Patent Office for economy,
inasmuch as it was obvious that everything that was important
had already been invented. If u had suggested radios or TVs
to him, he 'd have brushed u off as mindlessly dealing with the "supernatural".

The definition of what is natural expands with additional knowledge.

(Radio waves ?? HUMBUG!)



David
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 11:32 am
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I dissent. Too many scientists take an intellectually arrogant position, which implies closed-mindedness.
Up to the moment of the Wright Brothers' success we had scientists telling us
that heavier than air flight is impossible, and that consideration thereof
is science fiction and "supernatural


Theres a huge difference in the above example and ID. Using your example, Heavier than air flight was not originally well understood and it took working out and simplifying the "Lift " analyses in the 1800's , then people began to understand and realize that heavier than air flight is achievable through the normal laws of physics and designs of gliders and planes were mathematically achievable. The people that still denied it after that werent scientists but luddites

IN ID, on the other hand, the "Science faculty" of the DIscovery Institute has gone on record to state that the scientific method does not determine all that should be considered "science". Thats just bullshit and When you can point to anything that the Discovery Faculty has managed to prove on its side of the aisle, then m,aybe we can talk. Michael Behe, in court, has gone on record to include astrology as science.

I think youve got too much invested in the "science" of people like ARt Bell and George Nori. Those guys (and their posses) are only , entertainers and Nori, for one, never takes too much of this **** seriously, he recognizes that the laws of the sciences that underpin our theories of natural evolution are not subject to debate and errata.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 12:01 pm
@farmerman,

My points r that smug, self-congratulatory closed-mindedness
is inconsistent with good science and that it coud be POSSIBLE
that we don't yet know everything that there is to know.

Principles of physics that have yet to be discovered
may reveal & explain matters that have been referred to as "supernatural".

I have seen things that some woud deny and consider impossible, illusionary
superstition (e.g., telepathy, pre-cognition, out-of-body experience)
that principles of science that have yet to be discovered
might possibly explain, in the fullness of time,
whereupon there will be a re-definition of "supernatural".

Insofar as this is concerned: I am anti-smug.





David
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 02:51 pm
The advocates of ID are really very humble. Yeah, right.

Science doesn't "explain" the supernatural, it debunks it.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 02:56 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Quote:
I have seen things that some woud deny and consider impossible, illusionary
superstition (e.g., telepathy, pre-cognition, out-of-body experience)
that principles of science that have yet to be discovered
might possibly explain, in the fullness of time,


However, since your club doesnt know where to begin except to make up "tales from the Darkside", I can agree that you had better not be too smug.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 03:31 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Quote:
I have seen things that some woud deny and consider impossible, illusionary
superstition (e.g., telepathy, pre-cognition, out-of-body experience)
that principles of science that have yet to be discovered
might possibly explain, in the fullness of time,


However, since your club doesnt know where to begin except
to make up "tales from the Darkside", I can agree that you had better not be too smug.
There were other things too

Your decision not to agree is both harmless
and 100% within your rights. I am absolutely sure
that in time u too will have an oobe; maybe u will return intact.
With luck, the underlying physics thereof will become known within our incarnate lives.

In the 1980s, I had a girlfriend, Arlene, with whom we were
frequently finishing one another 's sentences. Y? HOW?
Not all chics I ever knew: just HER.

For years n decades, I had cats n dogs, in differing numbers.
It was common that (at different random times of day or nite)
I was sitting motionless and I decided to feed cat or dog:
it was I had rang a loud dinner bell. There was an instant response.
If he or she had been asleep, he or she abrupty awoke,
head up and looked me in the eyes.
Other times: I dreamed that a person said a string of words
and the next day, verbatim; something unexpected,
not as if I owed him $$ and he had said:
"hay, where the hell 's the money damn u."

That 'd be unremarkable.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 03:40 pm
Well, the horseshit has started.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 03:41 pm
@farmerman,
ERRATUM:

"I was sitting motionless and I decided to feed cat or dog:
it was I had rang a loud dinner bell."

SHOUD HAVE BEEN:

I was sitting motionless and I decided to feed cat or dog:
it was as if I had rang a loud dinner bell.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 03:42 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

Well, the horseshit has started.
Yeah, I don 't believe in heavier than air flight, either, Ed.
Superstition.


Ready to spring your ambush ?
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 03:58 pm
It takes no ambush to withstand the "I believe it; therefore it trumps science" line of thought.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 04:03 pm
@edgarblythe,
edgarblythe wrote:

It takes no ambush to withstand the "I believe it; therefore it trumps science" line of thought.
The facts REMAIN whatever thay are,
regardless of whether our best minds have figured out
what happened or how to explain those facts.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 04:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Ive had what you call anOOBE. I was on an operating table in LAgos getting patched up from a serious attack by rebel soldiers of the Biafran stripe. My OOBE was merely me taking in . via reduced sensory links, various sounds and happenings in the operating and waiting room complex. (We were in shacks and tents. I overheard and retained several pieces of information from the talk going on around me. When I awoke, I recounted some of this and several people were amazed. Not me since once they affirmed that, yes they had taken part in such conversations, All I had to do was count on how my senses could take it in. Since that time Ive read about the increased sensory accuity when people are otherwise "shut down" and in a holding pattern either by shock, anesthesia, or deep coma.
Imnot impressed with anything about OOBE's.

What I am interested in is how children can often have nenories of what wed call "past lives" Now, since a kids mind is a huge sponge, is it possible that they can induce a lucid imginative train from all that occurs around them. My son used to talkk about things that happened "when he was a big man". He talked about smoking cigars and drinking liquor. Many times my wife and I had conversations about my battle with my bad habits and Im sure that several of these were in front of the kids when they were very very young (Cradle sized and before they talked). Disd they merely take this information in and incorporate it into their lucid story lines?

I made that connection after several times falling asleep in fron tof the TV and having very good dreams about topics related to the tv shows.(Once I was a standup comedian who was bombing in front of his audience). That night , on the TV was the life story of ANdy KAuffman.
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 04:09 pm
@farmerman,
I dont wanna hijack this thread any further, so Ill back off and only get involved in IDjicy comments
0 Replies
 
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 04:30 pm
There was really only one notable scientist before the Wright Bros. flight who stuck his foot firmly into his mouth, otherwise there was no consensus among scientist that heavier than air flying machines were, indeed, impossible. It was eight years before the Wrights launched their aircraft into the air. Lord Kelvin, President of the the Royal Society of England made his emphatic declaration, "Heavier than air flying machines are impossible." Would anyone have wanted to be a fly on the wall when Lord Kelvin received the news? Man, was his face red.

Now the "scientists" (they actually have to extensive study in the field of evolutionary biology, anthropology or anything else) who are making declarations that an intelligent designer had to be involved and they've come up with what is not even a theory. It's a new twist on an old mythology.

True, scientists have found evidence in many places of "Great Floods," but little did we all know that there would be a great flood of snake oil salesmen who call themselves scientists trying to drag science back into the Dark Ages.




farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 06:35 pm
@Lightwizard,
Mr Thompson had a reputation for inserting foot into mouth. Besides the above he stated that
1There is nothing left to discover

2The earth is only 10 000 000 years old because it is constantly cooling and this cooling ratemakes it im possible for it to be any older.

His comments about evolution aside, Kelvin was often his own worst PR machine.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 06:38 pm
@farmerman,
May a volcano erupt under his ass.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Oct, 2009 08:37 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Ive had what you call anOOBE. I was on an operating table in LAgos getting patched up from a serious attack by rebel soldiers of the Biafran stripe. My OOBE was merely me taking in . via reduced sensory links, various sounds and happenings in the operating and waiting room complex. (We were in shacks and tents. I overheard and retained several pieces of information from the talk going on around me. When I awoke, I recounted some of this and several people were amazed. Not me since once they affirmed that, yes they had taken part in such conversations, All I had to do was count on how my senses could take it in. Since that time Ive read about the increased sensory accuity when people are otherwise "shut down" and in a holding pattern either by shock, anesthesia, or deep coma.
Imnot impressed with anything about OOBE's.

What I am interested in is how children can often have nenories of what wed call "past lives" Now, since a kids mind is a huge sponge, is it possible that they can induce a lucid imginative train from all that occurs around them. My son used to talkk about things that happened "when he was a big man". He talked about smoking cigars and drinking liquor. Many times my wife and I had conversations about my battle with my bad habits and Im sure that several of these were in front of the kids when they were very very young (Cradle sized and before they talked). Disd they merely take this information in and incorporate it into their lucid story lines?

I made that connection after several times falling asleep in fron tof the TV and having very good dreams about topics related to the tv shows.(Once I was a standup comedian who was bombing in front of his audience). That night , on the TV was the life story of ANdy KAuffman.
What u posted is plausible, except that u did not explain
the reason that u consider this to have been an out-of-body experience.
During mine, I saw myself each time from a distance of around 30 feet.
Once I was about to have lunch in a fast food restaurant
and 3 times, I was on-the-job in court. Each of those times,
I saw myself in action from that approximate distance.

Were u remote from your material body?

If U wish to avoid hi jacking, u can begin a new thread
in response, If u wanna.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

New Propulsion, the "EM Drive" - Question by TomTomBinks
The Science Thread - Discussion by Wilso
Why do people deny evolution? - Question by JimmyJ
Are we alone in the universe? - Discussion by Jpsy
Fake Science Journals - Discussion by rosborne979
Controvertial "Proof" of Multiverse! - Discussion by littlek
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 02/19/2020 at 02:46:14