Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@brianjakub,

Im sorry, Ive been arguing for BIOLOGY and BIOCHEMISTRY, not "intelligence"(Ive said NOTHING about phyics except that THE LIVING STATE--defies the Laws of THERMO (not thermal) DYNAMICS, Read THERMODYNAMICS.

Evidence for intelligence needs to be self evident.

Apparently you have some trouble with reading comp.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Also, there are so many versions of creation stories, of which one are you fondest?....

Oh come on, I hate it when people pretend there has been no previous discussion of a subject.
The reason I put semi-quotes around 'creation' was to indicate my own long standing definition of it - That there is obviously more than spontaneous matter interactions behind our existence.
That's more or less the ID argument which you like to (erroneously) dismiss as religious Creationism.

Hey, did you see that Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger (who quit because of Wiki's deteriorating objectivity but does not believe ID) just blasted Wikipedia for the egregious lack of objectivity - Specifically about its article on Intelligent Design?

They are generally a great resource and worth the bucks I contribute but on hot button topics like ID they are total BS because of the Wiki-trolls that monitor and make sure the articles don't have entries not of their liking.

2 Replies

@Krumple,

On human development and ice ages. http://www.history.com/topics/ice-age

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Youve taken so many positions in this discussion that you seem to want to choose cornrs and expect me to honor your thought process. Im not impressed with your adjectival inferences. You really have to explain what you mean about Wiki's views on ID. just because an entry doesnt agree with your worldview, learn to discuss why you think they are wrong rather than just leaning on assigned "authority". I use assigned authority in a few areas but mostly just to drop quotes from them. I dont think Dave Raup is the last word on evolution but hes the one who hs researched more about the mathematics of extinction.
NOW, take a deepp breath, relax, and tell ole Farmerguy why you think Wiki sucks a big one.

1 Reply

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

Quote:
But long story slightly longer and answer i have already given. There is zero thought in evolution. No mind behind it. Environment dictates the rules, a species either adapts to those rules or gets booted out of the game.
What rules? Rules come from somewhere.

I am not referring to actual rules. This was just my way of explaining the conditions the "confines" that an environment allows for a species to find food, security from predators and how readily it can reproduce. Those are the "rules" I am referring to. It wasn't decided by a mind how such things should be structured. It is the environment with other life that construct these "rules" for a species to adapt to or perish.

brianjakub wrote:

There is an underlying code or set of rules that evolution. must follow, that are established by another underlying set of rules established by Newtonian physics and which are established by another set of underlying rules known as quantum mechanics and relativity. A all these rules are describe patterns we observe mathematically. We can't stop there and say,"well the rules came from nowhere and are describing nothing. There is a reason they exist.

Nope. You want to read more into it than is there. Science comes up with "laws" or "theories" based on how to explain the function of a system. WE call them rules because that is how we relate or make sense of them. All the are, is a method by which to describe function of nature. That's it. No intellect needed. It is NOT that some intelligent being purposely constructed these "rules" to be the way they are.

When we come up with math to explain a system, we do that so we can utilize the system in some way. To make it useful to us. That is what we have specialized in as "intelligent" apes. We love to make tools out of reality. Everything we "make" is a tool to allow us to accomplish something in our environment. It is why we have progressed beyond living beneath trees chasing deer around. We are apes who love making tools.

Physics is just another tool. A tool we use to send other tools to places we are curious about. We want to discover more and the only way we can discover more is by building more tools.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

NOW, take a deepp breath, relax, and tell ole Farmerguy why you think Wiki sucks a big one.

I couldn't say it any better than Wiki co-founder did.

Quote:

As the originator of and the first person to elaborate Wikipedia’s neutrality policy, and as an agnostic who believes intelligent design to be completely wrong, I just have to say that this article is appallingly biased. It simply cannot be defended as neutral. If you want to understand why, read this. I’m not here to argue the point, as I completely despair of persuading Wikipedians of the error of their ways. I’m just officially registering my protest.

—Larry Sanger (talk) 05:30, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

That there is obviously more than spontaneous matter interactions behind our existence.
That's more or less the ID argument which you like to (erroneously) dismiss as religious Creationism.

If you want to insist on adopting a non-religiou ancestry for the ID movement, Id suggest that you separate yourself from the phrase entirely. The fact is, ID (as a modern movement) has been an outgrowth of a religious worldview, (Whereas something like Panspermia is NOT). maybe you should try to develop a movement that, while trying to feed off scientific discoveries, is built upon there being a Universal Program that brought forth all life, not only on opir planet but throughout the universe where life exists.(We will need more information to honestly adopt the universal part , but you really need to get awy from the ID monicker.
WHETHER you believe it or not, it IS a religious movement. The author of the movement ,Philip Johnston, hs only recently died. You may not agree with me but that doesnt make me wrong. You jut dont wanna give up on a phrase that has too much history and you, after all these years, still(APPARENTLY) refuse to look into the history to see ho wrong you really are.

No skin offn me but you kinda look a bit dim to keep insisting what you do.

YOU may think your beliefs are science based but as long as you call em ID, youre gonna be tagged as "One of THEM"

Ive red both the ID and the "intelligent design movement" clip on Wikipedia and have found each to be accurate as far as history goes. If Sanger disagrees , hey, he too ought to spend some more time with "Of Pandas and people" or Johnston'sDARWIN on TRIAL which is pretty much the intruction manual for the modern ID movement

2 Replies

@Krumple,

several of them like to argue what the meaning of "is" , is.They dont dip into the meat of the story except to try to divert attention onto irrelevancies

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

Nope. You want to read more into it than is there. Science comes up with "laws" or "theories" based on how to explain the function of a system. WE call them rules because that is how we relate or make sense of them. All the are, is a method by which to describe function of nature. That's it. No intellect needed. It is NOT that some intelligent being purposely constructed these "rules" to be the way they are.

The rules existed long before we understood them. Nature had to always follow them to function in the past (before we existed) as it still does today while we are observing it. NOW WE understand some of them and use them because of our intelligence. We didn't invent them just recently, they were invented in the beginning when this (the universe) was all put into motion in a very precise way following very precise rules. We weren't there to observe it but somebody was. Do you we should look for evidence of him/it/her/them and figure out how they did it?

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

maybe you should try to develop a movement that, while trying to feed off scientific discoveries, is built upon there being a Universal Program that brought forth all life, not only on opir planet but throughout the universe where life exists.(We will need more information to honestly adopt the universal part , but you really need to get awy from the ID monicker.

I think you've solved it. Let's call the movement "The Universal Programmer Theory"

What do you think Leadfoot? Will the wiki founder go along with that?

2 Replies

@brianjakub,

brianjakub wrote:

We weren't there to observe it but somebody was. Do you we should look for evidence of him/it/her/them and figure out how they did it?

I think this is where your "honest" analysis falls apart. You can't say that there had to be a "being" or something that "caused" everything to happen. It's dishonest. As soon as you suggest this then you are already setting up the trap. You are establishing a basis for which there is no support. You can't start any analysis like that.

I don't think it was necessary for any being or what ever, ie. a mind to exist for our universe to begin. I don't see any reason there needed to be. I could be wrong but I don't see any aspects that require it.

The thing I do see is that we have not fully understood the functions of quantum particles yet. I bet as soon as we have it all understood it will make sense clear as day how the universe can "create itself".

It's just like lightning. Long ago people believed it was caused by supernatural beings. But now we know or understand that it has nothing to do with supernatural beings. It's just the function of electrical charges. We understand it so well we can predict where these storms will develop.

I think the same will happen when we fully understand quantum particles in their full scope. We will look at it and wonder why we didn't see it before. It will seem so obvious.

But the god believers will kick the can further down the road again. After we fully understand how a universe can arise without the need of an intelligent being, they will just suggest that some intelligent being was behind that.

I think its due to a want rather than what is actually there. People WANT there to be a god. So they implant it where it "needs" to be and then run their narrative from that point. It's dishonest to do that. First you have to give support that there is such a being there. If you can't then you have NOTHING.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

"Universal Programmer" would still be a religion were it be tken tocourt, and the US Constitution does not approve of "establishing a tate religion".

PS, and its nohere even close to being considered a theory.
The program ideas would be standrd ways that the chemitry of Carbon and Oxygen together, under energy, would form carbon dioxide, which, when in the presence of water, will dissociate and form an acid, and yattah, yattah yattah.

I think you ID guys are unlearned in chemistry because you seem to think the "creation" of amines, amides, amino acids and proteins in specific chemical "Soups" are MAGIC. Theyre not, they are inevitabilities in specific environments, like reducing low oxygen, high methane with the presence of iron and phosphorus and NOx. We create those conditions in stovepipes and volcanic vents (even add some SO2 and H2S)

Hardly mgic. chemistry follows rules of the element in its position in the periodic table.
and valence states, and ionic radii.

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

Quote:

I think you've solved it. Let's call the movement "The Universal Programmer Theory"

What do you think Leadfoot? Will the wiki founder go along with that?

Not only wouldn't he, but the guy who suggested the term would turn around and laugh at you for taking the bate. The Matrix Theory would do as well with them, even if that fit reality.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Ive red both the ID and the "intelligent design movement" clip on Wikipedia and have found each to be accurate as far as history goes. If Sanger disagrees , hey, he too ought to spend some more time with "Of Pandas and people" or Johnston'sDARWIN on TRIAL which is pretty much the intruction manual for the modern ID movement

God, farmer, you're such a proselytizer.
Will you ever stop worrying about those innocent children's minds getting infected with God stuff. If they aren't already infected, it ain't gonna happen.

3 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Now you are straying away from your point that todays ID was NOT a religious movement. Wiki pretty much has it correct in that it was (and IS).
Im not proselytizing anything, I dont stand in front of the doors of religious schools that teach Creationism or ID.(Yet the IDers would like to have PUBLIC schools recognize the "Scientific merits" of ID. Im sorry but I wont let that happen.

2 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

Now you are straying away from your point that todays ID was NOT a religious movement. Wiki pretty much has it correct in that it was (and IS).
Im not proselytizing anything, I dont stand in front of the doors of religious schools that teach Creationism or ID.(Yet the IDers would like to have PUBLIC schools recognize the "Scientific merits" of ID. Im sorry but I wont let that happen.

The "Of Pandas and People" famous court case is a great example of how Creationists attempted to sneak in Creationism into the science classrooms illegally.

I guess it's okay to lie, if you are doing it in the name of Jesus.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

What a maroon. No one here gives a rat's patoot if you shove that down the throats of the helpless perishers in your institutions of religious deception. The objection is to the use of public money and public schools in which you want to proselytize your creation bullsh*t. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion . . .--get over yourself, and stop lying.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

See? not everyone here is willing to just roll over and give your worldview a pass.

1.I think it been adequately covered it in our Constitution

2Weve seen the court cases where Creationism has been resoundly denied a place to teach it beliefs as science.

3. The more recent version of Intelligent Design, has been an outgrowth of Creationist. Of that there is no disagreement even by the most outspoken of ID "clubs"

4. If you need to do your own proselytizing, You do have all the rights in the world to establish your own schools where you can teach whatever you wish as science. All your doing is ******* up your young with beliefs that cannot be theorized because there is no evidence.

5. ID organizations, underwriting the conservative politics of the several states are no longer doing full-frontal attacks on the science with the idea of replacing biology with ID. Instead they are accepting a toe-hold based on "teaching-the-Controversy, where they feel the right to discuss the incompleteness of biology (nd the other support sciences) to"fully evidence evolution".

Teaching the controversy, if done in a truly objective science based(and honest) colloquy , can show that evolution is supported by damn good science and theres nothing out there that refutes the science (Like how bj has been trying to deny radioisotopic dating).
The only problem Ive had is seeing how these "Controversy" colloquia are just another name for a fuckin tent revival meeting.

0 Replies

@Krumple,

Quote:

The "Of Pandas and People" famous court case is a great example of how Creationists attempted to sneak in Creationism into the science classrooms illegally

In the Dover v Kitzmiller case, the"Panda's" book was forensically examined by a "Questioned documents" expert and she found several places in the book where its first editions used the word "Creationism" in the text. Later editions , which were planned for wider distribution in Pa Public SChools changed the word to Intelligent design. They did this by an early spellcheck for publishers. In one place the word Creationism and Intelligent Design became interlocked and appered in the book without any further editing by the "meat computer". SO the word appeared as \
"Creatintelligent desigtionism" This went into court as an example of how cynically these guys approached their own case. Had they done some more editing they could have avoided a very funny day in the case. The judge, when he delivered his decision, itemized many of these types of scatterbrained science and lumped them all together and he coined the phrase "Breathless inanity" [ to this day (over 10 years later) Im still not sure that inanity is even a word], but hey, it got the point across that these IDers were nothing but clowns who had little respect for scientific knowledge.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Now you are straying away from your point that todays ID was NOT a religious movement.

Where the hell did you get that? I was commenting on your zeal in trying to hang religion on my stance about ID (which has nothing to do with God or religion).

I am astounded that you think you can devine what other people are thinking or believe. That is utter absurdity. You sound like something out of '1984' with your charges of what you consider 'thought crimes'. Or perhaps something out of the Salem witch trials.

Setanta? Krump? Their agreement proves your ability to read minds?

Meh...

0 Replies

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know