Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

I was saying that it was inconsistent with his explicit and implicit position he expresses at other times.

Bullshit.

Refer to parados' statement above. Youre just trying to insert wedges where they do not exist.

In all our discussions where you and I disagree(and I think thats most of them), I hope Ive been fair enough to say that we really DONT know everything about what we talk and we depend exclusively upon the preponderence of evidence and that the conclusions we know ascibe to must NOT be refuted by any of any new evidence. (Thats why ID has no place in science discussions at this time and noone has any basis to say otherwise, because its unevienced, is untestqble, and is non falsifiable) [UNLESS you admit that its pure and simply religion based]
Ive spoken to you and layman during which I stated that panspermia could be a rationally scientific explanation of lifes ascendance whenever we get evidence of new life out in space and we actually see some similar structure in the life forms on these planets or rocks. At that point we can not avoid considering pan spermia along side our present scientific model.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Peace?

My karma rode over your dogma.

1 Reply

@parados,

Quote:

Tyson was taking the same position just about every scientist takes, "Show me evidence and I will be open to it."

No Parados & Farmer. You are putting false words in Tyson's mouth. Look at what he actually said.

What he said was: "I'm saying, the day we learn that it is true, (ie, when the aliens show up) I will be the only one in the room saying, I'm not surprised." IOW, he is implying that he has already seen enough evidence that life didn't happen all by itself.

If you substitute Intelligent Designer for aliens, that is close to my position. I differ in that I don't think we were made just for entertainment purposes as was his conjecture.

2 Replies

@hingehead,

Quote:

Peace?

Meaning I would agree with that position if that's what you mean.

Quote:

My karma rode over your dogma.

Meaning?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

For someone decrying other people not getting your point you are fatuously (and or wilfully) unperceptive.

Right now you're down to "I know you are but what am I? " arguments. Congratulations.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

How the **** do you extrapolate "I know you are but what am I" from:

Quote:

My karma rode over your dogma.

Meaning?

Or anything else I've said?

Sounds like you are down to slinging mud and hoping some of it sticks.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Nice. Edit your post after I've replied. You are a class act.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

WTF, give me a clue..

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Actually, you've given me one. That act is the evidence i needed to turn my hypothesis into a theory. You are not an intellectually honest person.

Ignore. Click.

1 Reply

@hingehead,

Bye...

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Quote:

What he said was: "I'm saying, the day we learn that it is true, (ie, when the aliens show up) I will be the only one in the room saying, I'm not surprised." IOW, he is implying that he has already seen enough evidence that life didn't happen all by itself.

If you substitute Intelligent Designer for aliens, that is close to my position. I differ in that I don't think we were made just for entertainment purposes as was his conjecture

He is saying nothing of the sort. You're still talking out your ass on this matter.

Youre just trying to modify your religious belief in the face of scientific evidence that does NOT support anything of the Creationist /ID worldview.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Let's hear what YOU think he's saying.

Enough of you crying "You're wrong!"
Put up or shut up.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

He is NOT claiming that he has evidence to support ID. He "would Not" be surprised to include something like panspermia. The two concepts are as separate as are ID and evolution. Panspermia would NOT include any "Design" elements without some really good strong evidence.
Youre the one who made the claim that Tyson has evidence that you claim is really ID, so youre the one who oughta have a better quote mine source about where he implies such a view. He doesnt and you know it.

We all know your position, however , why must everyone else do your homework? You claim that you are writing a book on the subject so you should be quite full of good convincing arguments rather than just yourself.
Has someone stepped on your "Quote mining" of Tyson ?. Dont worry, the guys at DI will find a way to sanitize your statements .

1 Reply

Leadfeet-The only thing youve been convincing about in these entire proceedings is that .

1. You always ignore real facts and evidence(denial and belittling it as something youve heard before, yet youre unable to defend against the poiints-so,

2. You change the subjct whenthe real evidence gets too close to chopping up your worldview

3. You frequently try to put words in others mouths.

0 Replies

@Leadfoot,

What a crock of **** from you.

Let's look at where and why Tyson said what he did.
http://www.businessinsider.sg/neil-degrasse-tyson-thinks-the-universe-might-be-a-simulation-2016-4/#.VyKjlEeIB8E

The full context can be found in the 2 hour debate on whether we live in a simulation or not.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs

Tyson is saying that the argument we actually live in a computer simulation may be possible. (If we do live in a simulation the aliens aren't showing up. That is your idiotic addition.)

2 Replies

@parados,

For the actual context of Tyson's comments - look starting about 1:38:00 for the closing comments by Tyson.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wgSZA3NPpBs

He asks each participant what the chances are we are in a simulation and then give his closing remarks that Leadfoot is trying to quote mine and give meaning that Tyson never says.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

He is NOT claiming that he has evidence to support ID. He "would Not" be surprised to include something like panspermia. The two concepts are as separate as are ID and evolution. Panspermia would NOT include any "Design" elements without some really good strong evidence.

Holy crap farmer. Even Parados is a bit closer than you. Tyson says he thinks it is plausible (ie, that he would not be surprised) that we are living in a simulation for the entertainment of super intelligent aliens. That has NOTHING to do with Panspermia and is the epitome of Intelligent Design.

He may not have the evidence, but SOMETHING tells him that the usual theories don't really give him confidence.

Either that or he's a media whore saying **** for the buzz. Take your pick.

0 Replies

@parados,

Quote:

What a crock of **** from you.

Not worth the keystrokes Parados.

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

It was a crock of **** from you. Anyone is free to go view the video and see what Tyson said and the context in which he says it.

1 Reply

@parados,

I didnt go to the clip because I commented jut on what Ledfeet was ' concept mining". I followed much of what Tyson has said since the 2005 Darwin Issue of Sci Am wherein he gave his opinion about Intelligent design . (he wasnt a "closet believer")
Heres a 41 minute clip pf his followup from a speech in London in which he compared ID (within history to todays world and its "belief" in it) He presented how ID type thinking as spoken by the great minds of the past, lived at the edges of scientific knowledge but instead , what weve got(mostly in the US today )is ID dwelling well within the limits of what we know in science .

I think Leadfeet is only adept at "flash quote mining" in that , as he usually does, he ignores everything thats gone before, even from the same person like Tyson

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know