Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Three minutes c.i. to assimilate and mentally digest my post is quite satisfactory evidence of the superficiality of your general approach.

No.Not me.

Fossils and rock formation studies are hardly even science at all. They are a form of journalism of a past of unimaginable distance from where we are now. I think the attraction to such studies is due to the simplicity of the subject and the way in which it lends itself to an esoteric language which sounds high falutin to those who know no better.

Of course financial grants also play a part as they do in most things.

0 Replies

Thus modern rock formation by volcanism and modern fossil formation by oceanic sedimentation "are hardly even science at all"?

Thus modern rock formation by volcanism and modern fossil formation by oceanic sedimentation "are a form of journalism of a past of unimaginable distance from where we are now"?

Silly boy!

0 Replies

spendi has a blind spot in 99 percent of his cranium; too much booze, I suspect.

0 Replies

Chum wrote-

Quote:

Silly boy!

Don't blow your goodwill Chum.

It's just looking at things in the ground and reporting on them in flummery language of the sort that flatters folk's self-esteem to be familiar with. It isn't really science I'm afraid. Sorry.

Now studying the social,cultural,psychological,bureaucratic dynamics and methodologies of the upcoming soccer World Cup would be a different matter entirely. It would take miles more brains,determination and acumen that bloody fossils and solidified shite.

0 Replies

It's a genial ribbing "silly boy".

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

Fossils and rock formation studies are hardly even science at all. They are a form of journalism of a past of unimaginable distance from where we are now. I think the attraction to such studies is due to the simplicity of the subject and the way in which it lends itself to an esoteric language which sounds high falutin to those who know no better.

.

Methinks I( hear a tinge of jealousy in your hollow phrases. You may try to make a critique based upon your lack of knowledge, bet you dont have half the fun in life that I do with my "High falutin language"

The most difficult thing is to explain the obvious. Why dont you use some of your self proclaimed talents and show what you can do. After all, this entire thread is about you isnt it?

0 Replies

from the darker recesses of the spendi ganglia comes"

Quote:

This is why anti-IDers simply refuse to go anywhere near the structural-functionalist argument and slip quietly away into their cosy fossils and rock formations etc etc etbloodycetera where they find comfort in displaying their undoubted expertise in such irrelevancies interesting though they might be like many word games.

I have a call into "Science" and NAture" where Im sure, they will allow you to submit your work on " Knowledge sans Evidence"

Very Happy

PS, fm does what he loves and doesnt need any chemicals to make him feel any better about himself than he does now. ActuallyI get paid quite well for doing what you cannot even understand.

0 Replies

What's wrong with using accurate, appropriate language and defining (instead of defying) terms?

0 Replies

Some quick points...

Creationism/Intelligent Design etc., is/are 'nt science...
Believing that something is 'too complex' is rather unscientific...
Are fossils of Neanderthals, Dinosaurs etc, O and the favourites, Trolabites (spelling...) relics of the Gay old times of the Garden of Eden...

He was right with the comment

Quote:

silly boy

..

Have Americans (US only) ever wondered why they are losing out to China and other nations when it comes to science and discoveries? The answer is the 'bigotism' and 'prejustices' of many who try block your school children from the truth.. This bigotism assiocates 'Evolution' with atheism, when clearly, speaking for myself, the fact that I share 50% of my DNA with yeast, another 90(ish)% with monkeys doesn't chance my beliefs at all.. The fact that the universe is billions of years old, the earth 4.6 billion, has absolutely no impact on my faith.. Yes I am a christian and I'm not a bible basher, I am just saying that this 'Fundimentalism' is akin to the stuff your War on Terrorism is fighting.. Bigotry and a fevorent belief that they're doing good..

Lastly Evolution isn't a 'Theory', it is a fact... No Law has withstood such criticism and scorn, and it has survived it all.. I could quote the bible to back everything I say as every pastor that tries to invade my 'television' does..

The bible we read today is a 'selection' of writings from many of the apostles and old books, but there were many books 'omitted' for political reasons in the early church.. The bible isn't the word of God, it is the word of man and his interpretation of God.. Everything said in the bible isn't true and acceptable.. If we go old testament its morals are along the lines of 'an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth' and the angry god who smites and punishes those who disobey him.. In the new testament he completely has a personality change and becomes the compassionate, passive god he is today..

To top of my rant, in the words of my favourite eighty year old Jesuit History Teacher,

Quote:

Respect your intellect! (RYI)

0 Replies

Milfmaster wrote:
"...becomes the compassionate, passive god he is today.."

However, I'd like you to show us how many verses you can find in the bible that shows your god is "compassionate." For every one you can find, I'll bet you dollars to donuts I can find a handful that says exactly the opposite.

0 Replies

Well personally I was generalising, clearly not too well.. Well daft since I never really finished reading the bible.. I got lost in the book of numbers... Too many people living too long..

Well you could argue many things quoting the bible..

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

bet you dont have half the fun in life that I do with my "High falutin language"

I wouldn't argue with that apart from the fact that it is another assertion with no evidence to support it and there's just as much chance of it being true as there is of it being whistling in the dark.

But assuming it is true one can easily imagine the ladies gazing admiringly into the eyes of the weaver of the words of wisdom whilst picking his pocket which is what evolution designed ladies to be extremely expert at.

I know I am making an assumption that it is not men he seeks to impress but my reading of fm's posts has convinced me that nothing could be further from his mind.

However,The anti-ID position is strongly supported by what is known as The Guardian/The Independent/The Observer/The BBC editorial line which is well known to favour pink pastel shades for interior decorations which I must admit looks very nice from a distance but up close is not quite my cup of tea.

The idea of a "good time" has an intellectual component as well as the relief of base animalistic urges. Otherwise the theory of evolution is correct and positions on contentious issues are no more than the markings on a peacock's tail.

0 Replies

'Evidence!!! open your eyes man! There is plenty of evidence pointing to an earth older than what Genesis implies...

1. Turn on your radios/televisions to static!! Did God make Cosmic Background Radiation, just to have a laugh?? That sound you hear is the background radiation, leftover from the big bang.. Why would a God create that? It serves no intelligent perpose at all but to disrupt our signals..

2. The fossil record is good proof of a development of species through the eons.. It shows gradual development of species over long periods of time...

3. Explain how Carbon-14 dating can date objects (with complete accuracy) from up to 200,000 years old (I'm certain older)? Older than ID and other theories state the earth is!

4. And again I must emphasise that it is the scientifically proven 'Law of Evolution' not the 'Theory' of evolution.

You may not scientifically be able to prove Evolution wrong, but time and time again, scientists have established (with firm evidence) that the earth is more ancient than any Creationist would like it to be..

I'm Irish, not English, nor British for that matter.. Unfortunately I don't read regularly the respectable newspapers that circulate the island of her majesty, Queen Elizibeth the II. Eight hundred years of British Oppression at least came to some good as we still use the 'Queen's English' and the legacy of Great British newspapers has evolved into our current national topsellers all of which are anti-ID..

The word..

Quote:

Base

is amongst one of my favourite words of Shakesphere's plays..

For you I'll use another.. Ignorance..

0 Replies

SOUTH CAROLINA UPDATE

Quote:

Lt. Gov. candidate Jordan: U.S. is blessed because it honors God
(SEANNA ADCOX, Associated Press, May 1, 2006)

COLUMBIA, S.C. - Lieutenant governor candidate Dr. Henry Jordan says science does not support Darwin's theory that man evolved from monkeys and that public school students should learn "intelligent design" along with evolution.

"I think everything ought to be taught ... and let people decide for themselves. There is no science to support trans-species changes, in other words a monkey becoming a man," the Republican said in an interview Monday with The Associated Press.

"A bunch of amoebas didn't get together and design all this," Jordan said, referring to the human body. "We'd be operating on people ... looking at their hearts, their liver and their lungs, I'd tell the techs, 'Can you believe those little amoebas figured all this out?'

"I mean you've got to be stupid to believe in evolution, I mean really," he said.

Jordan believes the sin of pride and people's desire to decide their own fate, rather than obey God, are why people believe in evolution.

Jordan, a state Board of Education member from 1997-2001, will face incumbent Lt. Gov. Andre Bauer and Mike Campbell, son of the late Gov. Carroll Campbell, in the Republican primary next month. Jordan lost a bid for lieutenant governor in 1994.

0 Replies

wande quoted-

Quote:

Jordan believes the sin of pride and people's desire to decide their own fate, rather than obey God, are why people believe in evolution.

A shorter version of my dichotomy between personal autonomy and well being of society/individual .

And with this-

Quote:

One can only imagine that anti-IDers feel they will benefit from a totalitarian society or that they are simply naive egotists who don't know which way up is and like the sound of breaking glass.

I introduced the notion of a selfish motivation for belief in evolution, which I presume Mr Jordan will agree with, and also that evolution theory is easy to understand and thus that the motives may be pursued with very little effort and without requiring anything beyond run-of-the-mill intellectual capacities.

0 Replies

Doesn't surprise me this would be in S.C. Fundamentalist Christians have targeted this state to be theirs. They are moving into the state to gain control of it.

I don't see it happening but ....................

Quote:

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

Doesn't surprise me this would be in S.C. Fundamentalist Christians have targeted this state to be theirs. They are moving into the state to gain control of it.

I don't see it happening but ....................

Quote:
Christian movement moving in
By Ron Barnett, USA TODAY
.....and ending state-funded education.

Ending state-funded education? I've never heard that idea before.

Do they have a counter proposal for education? Or is it, just let churches indoctrinate without any external ideas being given to anyone.

0 Replies

xingu quoted-

Quote:

"We're not an extremist group," he said. "What we are doing is reacting to the extreme marginalization of Christianity in America."

The unnecessary and provocative teaching of evolution theory for motives given above is one of the prime causes of this "reacting" and is leading to an out in the open dicussion of the break-up of the Union.

Obviously,the mere presence of such ideas gives sustenance to those in Great Britain who wish to have closer ties with Europe at the expense of our American ties.

0 Replies

In what way is the teaching of evolution "unnecessary", why should the teaching of evolution be deemed as "provocative" simply because you identify as such, even if the teaching of evolution is perceived as "provocative" by a given segment of the populace why would the appraisal of it being "provocative" be a mertible rationale against teaching evolution?

0 Replies

Furthermore, what proof do you have, Mr. Spendi? After all, you have given us nothing but conjecture and mere speculation on the issue.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know