Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Why not minus 100 percent? LOL

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

Name One advance in any related(bio/geo etc) science or applied science that successfully uses a Creationist or ID basis for its work? I think youll find the answer to be an immeasuarable number.

It has been argued that every advance in every field of science is the direct result of the Faustian brand of ID which is not to be confused with any other religious system. And persuasively argued too.

Explain how the dramatic quantum leap from statics to dynamics took place in the last 1000 years in a peninsula stuck on the end of the land mass of "Eurasia".

The pioneers of the Faustian culture and their metaphysical, monastic existence is the only possible explanation. Classical civilisation, paganism, had the same world to study and their best men were just as intelligent and observant as those in the Christian world.

I consider the statement quoted and the eager ejaculation-

Quote:

Why not minus 100 percent? LOL

to be a species of spoiled little rich girl syndrome which self indulgently takes for granted the fortune her Daddy made and can see no reason not to squander it for her own glorification.

A manifestation of the "mememe" generation.

Science is finished with anti-ID. All that is left is a squabble over funds.

The anti-ID answer is just too easy and is easily provided by any Tom, Dick or Harry which is why it is popular.

Spengler is simply asserted to be a load of bullshit by people who haven't even tried to come to grips with it probably because they suspect they haven't the nonce to do so and they are too busy anyway going on holidays and polishing their useless speedboat which is only a prop anyway for some insecurity or other.

Anyway boys- you assert your country into ruination if you want. It's a free country. No need to wrestle with Spengler when the flashy and phoney machismo of the assertion will suffice.

You are playing ego games. And you rely on a stupid audience which you have asserted it is or assumed it is on the basis that nobody can know more about these things than you do and by my standards you are hardly able to use your own language properly which you cover up with a pile of technical jargon gleaned out of the books and periodicals you have specifically chosen because they don't question your fundamental position in order to get you to buy them.

You have your heads up your arses goodstyle. An amateur theologian would make mincemeat out of you. You are anti -Faustian. You seek an entirely new religion; the worship of the State and authority figures which you fancy yourselves to be.

Prostrate yourselves dear readers before the throne of fm and his fawning lickspittals and lackeys. He's the new god. You will obey.

0 Replies

spendi, You must get down to basics. If you're trying to argue in support of the bible, you must first prove it factual. Everything else is fiction. You can't support ID without religion. According to the bible, this planet is only 7,000 years old. Science has proven that it's more than 4.5 billion years old; something the writers of the bible couldn't have known. All else that follows in the bible is also fiction. We can then argue about your Faustian beliefs. ID equals religious' belief no matter how you wish to twist the concept. Prove your god/creator by evidence without specious conclusions. Man also though the sun was a god, because they couldn't answer it in any other way. Ignorance is always divine.

0 Replies

You should pay enough respect to the thread c.i. to at least read it.

It is the height of ignorance to dissapear from a conversation for a while and then come back in blurting out a load of trite and well covered baloney as if nothing has been happening in your absence.

Anti-IDers certainly seem to have a monopoly of all the worst manners.

Heaven help us if ever they take charge.

0 Replies

spendi, I could leave a2k for months, then come back to this thread, and understand fully where you're coming from; total ignorance. That you would insult farmerman, then call me names shows how dumb you really are. Get with the "real" program, spendi, before you make yourself the laughing stock on a2k - if you aren't already.

0 Replies

Another bunch of self comforting assertions.

I'll be a long time catching up on the insults I have had to put up with.

"To reflect that each one who enters imagines himself to be the first to enter whereas he is always the last term of a preceding series even if the first term of a succeeding one, each imagining himself to be first, last, only and alone, wheras he is neither first nor last nor only nor alone in a series originating in and repeated to infinity."

You hadn't read the thread c.i. otherwise you wouldn't have said what you did. We didn't all take two months off and come back expecting nothing to have developed.

Of course you think the thread is just to pass on the bits of time when you have nothing else to do.

I don't.

And I'm not a little sensitive girl either who can dish it out but can't take it.

You are not up for this thread c.i. and it is about time you realised it. It is for people who have done some homework not for those who just want to gob off gratuitously.

Your whole position is posited on you being the centre of the universe and that nothing happened before you got here and that nothing will happen after you've left. The polar opposite of scientific Faustianism. More like an ancient Greek goat herder with tools provided by others and blissfully unaware of it.

Why the serious anti-ID side would want you on the case is hard to imagine. You discredit them with every emotionalism you utter.

0 Replies

Gee, me, the center of the universe. Do you have any reality left?

spendi, Just reading the past days posts shows there hasn't been any new developments on this thread; it's all rehash in different words.

Your position on ID/religion/god is the weakest of all; you still haven't proven any part of your argument with facts/evidence; it's that simple.

0 Replies

One could argue that we are all the center of our own universe. Perhaps this implies taking responsibility for our individual destinies. Just a little Buddhist thought.

0 Replies

c.i. wrote-

Quote:

spendi, You must get down to basics. If you're trying to argue in support of the bible, you must first prove it factual. Everything else is fiction. You can't support ID without religion. According to the bible, this planet is only 7,000 years old. Science has proven that it's more than 4.5 billion years old; something the writers of the bible couldn't have known. All else that follows in the bible is also fiction. We can then argue about your Faustian beliefs. ID equals religious' belief no matter how you wish to twist the concept. Prove your god/creator by evidence without specious conclusions. Man also though the sun was a god, because they couldn't answer it in any other way. Ignorance is always divine.

Do you think I don't know all that? The argument by me has nothing to do with any of that infantile nonsense and anybody who has read the thread knows it. It has to do with the social consequences of secular materialism and what will happen when the frail veil of religious dignity, and it is frail, is ripped away from base animal nature irrespective of whether the veil consists of mumbo-jumbo bullshit because it can consist of nothing else.

You are attacking the base foundations of our society. I presume you hate it. You certainly seem to not be able to get away from it fast enough and look for strangers to have more shallow conversations with which is the nature of stranger's conversations.

You just haven't bothered reading the thread- that's all there is to it. Pure ignorance. There are people who come in the pub once a fortnight and act as if the pub has not existed in their absence.

Nick-

The Buddhist resignation is at the other end of the spectrum from scientific Faustian restlessness and searching. Whatever you say about it means nothing to us. Buddhist societies are buying into our scheme of things and if we buy into theirs the game's up for us. We don't walk around in robes tinkling bells. We are mapping Mars and the workings of our central nervous systems.

0 Replies

.
Spendi asserts that my question has been argued persuasively. He must be an easy target if he buys that.

0 Replies

Trying to shoot a drunken moving target like spendi is very difficult, if not impossible.

0 Replies

spendi

Quote:

Do you think I don't know all that? The argument by me has nothing to do with any of that infantile nonsense and anybody who has read the thread knows it. It has to do with the social consequences of secular materialism and what will happen when the frail veil of religious dignity, and it is frail, is ripped away from base animal nature irrespective of whether the veil consists of mumbo-jumbo bullshit because it can consist of nothing else.

.. AND over and over again you have been asked nicely to please start such a thread where you can Fausty yourself to your hearts content and you wont bother anyone. Whats going to happen here, as you getr more and more discourteous with people , youll get reasponses in kind and , like Rex Red did on the evolution how? thread, the moderators will pull the rug.
You fail to recognize that this is like a playground discussion and if most of the people wish to discuss some issue, its up to them. The fact that you need attention constantly is not our problem. Just dont mess up the playground, please, play nice, this thread is not about you (or me or ci or anyone) its a topic that seems to generate enough interest in the scientific v religious aspects.

If you wanna get sociological and neuropschological , then id suggest you Phish in your own thread. Its really not that difficult.. The fact that you consider the basic sciences as mimbo-jumbo bullshit and obvious playthings for people of lesser intellects is fine, you are allowed whatever you wish to feel. However, these points , along with your other character traits are like a forensic file from some profilers notebook. I know certain things get you angry and I can tell when your hammer has been pulled. Youre not a very good poker player. So be careful in your derision of others, for you are a great caricature of a number of Manchester twits Id worked with in the past.

Now, youre going to post about how you are not bothered in the least by anyone especially me cause Im a low class. But, inwardly youre seething, , ready to wring your pet mouses neck..

0 Replies

from http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id302.htm

Quote:

A Loma Linda research grant permitted Bailey to proceed with his experiments. Devoting seven years to the project, he performed dozens of cross-species transplants on animals. Two days prior to Baby Fae's surgery, a review board gave him permission to replace his little patient's failing heart with that of a young female baboon. Before compatibility tests could be completed, however, Baby Fae's heart ceased to function. Placed on a respirator, the five-pound infant -- she had been born three weeks premature -- was put in a heart-lung machine to lower her body temperature to 68 degrees Fahrenheit, slowing the metabolism. In Loma Linda's basement, Dr. Bailey extracted the heart from one of the hospital's research colony of six baboons. After a four hour operation, Baby Fae's new heart was functioning on its own.
Cross-species transplants had been tried before, without success. Five simian hearts and twenty kidneys had been transplanted into humans prior to Baby Fae's operation. In 1964 a chimpanzee's heart was placed in a 68-year-old man, who died in a matter of hours, as did a young woman who also received a simian heart transplant in 1977. Most critics of such experimental surgeries were certain that a human patient's body would reject an animal organ. However, the drug cyclosporine, introduced in 1979, inhibited foreign tissue rejection, dramatically increasing the patient survival rate in the early Eighties. Pig heart valves had been successfully substituted for failing human heart valves. Still, many medical experts preferred a corrective surgery procedure developed by Dr. William Norwood at Philadelphia's Children Hospital, which had a 40 percent success rate in transferring left ventricle functions in a hypoplastic heart to the right ventricle. But Dr. Bailey had his supporters, too, including Christiaan Barnard, the South African pioneer in heart transplant surgery.

Some interesting points from this article, noting:

--the nature of the emergency facing Bailey

--the success that using a 'closer evolutionary relative' had met with

--the support that Bailey had from others knowledgeable AND experienced in the same operation

This next article is interesting for what it does NOT contain, namely any mention that evolutionary principle should have been a consideration:

from http://www.ascensionhealth.org/ethics/public/cases/case4.asp

Quote:

The case of Baby Fae raises important issues in the area of human experimentation. On October 26, 1984, Dr. Leonard Baily and the transplant team of Loma Linda University Medical Center in California removed the defective heart (hypoplastic left heart syndrome, in which the left side is much smaller than the right) of a five pound baby girl (known as Baby Fae). It was replaced with the heart of a baboon, a procedure known as xenotransplantation (cross-species transplantation). Twenty days later, on November 15th, the baby died of complications caused when her body began to reject the transplanted heart. Among the ethical issues raised by the Baby Fae case are the risk/benefit ratios for the human subject, experimentation and quality of informed consent and surrogate decision-making, exploration of other options, the introduction of expensive and untested technology, and the priorities and economics of medicine. Regarding other options, the doctors at Loma Linda never sought a human heart and the chances for a successful xenograft were very slim. [Source: Hubbard, LL. "The Baby Fae Case," Medicine & Law 6(5): 385-96, 1987.]

Note also that Baby Fae lived for twenty days afterward, which is twenty days MORE than the patient (referenced above) that received the chimpanzee heart, the 'evolutionarily correct' procedure.

This next article has some more very interesting info on Dr Barnard, and it seems not to have occurred to him that evolutionary principle should be an overriding factor at all, quite the contrary.

from http://jcgi.pathfinder.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,926947,00.html

Quote:

...............The medical community, though normally receptive to technical innovation, was sharply divided. "There has never been a successful cross-species transplant," declared University of Minnesota Surgeon John Najarian, one of the country's leading pediatric-transplant specialists. "To try it now is merely to prolong the dying process. I think Baby Fae is going to reject her heart." Others defended the experiment. "It's very easy to sit back and be negative when a new treatment is announced," said Dr. John Collins, chief of cardiac surgery at Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital. "If we all were afraid to attempt the untried, we would have no new treatments.".................

..................Baby Fae was referred to Loma Linda by a pediatrician in Barstow, Calif. The 546-bed facility is one of more than 60 U.S. hospitals operated by the Seventh-day Adventist Church and has a fine reputation in pediatric heart surgery......................

....................However, before the tests were complete, the infant's heart suddenly deteriorated and her lungs filled with fluid. The dying child was swiftly transferred to a respirator and given drugs to keep her blood circulating. The measures were able to sustain her long enough for a baboon donor to be chosen and surgery to begin.................

.....................In 1977 Christiaan Barnard, the South African pioneer of heart transplants, made two attempts to use simian hearts: in a 26-year-old woman, who survived for only six hours, and in a 59-year-old man, who died four days after surgery. In each case, Barnard "piggybacked" the animal organ onto the patient's own heart to act as a supplementary pump. He decided to abandon the technique because of the poor results and the risks of becoming "emotionally attached" to donor chimpanzees, which, he says "are very much like humans." Barnard is nonetheless enthusiastic about the Baby Fae case and has no qualms about the use of baboons, which, he says, are shot on sight by South African farmers................."Maybe one of these days we can start farming baboons for this purpose," suggests Christiaan Barnard...........

......................Dr. Moneim Fadali, a cardiovascular surgeon at the University of California, Los Angeles, was one of several physicians to suggest that the decision to use an animal organ may have been "a matter of bravado" and that a human heart "would have offered the child a better chance of survival." Loma Linda Surgeon David Hinshaw explained that he and his colleagues believed that the hope of finding a compatible human heart in time to save the dying Fae was "almost nonexistent." Indeed, infant hearts are so seldom available that transplants into very young children are rarely attempted.

Ironically, the heart of a two-month-old infant was available the day of Fae's operation. Transplant coordinators from the Regional Organ Procurement Agency at UCLA called Loma Linda hospital to offer the infant's kidneys (the heart was not discussed because Loma Linda does not have a human-heart-transplant program). When word of the potential human donor became public last week, Loma Linda officials explained that the call from the procurement agency had come after the baboon heart was implanted, that the heart of a two-month-old might have been too big for Fae, and that it would have taken too long to complete compatibility testing....................

A little bit about immunology

from http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?sec=health&res=9D0DE6DD1F39F93BA25752C1A962948260

Quote:

..........The immunologist on the team, Dr. Sandra L. Nehlsen- Cannarella, said the cross-species transplant led to milder reactions than expected. Dr. Nehlsen-Cannarella also said there was an astounding similarity between baboons and humans immunologically.........

A final question for those evolutionists who still think evolutionary imcompatibility is THE issue in the Baby Fae case:

Do you also reject the use of pig heart valves and bovine insulin in humans for similar reasons?

0 Replies

fm accuses me of not answering this -

Quote:

Name One advance in any related(bio/geo etc) science or applied science that successfully uses a Creationist or ID basis for its work? I think youll find the answer to be an immeasuarable number.

I did answer it. Our scientific society itself, from which your narrow categories are simply a derived off-shoot, successfully used a Creationist/ID (much more ID than Creationist) basis from which to build the whole shooting match.

It is you who need to explain how it could have been done out of paganism or atheistic stoicism which had no way of examining dynamic systems and which had a long run at the natural world. If you wish to stubbornly refuse to compare Classical art to, say, Rembrandt or Mozart and the inner-domed light-denying architecture of the Clasical world to our gravity denying light machine cathedrals that is your affair not mine.

You refused to even consider my suggestions for a background for a portrait you were doing as an alternative to the incongruous one you were thinking of and which any serious art critic would have laughed at. You hadn't even the manners to acknowledge my taking a little time to offer advice. You didn't want to know. You preferred to listen to those who complimented you by agreeing with you. A mutual stroking society sort of thing.

You are just running away from social consequences again.

Not that I blame you. I would in your position. They don't bear thinking about never mind giving them a try.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

Spendi asserts that my question has been argued persuasively. He must be an easy target if he buys that.

Spendi asserts everything, and then projects his own behaviors on others.

Poor Spendi has a formula-one brain stuck on full throttle, but the steering is broken (and the driver drunk). His posts reek of jealousy over anyone with the same horsepower, and the ability to steer.

0 Replies

rl

Quote:

A final question for those evolutionists who still think evolutionary imcompatibility is THE issue in the Baby Fae case:

Do you also reject the use of pig heart valves and bovine insulin in humans for similar reasons?

. Of course its the issue, along with serology (which, in Baby Faes case was shown to be incompatible). The chimp transplants were pre-the days of anti rejection . Also the use of pig TISSUE is similar to animal skin grafts and stainless steel hip joints. We Can MAKE things compatible now. WE STILL cant jigger in cross species organs and expect a great prognosis.

THE FACT THAT THIS IS NOW A RECOGNIZED FALSIFIABILITY EXERCISE against a Creationist mindset seems to be escaping you.

0 Replies

A heart valve is a nonvascular organ (or, rather, tissue). Issues of rejection are exponentially higher when vascular anastomosis is required, in no small part because immune cells introduced with the graft (it is impossible to remove all white blood cells from a vascular organ prior to transplantation) act against the host (graft-versus-host disease).

0 Replies

I can receive PMs, but can't send any. ;(

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

The fact that you consider the basic sciences as mimbo-jumbo bullshit and obvious playthings for people of lesser intellects is fine,

That confirms my suspicion that you either can't read or won't .

I was talking about religion there not science. You have taken the opposite meaning to what I obviously intended. I was allowing that the veil which religion tries, mostly unsuccessfully, to draw over our animality is mumbo-jumbo bullshit. What else could it be? That is not what is in dispute. It is its function. You don't seem to think it has one.

You evidently didn't read, or note, the poster who referred to making the chattel's bit chafe less painfully nor my agreement with his remark. He hit the nail. But what do you care about the chattels eh so long as you are right? I have already told you, something else you haven't read, that I'm the sort of flat-out anti-IDer who would make your hair stand on end and especially on the subject of monogamy and the category known as "wife" which has no basis in science of the sort you are stuck with. None whatsoever. (Tautology for emphasis and with apologies to discerning viewers who can be trusted to read "no basis" properly instead of glazing it fast in their eagerness to bring attention to themselves.)

And you start another thread. This thread has Religion, Science and ID in its title and has nothing to do with all that fossil and Silurian deposit stuff that you clutter it up with simply because it is your specialism and you like to show it off.

Quote:

The fact that you need attention constantly is not our problem.

Why should I be the only one accused of that. I've never been escorted off the premises like you said you had at a religious meeting. I would never attend a religious meeting to harangue the participants. I have more respect for people than to do that.

Do you really think c.i. has the right to disappear for 2 months and blithely come back and say I believe in Genesis. He just couldn't be arsed reading the thread. End of story.

And now I'm drunk. Thus I can be thought of as talking like I'm drunk. It's his logic. I'm not drunk and haven't been for many years. The moderators should look at that stuff if they want to look at anything. That's not even debating. That is pure attention seeking. He said nothing. 3 pints of 3.8% wouldn't get Little Bo Peep drunk and that's my quota last thing at night. I'm soberer than most judges. I don't tolerate alcohol too well. It runs in my father's side I'm glad to say.

0 Replies

spendi, You either missed or ignored rosborne's post. Your claim that I don't read the post on threads is misplaced, so I'll repost it for you.

farmerman wrote:
Spendi asserts that my question has been argued persuasively. He must be an easy target if he buys that.

rosborne wrote:
Spendi asserts everything, and then projects his own behaviors on others.

Poor Spendi has a formula-one brain stuck on full throttle, but the steering is broken (and the driver drunk). His posts reek of jealousy over anyone with the same horsepower, and the ability to steer.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know