Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Ok, here is is... Post #10,000 Smile

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

As I don't know anybody who has ever seen a zombie or vampire or witch or shade or spirit or gnome or fairy (assuming a spirit is different from a ghost), I would find such a claim interesting but not believable.

There are millions of people who belive in Ghosts and Demons. You seem to be very selective with what you consider 'believable', especially considering that all these things are equivalent possibilities within a supernatural viewpoint.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
As I don't know anybody who has ever seen a zombie or vampire or witch or shade or spirit or gnome or fairy (assuming a spirit is different from a ghost), I would find such a claim interesting but not believable.

There are millions of people who belive in Ghosts and Demons. You seem to be very selective with what you consider 'believable', especially considering that all these things are equivalent possibilities within a supernatural viewpoint.

Strange that you picked the paragraph that didn't address ghosts and demons to attack my comment re ghosts and demons. If you had been a bit more honest in addressing what I actually said you would have seen that I said re ghosts and demons:

Quote:

I don't know whether there are ghosts or demons. I've never seen either and there is not (yet) a sufficient cloud of credible witnesses who claim to have seen or experienced such to convince me of their existence.

I don't know whether millions believe in ghosts or demons. I personally have run across very few people who claim to have encountered one.
I didn't deny that some do believe in these. I, however, have never experienced one and don't know enough credible people who claim to have experienced these to be able to say that I am convinced.

You seem to be having trouble in drawing a distinction between what people believe and what people have experienced. Why is that do you think?

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And it is for this reason, that no science teacher worth his salt would tell a child that there is no Intelligent Design for the universe.

"And it is for this reason, that no science teacher worth his salt would tell a child that there are no Gnomes or Fairies in the universe."

Do you hear how dumb that sounds?

And yet ID is exactly as plausible as Gnomes and Fairies.

I have no doubt that it sounds dumb to you. And I'm sure you can't understand how dumb it sounds to me for you to keep claiming I'm dumb to believe what I have experienced while you, who have apparently not experienced what I have experienced and have no way to dispute it nevertheless presume yourself to be very smart. Smile

_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

You seem to be having trouble in drawing a distinction between what people believe and what people have experienced. Why is that do you think?

Because there is no difference.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I have no doubt that it sounds dumb to you.

It doesn't sound dumb, it is dumb. There's just no way around it, ID has the same degree of credibility as a fairy tale, it's a simple logical fact. Why are you having so much trouble making the connection.

Foxfyre wrote:

And I'm sure you can't understand how dumb it sounds to me for you to keep claiming I'm dumb to believe what I have experienced while you, who have apparently not experienced what I have experienced and have no way to dispute it nevertheless presume yourself to be very smart.

Oh brother, would you get over yourself.

I don't care about dumb this or dumb that, I'm just making a logical connection between statements.

If you believe something that's fine. If you experienced something that's fine. But don't think for one second that your experiences or your beliefs serve as any level of validation for external events which cannot be proven any other way.

0 Replies

ros wrote-

Quote:

Ok, here is is... Post #10,000

Is a round number some sort of magical incantation to you? This post is number 10,006. Why is that not significant. What's the difference apart from the 10,000th post being the dumbest on the thread. (Well- one of the dumbest might be better.) And incompetently typed to boot which is surprising for such a short "effort". I know you don't read my posts but you might take the trouble to read your own.

Anybody interested in that sort of tripe would already know so you told them nothing and anybody not interested is being told nothing as well.

It's incomprehensible to me why you keep banging on about fairies and suchlike. That has nothing to do with this argument. I hope you have not deceived yourself into thinking it's clever. It isn't only stupid-it's boring.

Your dispute with Foxy over her "experience/s" is objective proof you are a misogynist. Any ladies you come across must find it very trying having you think you understand their experiences and are qualified to comment on them in a bigoted fashion. Your manners leave something to be desired too.

0 Replies

spendi, ros is arguing at foxy as one equal to another. You spend a lot of your efforts talking ill about people as if they werent in the room.
Ever since many of us have accused you of being a closet woman hater, youve been trying to counter-assert . However its not sticking .

0 Replies

fm-

All closet women haters going around accusing people of being misogynistic.

I know what a misogynist is if you don't. In fact it is a sure guide that real misogynists don't know what the word means.

Quote:

However its (sic) not sticking.

That's personal to you. It isn't necessarily a fact. And you have a very good reason for it. It's another piece of gratuitous self-congratulation.

ros wrote-

Quote:

It doesn't sound dumb, it is dumb.

That means that Foxy is dumb which I don't accept. There's no sense of equality in statements of that nature. Foxy is miles brainier than ros and better looking. He hasn't a clue what she's speaking of.

Why don't you go through the thread and count up how many times people have spoken ill of me without the slightest evidence before you go winging it again with another sodding assertion.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
You seem to be having trouble in drawing a distinction between what people believe and what people have experienced. Why is that do you think?

Because there is no difference.

Do you believe there are other planets in the universe outside of our solar system? Have you ever seen one? Has anybody ever seen one? But you believe without experience. Why?

Do you believe there are other life forms in the universe away from Planet Earth? Have you ever seen one, talked to one, seen evidence of one? So if you believe there is other life out there without any experience of that, why?

Do you believe there are living creatures on Earth that you have never seen a picture of, never touched, never tasted, never experienced? If so, why?

Have you ever seen, touched, tasted, an atom? Do you believe they exist? Why?

If you think a little harder, I think you will see that your statement that there is no difference between what people believe and what people have experienced is not defensible.

0 Replies

Foxy wrote-

Quote:

Do you believe there are living creatures on Earth that you have never seen a picture of, never touched, never tasted, never experienced? If so, why?

That's a trick question ros. The correct answer is that there are so many and there's so little time.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Do you believe there are other planets in the universe outside of our solar system? Have you ever seen one? Has anybody ever seen one? But you believe without experience. Why?

It's a belief. I recognize it as a belief and not a known fact.

Foxfyre wrote:

If you think a little harder, I think you will see that your statement that there is no difference between what people believe and what people have experienced is not defensible.

If you think a little harder, I think you'll see that it is.

0 Replies

rosborne979 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
I have no doubt that it sounds dumb to you.

It doesn't sound dumb, it is dumb. There's just no way around it, ID has the same degree of credibility as a fairy tale, it's a simple logical fact. Why are you having so much trouble making the connection.

I'm still waiting for your scientific formula, process, testimony of others, or even credible theory that disputes evidence of I.D. When you can provide that, I will consider your opinion that I.D. has no credibility. Otherwise, it sounds very much as if you are trying to make a scientific statement going on nothing more than you say so, therefore it is.

I on the other hand am not asking for you to believe it or accept it. I am only saying that those who have experienced it know. And those who haven't can only sputter.

Quote:

Foxfyre wrote:
And I'm sure you can't understand how dumb it sounds to me for you to keep claiming I'm dumb to believe what I have experienced while you, who have apparently not experienced what I have experienced and have no way to dispute it nevertheless presume yourself to be very smart.

Oh brother, would you get over yourself.

I don't care about dumb this or dumb that, I'm just making a logical connection between statements.

You're the one who brought up 'dumb'. I didn't. I was simply responding to your characterization of something of which you have no knowledge which, to me, sounded pretty dumb. Smile

Quote:

If you believe something that's fine. If you experienced something that's fine. But don't think for one second that your experiences or your beliefs serve as any level of validation for external events which cannot be proven any other way.

I doubt seriously that you will understand no matter how many times I say it, and I've said it a LOT of times now, but I'll say it again:

1) All things that exist in the universe cannot be proved by any known scientific principle or process.

2) The fact that YOU have not experienced something does not negate the fact that others have experienced it.

3) I.D. cannot be proved nor disproved using any known scientific principle or process.

4) To dismiss I.D. because YOU have not experienced it is far less rationale than acceptance of I.D. by those who have experience.

5) Because I.D. cannot be proved via scientific processes or principles, it is inappropriate to teach I.D. in science class.

6) Because I.D. cannot be disproved via scientific processes or principles, it is inappropriate for a science teacher to teach that there is no such thing as I.D.

7) Because millions of people do believe in I.D. and a 'cloud of witnesses' testify to their own experience, it IS appropriate for a science teacher to say that this is one of many theories of the origins of the universe, but because it cannot be proved or disproved scientifically, the science class will not be studying I.D.

In this way, the teacher can teach science without needing to disturb or attempt to destroy the beliefs/values of a child.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

0 Replies

Foxy-

Anti-IDers, if not incompletely baked, adhere to the Materialist Theory of Mind. They have no alternative really although they steer clear of those ideas generally because the logic is a bit severe. A puppet being jerked about by hidden forces is a bit severe I think you'll agree.

They think that believing something and experiencing something are simply chemico/physico reactions, states of the brain/mind/body trinity. which have no meaning outside of that so ros is right technically that they are the same sort of thing. Like two different experiences are also the same sort of thing. Being whipped at the cartail or being waltzed around a ballroom by an officer in the Hussars whose father owns a million acres of prime land.

ros's statement is defensible from the MToM point of view and that's a scientific theory I understand. It's too severe for most people though but it is a fact that most people are those who decide what barmy means.

0 Replies

ros-

I think that what Foxy means is some giant epiphany. A vision one might say if that word had not been ruined by misuse. It's been ruined because it has come to imply something unique and rare and it is actually quite common. James Joyce's "Whatness".

Anti-IDers are not tempermentally suited to having any. Nor are city folks. They have a matter of fact explanation for everything. Such things are mystical but that's another ruined word for the same reason.

Dylan uses it properly in-

Quote:

As I walked out tonight in the mystic garden
The wounded flowers were dangling from the vine
I was passing by yon cool crystal fountain
Someone hit me from behind

It's no big deal. To an IDer the whole world is a mystic garden. Anti-IDers can't see the wood for the trees. Dylan's an IDer. Is there a rocker who isn't?

When nature becomes an excuse to write a book and get yourself known all sight of any visions vanishes. You might as well be grubbing for acorns as doing that sort of thing. So, obviously, people who do that don't understand those who get to where Foxy seems to have got.

The Materialists would say that writing a book and grubbing for acorns are both chemico/physical reactions and thus the same. Poking a stick in the mud and blessing the faithful in the Vatican on Easter Sunday would be of equal value to a MToMer.

Visions are not searched for. They arise. You just put yourself last. As a man I mean. I don't understand ladies. Any man who thinks he understands ladies, Christian ladies, must think they are pretty shallow.

And there's Dylan singing- "Your heart is like an ocean, mysterious and dark."

0 Replies

It's been a long thead Wand, but based on recent posts I think we've discovered somethng new... ID isn't science or religion (we already knew that), it's some form of insanity.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

3) I.D. cannot be proved nor disproved using any known scientific principle or process.

BINGO ! ! !

Fox got one right . . . somebody give that woman a ceegar, this is a rare event . . . rare as hen's teeth.

0 Replies

It is a bit ungentlemanly to take a quote like that out of the context it was in. Foxy included it in the interests of completion.

It was in a sort of manifesto and in such a thing it would have been remiss for Foxy to have left it out.

As an excuse for sarcasm, the lowest etc, I hardly think it can be justified except possibly by those looking out for opportunities for that form of abuse for some reason or other.

The quality of the sarcasm leaves a lot to be desired mind you.

0 Replies

Fox's #7 statement which purports to support her argument by saying because "millions of people believe in ID" is not valid.
At one time, everybody on this planet thought the earth was flat.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I doubt seriously that you will understand no matter how many times I say it, and I've said it a LOT of times now, but I'll say it again:

1) All things that exist in the universe cannot be proved by any known scientific principle or process.

2) The fact that YOU have not experienced something does not negate the fact that others have experienced it.

3) I.D. cannot be proved nor disproved using any known scientific principle or process.

4) To dismiss I.D. because YOU have not experienced it is far less rationale than acceptance of I.D. by those who have experience.

5) Because I.D. cannot be proved via scientific processes or principles, it is inappropriate to teach I.D. in science class.

6) Because I.D. cannot be disproved via scientific processes or principles, it is inappropriate for a science teacher to teach that there is no such thing as I.D.

7) Because millions of people do believe in I.D. and a 'cloud of witnesses' testify to their own experience, it IS appropriate for a science teacher to say that this is one of many theories of the origins of the universe, but because it cannot be proved or disproved scientifically, the science class will not be studying I.D.

In this way, the teacher can teach science without needing to disturb or attempt to destroy the beliefs/values of a child.
_________________
--Foxfyre

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I?-
I took the one less traveled by,
And that has made all the difference.

I'm relatively sure that by page 1002 we've already had a few discussions about probability.............Need I say more?

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know