Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

There are hierarchies of facts too. And there are facts that are diffused around the edges.

If you think Foxy is wrong with-

Quote:

The difference between you and me, FM, is that I don't have to present my opponent's argument dishonestly so that I have more basis with which to refute it. --

I invite you to peruse the thread in the company of someone who understands the language.

0 Replies

Belief in the magic dragon with no way to explain it in human terms with evidence, logic, and common sense.

0 Replies

One might imagine that turning a barbarous, chaotic and terrifying world into this lush plethora of comfort and ease in a few hundred years is pretty darn magical.

Only carpers and grumblers would think otherwise. It wasn't done with a flick of the wrist.

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxfyre
Quote:
The difference between you and me, FM, is that I don't have to present my opponent's argument dishonestly so that I have more basis with which to refute it. --

By presenting my position dishonestly as you do so above, you are doing exactly what you say you dont do. ( thats worth 2 LOL's).
I do understand where you want to end up here but I cant understand how youre gonna get there.
Quote:
Should you take my argument at face value--and I believe my argument is shared by IDers whose numbers are legio
YAd think that with all these "legions" somebody would come up with some evidence, no? Is any IDer really looking? or are they (as I suspect) preferring diversionary tactics?

Quote:
As you no doubt know, in debate circles that is referred to as red herring or straw man

ALso, in debate "circles," facts are considered inviolate.

I will guess that, aside from hundreds of millions of witnesses, the IDers will have verifiable 'facts' to present around the same time as the anti-IDers have any facts with which to dispute ID.

Meanwhile your intended or unintended misrepresentation of the IDers arguments are pretty well out there for anybody with intellectual honesty to see. And that's a fact that is verifiable.

0 Replies

Foxy-

Let's you and me get real eh? These anti-IDers either daren't or can't.

What do you think an anti-ID world would look like. Maybe we are going to have to try to describe the social consequences of an anti-ID triumph.

Do you think they'll demolish all the places of worship? Stalin only locked them but he was a bit chicken.

After all they are not going to tolerate large imposing buildings in which idiotic activities take place which inhibit the development of American science when the sites are mostly valuable real estate.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I will guess that, aside from hundreds of millions of witnesses, the IDers will have verifiable 'facts' to present around the same time as the anti-IDers have any facts with which to dispute ID.

ID is just another form of magic. You don't dispute magic, you either believe it exists, or you don't.

0 Replies

foxfyre

Quote:

Meanwhile your intended or unintended misrepresentation of the IDers arguments are pretty well out there for anybody with intellectual honesty to see. And that's a fact that is verifiable.

If you mean do I stick by my opinions that ID arguments are fraudulent, ? boy, no pulling the wool over your head.

PS, it was totally intended, and No IDer, or their "science brain trust" has been able to provide ANY evidence to the contrary.

You say that youre a fan of field surveys and archeological digs, Have you ever read "Tempo and Mode in Evolution"?. You can get it downloaded for free from Academic Press. Id really urge you .

If you have any , THAT IS ANY texts or papers of ID, plese post them . Ive already read

Darwins Black Box
Darwin on Trial
OF Pandas and PEople
The Search for PAttern
"Flood Geology"
and quite a few others. (I find them all vapid, fact-free, and Unsubstantiated)

I hope your "IDminds" will soon come up with something scientific besides Irreducible Complexity, that is almost 20 years old and has been losing ground for the last 15. Are you even aware of these things?

0 Replies

ros-- See 4 posts back.

What might be your favoured scenario for achieving that result in the absence of Christianity?

How can it be magic when it worked.

0 Replies

fm wrote-

Quote:

If you mean do I stick by my opinions that ID arguments are fraudulent, ? boy, no pulling the wool over your head.

You've done there exactly what Foxy accused you of. It is the fantasy ID arguments that you have concocted yourself for the purpose of declaring fraudulent that you are talking about. Placing your own sitting duck on your garden gate so you can shoot it without any effort or skill.

What ID argument on here are you declaring fraudulent?

0 Replies

farmerman wrote:

foxfyre
Quote:
Meanwhile your intended or unintended misrepresentation of the IDers arguments are pretty well out there for anybody with intellectual honesty to see. And that's a fact that is verifiable.

If you mean do I stick by my opinions that ID arguments are fraudulent, ? boy, no pulling the wool over your head.

PS, it was totally intended, and No IDer, or their "science brain trust" has been able to provide ANY evidence to the contrary.

You say that youre a fan of field surveys and archeological digs, Have you ever read "Tempo and Mode in Evolution"?. You can get it downloaded for free from Academic Press. Id really urge you .

If you have any , THAT IS ANY texts or papers of ID, plese post them . Ive already read

Darwins Black Box
Darwin on Trial
OF Pandas and PEople
The Search for PAttern
"Flood Geology"
and quite a few others. (I find them all vapid, fact-free, and Unsubstantiated)

I hope your "IDminds" will soon come up with something scientific besides Irreducible Complexity, that is almost 20 years old and has been losing ground for the last 15. Are you even aware of these things?

And here you did it again. You seem to think I would change my mind if I would just read the good stuff that you read. The thing is, the things you read on this topic that you do like all support Darwin's theory, i.e. natural selection. You won't find, however, anything anywhere that even suggests that I question, much less dispute natural selection. Nor will you find any instances where I have pushed anybody else's printed or transcribed argument speaking against natural selection either, most particularly because I don't think anybody HAS a credible argument against natural selection. And no, I haven't read any of the works you listed that you think are discredited advocacy for the IDers argument.

But until you can cite a credible source, other than your own prejudiced point of view, that refutes all notions that ID can co-exist peacefully and credibly alongside natural selection, I will continue to believe I have by far the stronger argument.

And I will repeat again--I am typing REALLY slowly this time so you can't possibly be confused--I do NOT believe ID belongs in a science class or can be taught as science. At the same time, I think no science teacher with a sufficiently open mind to be teaching kids should be expressing an opinion that ID has been debunked.

0 Replies

Foxfyre,

ID proponents specifically offer their hypothesis as an alternative to the natural selection hypothesis. If you do not dispute natural selection, as you say, then you are not really an ID proponent. You confuse people when you speak in favor of "ID". I am not sure you are talking about "ID" as it is commonly defined.

("ID", as it is commonly defined, has been debunked.)

0 Replies

wandeljw wrote:

Foxfyre,

ID proponents specifically offer their hypothesis as an alternative to the natural selection hypothesis. If you do not dispute natural selection, as you say, then you are not really an ID proponent. You confuse people when you speak in favor of "ID". I am not sure you are talking about "ID" as it is commonly defined.

("ID", as it is commonly defined, has been debunked.)

ID as most IDers define it has not been debunked. That is what I have been trying to express here, and which neither, you nor FarmerMan nor any of the other anti-IDers want to acknowledge. I am passionately an IDer with unshakable faith in what I believe. So was Plato. So was Aristotle. I think both could have easily allowed ID to co-exist along with a theory of Natural Selection had they had access to Darwin's theory in their day.

I believe those who would replace Darwin with ID are in a distinct monority, though they receive an inordinate amount of press while you and others try to put me into that box. My belief won't fit.

Nor will my belief fit with the somewhat larger group of believers who would want Creationism taught along with Darwin.

I do believe my general belief re ID does fit with the substantially largest group of IDers, however. To tell me that I am not an IDer is rather insulting all things considered. I prefer the more outrageous accusations of being delusional or dishonest or calculating or whatever due to my beliefs because I know those arise out of the obsessive fear and prejudice that controls my accusers.

So, this thread drags on with you anti-IDers trying to demonize all IDers based on the activities of a minority, and the few IDers posting here standing their ground because our belief arises out of experience plus observation and logic rather than fear and prejudice.

I will continue to say unequivocably that there is room for both ID and Darwin in a rational point of view. I can't imagine ever changing my mind about that unless I was presented with unrefutable evidence. So far nobody has had anything at all other than ad hominem comments with which to dispute it.

0 Replies

ID isn't a theory, it's a guess at best, and it's very arbitrary. It lacks detail and is unable to predict any future event.

The world of science is incredibly diverse, and the study of the universe's origins and the origins of the flora and fauna only represent a fraction of the full spectrum.

ID without detail simply identifies that there are things about the universe which is currently beyond human understanding, or that it has extreme complexity.

It does NOT make the case that these things will always be beyond human understanding.

ID is not built on solid logic.

We have a choice as scientists, we can fill those holes with research, and better our understanding, or we can leave them misunderstood and vacant.

ID is an easy way out for those too lazy to educate themselves or help contribute to sewing the holes in the fabric of human knowledge.

Go ahead and call me anti-ID of whatever poor-me-victim-BS you want, it doesn't change anything. ID is bogus.

T
K
O

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

ID as most IDers define it has not been debunked.

It's easy to redefine for convieniance, but why should we have to argue against what does not have a form?

I would now like you to post SPECIFICLY what definition of ID you claim most IDers believe, and a source.

T
K
O

0 Replies

We've already asked spendi to explain his idea of ID, and none came forth. It's as illusive as trying to describe god; it doesn't exist. But they will continue to say that evolution sits on similar ground. With that kind of mindset, we'll continue on this merry-go-round.

0 Replies

Charlie DArwin's 199th Birthday at a U OF PENN TEACH INPHILLY ON 2/10/08.
The central presentors will discuss the legal strategy and the case at Dover Pa. They will attempt to lay to rest the nexus between any of the sciences and ID.

0 Replies

My point is that it is impossible to discount the extent in which "believers" on both sides of the debate, the lengths that either would go to to prove there right, when all the so called evidence is just what people believe. So if either argument is completly un-refutable, whats the point? Its like walking into a church and screaming "your all full of ****, darwin rawks!!", or walking into a flock of evolutionists and telling them how god is the answer. Its not gonna change anyones mind and its just pointless to try. Hence my previous comment "This thread is pointless" pretty much hits in on the head.

You may see that as insulting. Good, that was the intention, but the fact that both sides continue to shovel garbage on this thread with no sign of anyone changing stances, opinions and beliefs, I would say that the last 1300+ pages have been an apt reminder of only one thing, people can shovel garbage no matter how stinky it is, unless god comes down and says "I am an ID", or we find all intermediate fossils (which is about as unlikely as the latter, i think Razz

) no one is going to budge.

I believe we used to live on another planet in this galaxy and aliens ,with the ability to bend space time, teleported us here, after annihilating the dinosaurs so we may survive and prosper without competition that would otherwise eat us to the man (literally). Sadly these aliens have an unemotional imaginative cortex (which still remains a small part of your brain, our ability to imagine for one is an alien concept to the species of this planet, and the reason why monkeys cant build composite tools) so they could not possibly empathize with the plight of our need for knowing where we came from, they saw their origin and past of no consequence and so unlike us they wouldn't waste time squabbling over the uncertainties of the far past and would press onward into the future looking to make their mark on the galaxy, the same way bacteria spread in a petri dish. Hence why they are an advanced species, they have been able to realize as a whole, that the past is only useful in the context of seeing how far they've come, technologically, and in numerical superiority over the inferior technological species, such as us.

I don't believe that, its garbage, just making my contribution. Razz

However, this thread is mildly entertaining ill give it that, even once we over populate the world and starve to death due to our own stupidity, ill still be laughing at the fact (unless I'm dead, **** happens Evil or Very Mad

).

0 Replies

Im glad you are entertained. Sometimes learning does come in the form of entertainment.

PS , xenoche, most of us are playing in here cause its fun. What have you got against fun?

0 Replies

Yeah, it's like a daily visit to the pub without having to imbibe.

0 Replies

Xenoche wrote:

My point is that it is impossible to discount the extent in which "believers" on both sides of the debate, the lengths that either would go to to prove there right, when all the so called evidence is just what people believe. So if either argument is completly un-refutable, whats the point? Its like walking into a church and screaming "your all full of ****, darwin rawks!!", or walking into a flock of evolutionists and telling them how god is the answer. Its not gonna change anyones mind and its just pointless to try. Hence my previous comment "This thread is pointless" pretty much hits in on the head.

You may see that as insulting. Good, that was the intention, but the fact that both sides continue to shovel garbage on this thread with no sign of anyone changing stances, opinions and beliefs, I would say that the last 1300+ pages have been an apt reminder of only one thing, people can shovel garbage no matter how stinky it is, unless god comes down and says "I am an ID", or we find all intermediate fossils (which is about as unlikely as the latter, i think ) no one is going to budge.

I believe we used to live on another planet in this galaxy and aliens ,with the ability to bend space time, teleported us here, after annihilating the dinosaurs so we may survive and prosper without competition that would otherwise eat us to the man (literally). Sadly these aliens have an unemotional imaginative cortex (which still remains a small part of your brain, our ability to imagine for one is an alien concept to the species of this planet, and the reason why monkeys cant build composite tools) so they could not possibly empathize with the plight of our need for knowing where we came from, they saw their origin and past of no consequence and so unlike us they wouldn't waste time squabbling over the uncertainties of the far past and would press onward into the future looking to make their mark on the galaxy, the same way bacteria spread in a petri dish. Hence why they are an advanced species, they have been able to realize as a whole, that the past is only useful in the context of seeing how far they've come, technologically, and in numerical superiority over the inferior technological species, such as us.

I don't believe that, its garbage, just making my contribution.

However, this thread is mildly entertaining ill give it that, even once we over populate the world and starve to death due to our own stupidity, ill still be laughing at the fact (unless I'm dead, **** happens ).

The thing is that I don't need any more fossils, intermediate or otherwise, to believe in Darwin's theory. I am already a believer.

I think the anti-IDers however would not be convinced if some form of higher intelligence showed up in person and gave them a power point presentation that would dispel any doubt for normal people. But they call us IDers the close minded ones purely because we believe that science is only one part of all that there is to know.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know