97
   

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

 
 
wandeljw
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 09:48 am
@Frank Apisa,
But, Frank, the core of any intelligent design explanation is that forms of life are physical evidence of the existence of a supernatural being. Physical evidence for the supernatural is what I basically reject.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 10:20 am
@Jason Proudmoore,
That's why they call themselves "agnostic."

They can't prove anything, but say "well, I can't find any "evidence" to the contrary, so it's a possibility."

Can't fight with that kind of logic.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 10:54 am
@cicerone imposter,
That's why I do not believe than anyone can understand their own gut feelings about the possibility of god or gods existing metaphysically or supernaturally. It becomes an issue of semantics and in this case we are living in a reality that does not seem to include any influence from any god or gods. Natural disasters are considered "an act of god" by insurance companies. Insurance companies. What an endorsement! Now when a used car salesman makes a sale, he can attribute it to god being on his side. Apparently after Katrina our last administration made it a problem that was out of their control due to it being an act of god. Did they believe that god was going to clean up the mess? Or good Christians. I think a lot of "good Christians" are buyingu up land in Louisiana to make a hell of a profit. I do mean hell.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:08 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, the acceptance of an alternate reality in order to undermine it is an unecessary card trick. Enough hard evidence exists that knocks ID into a cocked hat, so why must I (or you) concede that the underpinning of ID (namely a designer) is possible?? I would say by the QED rule, the possibility of a designer is infinatelly teeny. Your overall logic totally escapes me . My reality states that, when we show that all the bricks of the ID wall are knocked over, the underlying supposition is proven invalid . Can we agree that the walls of ID "proof" have been dispensed with? Or do you accept some of their argument? Maybe we can discuss the exact points of our departure and where Im having trouble with your overall logic?
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:22 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
...because EVERYTHING you have said about how humans developed CAN BE 100% CORRECT...and EVERYTHING you have said about how wrong-headed EVERYTHING EVER SAID BY EVERY IDer CAN BE 100% CORRECT...

...and still life may have been Intelligently Designed.




Remember the title of this thread. You are trying to accept ID as religion but you are asking science to acknowledge its remote possibility by methods divorced from science. WOnder why Im gagging?

I think I understand your thinking. I just wonder how far out you can go with it without T-boning yourself.


0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:24 am
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
Farmerman....what if the IDs plan IS FOR THE EVOLUTION TO BE RANDOM...TO BE CAPRICIOUS?
. This is your assertion, go with it and try to explain in a manner that doesnt have you relying on any evidence
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:38 am
@farmerman,
The Discovery Institute and the book "Of Pandas and People" (leave it to them to start a book title with "Of" -- reads like a sub-title) presumes all the species were designed and plopped onto the Earth ready-to-go. They can't reconcile this with fossil records, geological scientific discoveries, extinctions, or the list goes on ad infinitum. It reads like a kid's book written by a madman in the asylum library of sixth-grader books. Their illustrations are funnier than the cartoons in the New Yorker, but not even nearly as sublime. I guess this includes all the dogs that show up at the Westminster Dog Show (they do not believe that dog breeds evolved from domesticating wolves).

Of course, anyone can make up their own ID concept but they will have just as much trouble making a science out of it. The Catholic Church has basically thrown up their hands and admitted the Earth is older than 6,000 years and evolution is a valid theory based on fact.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:43 am
@wandeljw,
Quote:
But, Frank, the core of any intelligent design explanation is that forms of life are physical evidence of the existence of a supernatural being. Physical evidence for the supernatural is what I basically reject.


It is not at the core of the one I just proposed...and I also reject any attempt to use (the appearance) of existence as proof, or even evidence, of any gods.

You can build a compelling case that Intelligent Design is one possible component of Reality...just like you can build a compelling case that a GOD is one possible component of Reality.
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:45 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank, They may be "compelling" to some people, but it still doesn't make it true - or factual. No evidence, material or otherwise.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:46 am
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
That's why they call themselves "agnostic."

They can't prove anything, but say "well, I can't find any "evidence" to the contrary, so it's a possibility."

Can't fight with that kind of logic.


As opposed to theists who cannot prove anything either, but who say, I KNOW there is a GOD...

or atheists, who cannot prove anything either, but who say, I KNOW THERE ARE NO GODS.

The logic and truthfulness is unassailable.

Not sure why that upsets people who make wild, blind guesses and pretend they are something more.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
Would this god be floating around in empty, infinite space trying to make up its mind if it would be a good idea to light the fuse for a Big Bang or was it staying at a Galactic Motel 6?
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:50 am
@Frank Apisa,
We don't have to "prove" anything; we don't believe in the invisible man-created gods. This is one case where there is no way to prove a negative.

We believe in evolution and science, because there are material evidence to "see" it.

Lightwizard
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 11:55 am
@cicerone imposter,
Well, you also have to be convinced that you think Cosmology has found the scientific for the formation of the Universe, including the zillions of suns and planets, but specifically Earth and the eight planets (poor Pluto, so sad), with one particular planet the right distance from the Sol so that it could use the elements and form organic life.
0 Replies
 
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 12:09 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
No more namecalling Frank .


Sheesh! effemm has called me more names, often the same ones over and over, than there are craters on the moon. If his capacity to insult is anything like his capacity with science, which it is, then one might pray for the kids whose parents are foolish enough to expose them to his bigotry and nonsensical clipclaptrottmirrorwardsreflections.

This whole debate is pointless without reference to social consequences. It is irresolvable any other way. What matters is that kids are taught something, bullshit if necessary, which is to the benefit of our society. If religious ideas are detrimental to society then the oaths and church services at the inauguration are detrimental as well. And the matter would have been discussed at the highest levels. Which is an odd thing to think about. It could go on Ignore I suppose. That's the easiest.

It is a mere psychological problem that a few big dicks want to go against the grain of that simply because it makes them feel less of a big dick to think they have been snowed into something despite it being of fantastic practical use in every moment of their lives and in everybody else's lives, except those who get run over by a bus or any other product of science.

And it is so important to them, their self respect is involved, that anything which says they might not be big dicks like they have been conditioned to think they are and just are actually ordinary common or garden little dicks like the rest of us, which they are, goes on Ignore.

The toilet door is designed to put on Ignore that aspect of themselves, a very important one too, which speaks loudly and clearly of common or garden-ness. As is also a fair number of other biologically driven activities which speak nearly as loudly of the common or garden-ness of those who find themselves engaged in them. Just as the toilet door is undesigned in prisons to remind criminals, who are all into big dickery, that, at bottom, they are just like all the rest. Especially for the ass-wiping part. When the cameras visit CERN they have the ass-wipe sections on Ignore. The Disposal and Waste Management Engineer will not get a look in. Despite his extreme importance. And he's the only one whose big dickery justifications are coherent to the viewers who are, through a mind bogglingly, though not, possibly, irreducibly complex system of monetary transactions, many electronic, are footing the bill. Or have come to believe they are. The same thing actually from a political point of view if there are enough with that belief. As there seems to be.

They have persuaded themselves to their stance , as have the writers of the books they pore over, who may be pandering to them, in the manner of Henry Miller, who reckoned he could pander to anybody you paid him to, for the very purpose of seeking justifications for them being big dicks because it is impolite for them to just assert they are big dicks and are thus more intelligent than us dickheads they assert the rest of us to be. They are willing, often more than willing, to assert that we are dickheads as it doesn't seem to them to be just another way of asserting they are big dicks and thus just as impolite as asserting that they are big dicks. The reverse invidious comparison. A method popular with the univira (respectable matrons) of ancient Rome who ceremonially expelled a common slut, and they were common then, with force and invective, from their temple. This invidious comparison was meant to highlight the respectability of the matrons. Sluts were on Ignore. They hired the slut as one might expect.

In Flaubert's masterpiece the mother of Spendius would have been a suitable applicant for this annual position. Hence my use of lower case for my username. When I am insulted on here I play a similar role for the big dicks as the slut does for the matrons which is one way of maintaining my family traditions.

The thought of having swallowed a load of bullshit makes big dicks feel ordinary and just one of the common or garden run of humanity which is known to swallow bullshit as steadily and as solipsically as a pig swallows pigswill. *
And that won't do at all in the big dick's canon.

An Intelligent Designer might well have designed into the system that a small proportion of this type of big dick, as opposed to big dicks like Buzz Alrdrin and Frank Whittle, who are real big dicks, is provided for no other purpose than to give us all a good laugh in this weary world of woe. How could there be any laughs if they weren't designed in? What evolutionary precedent is there for tittering uncontrollably? Nothing can be absurd or ridiculous in a system containing nothing but blind evolutionary processes. That's why big dicks can't laugh. It would betray them. They can pretend to laugh and fey comics have perfected methods of facilitating this rictus. The political satirist for example. More "they're all dickheads" stuff. Such a design that I am speculating upon also serves to further a whole system of big dickery the latest manifestation of which is deep underground near Geneva and is currently in "maintenance" after all the fuses blew when they switched it on. At the moment they are hoping to try again in September. It is, of course, spoken of in hushed and reverential tones, as well it might be when it is seeking to discover what happened "just after" the Big Bang and at such expense.

Only the robes are absent: they do open-necked shirts, reserved car parks, hierarchical troughing halls and in fighting over washroom keys.

In infinity this here now might be said to be "just after" the Big Bang.

And if we dipshits had our hands on the money we would just piss it up against a wall or buy our ladies some presents. What better than a hole in the ground. And nearly finding out what happened "just after" the Big Bang.

And what I can't understand is why they want everybody to be big dicks like they are. What would be the point of being a big dick if everybody was a big dick? You might think big dicks would think that the more dickheads the better. It's a bit like the New York Times recommending an unspoilt beach somewhere on behalf of the travel agents in the classifieds and when you get there it's heaving with NYT's readers.

Have you heard that pilgrims to the Galapagos Islands have caused the extinction of some species and are set to wipe the lot out if travel restrictions are not imposed on those the big dicks haven't given permission to. From finches, mockingbirds and turtles to tourists with no intermediate stages. Fossil hunters in the future will make of that what they will.

Another manifestation of the design I am speculating upon, which looks quite a good idea, is the lovely little octuplets I saw fast asleep on TV last night whose paternal progenitor had sold a shot of jism to a sperm bank and who might well be hoping they can't trace him. Their Mom was obviously pleased with herself and is looking forward to having another crack at it.

I admire big dicks. I watch a lot of them performing their skills and crafts. But when to be a big dick all you need do is to decide there's no intelligent designer, and search out sophistries written for a market, and hey presto you are a big dick it is time to start wondering if uncontrollable tittering is sufficient and that one ought to risk the well known dangers of corybantic guffawing.

The posts of the big dicks are so full of strange words, sarcasms, insults, posturings, hints of personal excellence, evasions, reverse invidious comparisons and assertions that it can only be assumed that these strategies will be carried forth into every classroom of the nation and dickheads will have to be imported to do the work big dicks find beneath their station whose children will then be transformed into big dicks.

*That's a neat aliterative effect don't you think?
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 12:10 pm
@farmerman,
Quote:
Frank, the acceptance of an alternate reality in order to undermine it is an unecessary card trick.


No alternate reality proposed...and no card trick being performed.

This is called “honesty.”


Quote:

Enough hard evidence exists that knocks ID into a cocked hat, so why must I (or you) concede that the underpinning of ID (namely a designer) is possible??


Question I asked before: Are you saying that there is no possibility of a GOD involved in the Reality of existence???

Unless you can say that...there is THE POSSIBILITY of an ID!

(Why is that such a difficult concept to grasp?)


Quote:
I would say by the QED rule, the possibility of a designer is infinatelly teeny.


Really!!!

So you have determined that the possibility of a GOD existing is infinitesimally small!

Love to see the math on that.

I spent two years arguing with Ican...and he claimed to determine that the possibility of NO GOD was infinitesimally small.

I think you are both full of soup.

But if you want to present the math...I'll look it over.

Quote:
Your overall logic totally escapes me .


Yes, we are definitely in agreement here. Not really sure how to get you to open up your mind.

Quote:

My reality states that, when we show that all the bricks of the ID wall are knocked over, the underlying supposition is proven invalid .


I am not party to “your reality.” Here in the world I inhabit...you have not “knocked the bricks” out of the possibility of the existence of ID. All you have done is to knock some bricks out from under some of the proponents of ID.


Quote:

Can we agree that the walls of ID "proof" have been dispensed with?


I do not work with “proofs”, Farmerman...and I am not working with them here. If you have offered “proof” that there are no gods...please resubmit it and I'll force myself to evaluate it.


Quote:
Or do you accept some of their argument?


I do not accept any argument from ID that does not include the condition that if a GOD was involved with the evolution from “whatever was when the planet first cooled”...to today...

….the GOD worked through the means THAT ACTUALLY OCCURRED.

We do not yet know of all the elements of evolution from then 'til now...but science is trying to find those answers. I wish them luck...they are diligent seekers.

Whatever actually happened...happened. If there was a GOD involved...that is how the GOD worked. If there was no GOD involved...this is how it worked without the aid of a GOD.

That is why I say it does not matter.

Quote:

Maybe we can discuss the exact points of our departure and where Im having trouble with your overall logic?


Start with my earlier question: “Are you saying that there is no possibility of a GOD involved in the Reality of existence???”

We will take it slowly...step by step from there.

I promise to keep my mind open to your arguments, Farmerman. I hope you do the same.
Lightwizard
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 12:24 pm
I was taught that the human brain was the crowning glory of evolution so far, but I think it's a very poor scheme for survival.
Kurt Vonnegut
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 12:25 pm
@Frank Apisa,
No more than flying spaghetti monsters. Absolutely none.
spendius
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 12:41 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
This is called “honesty.”


A straight ahead invidious comparison which obviously implies effemm's dishonesty.

Look Frank- I have been trying to explain for four years that rubbishing the proponents of ID, people on the make maybe, but mere people, has nothing to do with the concept of ID. I hope you have better luck than I've had. And they are choosing which proponents of ID to rubbish as well. As at Dover.

And what can one make of "infinatelly teeny" sneakily trying to stand in for "zero" coming from a so-called scientist. Cop out eh? Big time.

Quote:
But if you want to present the math...I'll look it over.


I'm confident they won't put you to the trouble.

Quote:
I promise to keep my mind open to your arguments, Farmerman. I hope you do the same.


He daren't. He's burned his bridges. It's why I'm on Ignore.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 12:41 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Quote:
No more than flying spaghetti monsters. Absolutely none.


Does this apply to anything in particular...and why should I have to ask what it applies to?
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Thu 12 Feb, 2009 01:10 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Well, Frank, I'm sure everybody else on this thread understands the meaning of my post.
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.12 seconds on 04/19/2025 at 07:44:45