Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@fresco,

I know that my worldview provides a simple and convenient dwelling place. "What works" has always been the most compelling evidence for me.

0 Replies

Quote:

If you acknowledge, however, that a GOD IS, in fact, one POSSIBLE component of Reality"you are in effect, acknowledging that ID is one POSSIBLE component of Reality.

Frank, why would someone acknowledge such a possibility without there being some evidence pointing to it? Exhaustion? What?

And once you do acknowledge such an unreal component of Reality, where's that going to stop?
You've already pointed the way.
You get to choose whether you're going down slippery slope assfirst or headfirst, either way, try to grab the gutter at the edge of the roof.

Acknowledge the possibility of gods,.... well then, ID might be possible too and Maybe...the ID is really Jehovah or the Buddah or Allah or Isis and maybe HE?SHE? It? loves us and has saved our souls by dying on the Cross and we all need to worship and bow down and be thankful to the AlmightyJesusManGOD and follow his Holy Word (or we'll kill you because we love you too.)
Oh, and waffles the size of the moon are possibilities too.
We just haven't any evidence for them. Wha.

Horseshit.
Frank, Reality, this existence, does not require supernatural assistance nor is there any evidence that it is receiving any.
Are gods possible? Nope.
Can someone conceive the idea of a god? Sure.

Joe(He eats waffles the size of the moon for breakfast)Nation

2 Replies

@fresco,

Another reply from Fresco...who KNOWS what the Reality is.

A pathetic belief system gone ape ****!

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You seem to dwell on this too much and yanking your chain is waay too easy.

I'm delighted you think that!

Quote:

Ive stated that ID has been swept away by evidence against it. In my world thats as compelling as you can get, in your world its just another facet of an ongoing focus on everything religious. (Course Im pretty much focused on the science behind evolution and theres not even a teeny space for some mythological viewpoint since mythological viewpoints are totally untestable-).

Yes...you do have your mind completely closed.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Im here to discuss facts, and maybe truth, what about you?

I definitely am here to discuss facts and truth.

I see precious little evidence in this thread that you are here to do the same.

0 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Jonathan...

...if you want to assert there are no gods...and that there cannot be any gods....do so directly...and then present the "evidence" you have for such an ignorant assertion.

We can discuss that.

I you just want to snipe...go snipe on someone else!

I've got one jerkoff to deal with right now...don't need any others right now.

0 Replies

A) God exists
B) God does not exist
C) God does not exist anymore
D) God does not exist yet

This is the breakdown as I see it in terms of God. The discussion of is or is-not lacks other real possibilities. Having said that, A seems the least likely.

T
K
O

2 Replies

@wandeljw,

Quote:

However, I can describe the contents of a ping pong ball in one word.

Goodbye to the last shred of your scientific credentials wande. They were hanging by the thinnest thread before but now all is gone.

Would you propose teaching evolution in such an offhand casual way which even a word like superficial does no justice too. The only single word I can think of for the task is "bullshit". The contents of a ping-pong ball are far more difficult to describe than what Mr Darwin has left us with.

I could never describe the contents of a ping-pong ball in "several" paragraphs unless I used very long paragraphs and streched the meaning of "several" way beyond its accepted usage. What is inside a ping-pong ball is a very complex arrangement of matter. Some would say irreducibly so. And that is when it is stationary. At NTP.

I once saw a lady knock some skittles over with a ping-pong ball with a very unusual delivery mechanism. I'll accept that she might have tried it a number of times and her most successful attempt was the one the director of the movie chose to show us.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

A) God exists
B) God does not exist
C) God does not exist anymore
D) God does not exist yet

This is the breakdown as I see it in terms of God. The discussion of is or is-not lacks other real possibilities. Having said that, A seems the least likely.

That makes no sense at all. If C and D don't seem less likely than A...something is not working right in your brain.

1 Reply

There's no abstraction to evolution and one shouldn't believe that because they (partially) read Darwin's Theory of Evolution and Voyage of the Beagle and his other papers that they've become educated. It's what Darwin didn't know* and he just might have move his religious belief from Christian to Theism, or even Agnosticism. You have to study his protege's work, his contemporaries and modern evolutionist, specifically those involved with the DNA including the revelation of the chiclids in Lake Malawi and Tanganyika (basically sister lakes, but with important differences). Darwin did speculate but his speculations have been addressed and proven very close to 100%, albeit with incidental differences.

*If you missed the BBC production with evolutionary biologist Professor Armand Marie Leroi on the Science Channel, it's being re-aired this month and probably in the future. Otherwise, it's not on the BBC video player, but someone had the smarts to put it on You Tube:

http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=94CCFA7ED9D27051

It's really tiresome to interact with those so uneducated about evolution as to whether ID is a science or not. I won't mention names.

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Contrary to popular belief "reality" is about what works for the observer within his paradigmatic niche.

What fresco means is that if someone thinks he is Napoleon then he actually is Napoleon within his paradigmatic niche. On this principle, which cannot be disputed but only treated if treatment is thought necessary or possible, anyone who thinks they are a scientist then it is axiomatic that they are a scientist within their paradigmatic niche.

From which I conclude that fresco is taking the piss out of effemm.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

One thing is for certain, LW...we do not know everything there is to know about how things proceeded from “the Earth cooling” to “where we are now.”

We really do not even know if some of the things we feel are “rather certain”...will one day fall to the side of our understanding of the process. Finding those things out are part of the scientific process some of the people here profess to champion.

But for sure...IF there is a GOD...the GOD could have designed things to proceed randomly...just the way it appears they did happen.

That is a given.

People like Joe Nation and c.i....may feel comfortable spewing their silly beliefs that there are no gods and cannot be any. That doesn't mean there are no gods...just that some humans are foolish enough to think they can logically assert such nonsense.

If there is a GOD...one of the two possibilities...then there was Intelligent Design...even if the design was purposefully chaotic and random.

You gotta just love the people who cannot accept that obvious truth...and then go on to pretend they are searching for truth!

2 Replies

@spendius,

Spendius...Fresco is a one-trick pony.

He's got this consuming belief system that he refuses to acknowledge as a belief system...and he is selling it like snake oil.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Religion and evolution are philosophically incompatible (IMHO). In religion we accept so much without proof or evidence , yet in science we demand piles of evidence. So the argument that a God exists is part of the dissonance that we accept as "just the way it is".
I cant accept the kind of logic that celebrates the opposites in the way information is processed.

I went to the initial Darwin Year seminar at Penn yesterday and bought a bumper sticker that says
"we have the fossils, we win"

3 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

(Course Im pretty much focused on the science behind evolution and theres not even a teeny space for some mythological viewpoint since mythological viewpoints are totally untestable-).

In the absence of mythological viewpoints there is no science beyond getting honey out of a bees' nest with a stick and no bowthrusters to clean the "seafood" out of. I don't think there would even be breech clouts.

I hope they don't put the pub into a "no shame" mode tonight. Although it would at least provide a scientific test for the size of the space mythological viewpoints take up in all our lives.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Religion and evolution are philosophically incompatible (IMHO).

That may be the problem here.

You opinion is anything but humble....and if you actually meant these words the way you wrote them, it almost certain it is wrong.

Religion and evolution may very well be philosophically incompatible...but not necessarily so. Only to a closed mind is it a certainty.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
A) God exists
B) God does not exist
C) God does not exist anymore
D) God does not exist yet

This is the breakdown as I see it in terms of God. The discussion of is or is-not lacks other real possibilities. Having said that, A seems the least likely.

That makes no sense at all. If C and D don't seem less likely than A...something is not working right in your brain.

The only reason C and D are more likely by my judgment is because (1) A is absolute, and therefore must meet the challenges of resolving all inconsistencies whereas (2) C and D have the potential to explain an absence of evidence found today of a god. I don't dismiss the idea of god, I'm actually quite fond of the idea frankly, but intellectually, I must agree that B is the most likely of the four. One does not have to prove something does not exist.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No, Frank, you got that wrong; my reality tells me I cannot believe in anything that shows no evidence of it - and that includes all the gods man created.

It's really a very simple concept; one that seems to escape you.

2 Replies

@Joe Nation,

Quote:

Frank, why would someone acknowledge such a possibility without there being some evidence pointing to it? Exhaustion? What?

Why would someone acknowledge that there's no such possibilty without there being some evidence pointing to it?

Quote:

It? loves us and has saved our souls by dying on the Cross and we all need to worship and bow down and be thankful to the AlmightyJesusManGOD and follow his Holy Word (or we'll kill you because we love you too.)

That's rather an exaggeration in my experience.

I don't think you're up for this debate Joe. You're running on the spot and have been doing since you discovered how easy it is to insult and denigrate your fellow man in this way. Why you should be obsessed with doing that is something for you to work out. Did you used to enjoy frightening girls with spiders so they would rush into your arms and be saved?

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Yeh right. Lessee. Mary had a baby with divine insemnation.

Are you Father OReilly whose getting over some end of career doubts?

I said that PHILOSOPHICALLY these two concepts are incompatible. I try to keep one set of working hypotheses going. I cannot dispense my scientific interests and training when confronted with my Catholic upbringing. The Pope loses.

Admit it, you are the intractible one whose not made the trip in and out of his childhood beliefs. I have and Im quite comfortable with my exit point.
Naturalistic evolution doesnt hurt, why you have to tie everything to a "possibility" of a spirit force is puzzling. Maybe its just me but I think you are still going to confession because "Hey it cant hurt"

ACtual agnosticism is imbued with "I dont know and I really dont care".

Ill let you take a last hit at me and then Ill just ignore your ramblings Frank, that is unless you finally "get it"

2 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know