Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

@Frank Apisa,

Frank is not bound by any religion and he's not a Theist or Deist. It is true, for me at least, that full blown agnosticism does not involved writing or talking about it other than, "I am agnostic," to the question, "Do you believe in God?" No other explanation is required unless one doesn't understand the basic definition of agnostic. I'm likely to be flippant at any party or social gathering I am at, with my liberal or conservative friends (or a weird mix -- what fun, please give me another Bombay Godiva Chocolate Martini), and say, "Oh, look it up in the dictionary." I'm always surprised in this forum of how many discussions or arguments involve just defining a word. Revisionist armchair historians, psychologists, scientists, et al, seem to always be revisionist lexicographers.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Why we so quickly default to divinity when we don't understand things may be understandable, but it doesn't make it true.

Agreed!

But it doesn't make it false either!

Sure, but what's your point? I'm not saying they are false, I'm saying that they are unnecessary to explain the universe. I don't think we need to disprove unicorns and it is NOT because I don't believe in them. Take for example marine life. We on occasion discover a life form that we have never seen or perhaps thought was extinct. Prior to it's discovery, the objective of science was not to prove or disprove its existence, only to examine the evidence. Those scientists that thought some fish was gone forever weren't bad scientists even though they were wrong. They were concluding on the evidence they had. When more evidence became available the conclusion changed.

The evidence we have sides with a natural universe. Perhaps someday a body of evidence will be discovered that supports an alternative, but until then, don't fault me as irrational for examining what is all around me. If it is your belief that this body of evidence is simply waiting to be found, say so, but understand that argument is an underdog one. I don't find your conclusion shallow, and I don't think you should be ridiculed for it, your opinion deserves respect. You must be honest though: This is not a stalemate, and you are in fact holding out for a sea change of evidence.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

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

I saw the programme twice. I took notes too. I haven't used them yet because the standards displayed by our anti-IDers lead me to think that it would be a waste of time.

I've tried before to introduce the notion of sperm plasms and eggs (the gonads) and their physical separation from the body and them being affected by cosmological events as well as by signals from the environment.

Waste of time. Minds shut like rat traps just can't see outside of themselves. A Darwinian faced with "there is", "no there isn't", "there ******* well is", "no there ******* well isn't", would organise a shoot out so that life could proceed along the lines of the quickest on the draw. At least it would be proceeding rather than it being paralysed.

0 Replies

I've got a boxing ring in my backyard if y'all want to gather and duke it out.

(No, I don't).

2 Replies

Frank, perhaps you're used to a different type of person in debates such as this. I'm willing to accept any empirically based conclusion be it god or otherwise. Me not agreeing with you doesn't mean I necessarily agree with the opposite of your beliefs.

If rational thought leads me to atheism, so be it. I am more concerned with the path, not the destination. It's not the other way around. I'm not picking a belief then walking backwards to explain how I got there. I'm just going to keep walking my scientific path, and we'll see where I end up.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Lightwizard wrote:

I've got a boxing ring in my backyard if y'all want to gather and duke it out.

(No, I don't).

I say we settle this with a go kart race. Winner takes all!

T
K
O

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

"we have the fossils, we win"

Exactly. All effemm cares about is him winning. The kids, education, the future of America, the future of science, all count for nothing beside that one big idea.

And he will boast about sticking assertions on his car. As if it proves him right.

He is also not right with his "we" because the fossils belong to those who funded finding them and the majority of them believe in "something". His use of "we" is thus a lie. And there's a thriving fake-fossil business. A minor craft industry set up to cater for saps. Even Darwin had to hand his collections from The Beagle trip to public insitutions. He was only on the trip in the first place because Fitzroy feared the loneliness of command, after the ship's previous captain had committed suicide, and sought a gentleman to keep him company on what was a survey expedition in the service of trade.

But the arrogance of that "we" fair takes one's breath away. Creationists are by far the largest group of shareholders in those fossils.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

made the trip in and out of his childhood beliefs.

That's an example of the "hints of personal exellence" trick I mentioned yesterday. It means anybody who hasn't made the "trip out" is still childlike and not like effemm who is thus shown to have matured whilst still employing assertions like a baby in a playpen.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Sounds to me, though, that you are guy who guesses there are no gods...and who wants to pretend that doing so makes more sense than someone who guesses there is a God.

Psychoanalyse it Frank. He is guessing his own superiority. That's why he invests so much emotional energy into his guess. So much emotional energy that he is no longer pretending. His guess has evolved into a fact as one might expect and with no intermediate stages.

It's a dangerous business is blurting assertions. You can get defending them and before long you flip your lid.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

I guess you dont get it.
Getting out of a discussion with you is merely recognizing that your head doesnt seem to be in the sunlight on this issue.

It appears that continued arrogance and brutishness is your way to assert your points. I prefer discussions with people who can provide some light . If you wish to keep on this subject about "The possibilitiy of gods" directing evolution (you must realioze how vapid that sounds), then you can snuggle up with spendi.

effemm doesn't even know that there's not a shred of meaning in that crap apart from the fact that he thought it worth typing out.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

There's no need to explain it to me, FM and tho' it came as a reply to me, I don't believe you were addressing me in particular.

I've said a number of times, to a number of people, that they shouldn't be doing this type of thing, trying to diminish arguments made based on spurious notions of what constitutes good grammar.

It's a really cheap ploy and what's particularly galling is that they often don't have all that great a grasp of grammar themselves.

0 Replies

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

My Mom was talking in my right ear

If you are at the stage where Mom is in your right ear, a state profoundly to be desired, you are not really up for a debate involving issues relating to reproduction. One really does need to have been tipped out of the nest for some considerable time to understand these things.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, you've had a number of opportunities to illustrate your grasp of English grammar and I'm afraid that you've fallen somewhat short of competent.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Quote:

I've got a boxing ring in my backyard if y'all want to gather and duke it out.

At 14% (according to 2008 Gallup) your side would get seriously battered.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

I've never criticised effemm's typos. Or anybody else's.

I took up a small challenge to JTT for a bit of fun. "flat" qualifying "incorrect" is incorrect. It isn't a typo. It's a wasted word.

Such things are common in England. I use them myself in speech. I try to avoid them in writing but I'm sure I don't always succeed.

Your reply here illustrates that you're no where near competent enough to discuss these issues, Spendi.

I've underlined a number of wasted words in your sentence to illustrate just how nonsensical your notion is.

I took up a small challenge to JTT for a bit of fun. "flat" qualifying "incorrect" is incorrect. It isn't a typo. It's a wasted word.

Where could you possibly have come up with such nonsense?

3 Replies

@spendius,

You're a riot (literally) -- you have no idea why my Mom is staying here right now. In fact, you've stepped into a vat of muck. Stay there and you'll eventually sink (hopefully, today). IOWGFY

0 Replies

@spendius,

I've also got a vat of muck, especially for you. I'd be happy to give you a towel, but you won't really be needing it.

0 Replies

@JTT,

He has posted so many garbled boxcar sentences, they're all on a track but there's no locomotive to get them anywhere.

1 Reply

@Diest TKO,

I do have a go cart* but my patio is only cemented about 20 x 20 inches with a big metal and glass table and chairs. They are powder coated, so you won't chip them. I would love to video you trying to get anywhere without getting a Bouganvilla thorn stuck where it will hurt.

* (No, I don't).

0 Replies

@JTT,

It must have derived from my neurological system I should have thought JT. I can't think of another source off hand.

I think it was a small challenge. I'm confident you wouldn't hang around for long if I tried any big ones. So I think "small" is justified. Maybe you have never faced any big challenges. Similarly it (what I did) was "a bit of" fun. "It" refers to "flat". It meant "it", "flat", (the usage) wasn't a typo. I'm sorry if it was too obscure for you. Also " it's a" referred to "flat".

Have you read Flaubert's collected letters?

Quote:

Your reply here illustrates that you're no where near competent enough to discuss these issues, Spendi.

That is an assertion and without evidence to support it is meaningless. You ought to have said that in your opinion my reply etc. It is the epitome of bad manners to present an opinion as a fact but I do understand that with so many of your fellow Americans employing such a base tactic on a minute by minute basis it is hardly your fault that you have become habituated to the trick.

1 Reply

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know