Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

A belief is what one want's something to be, not necessarily what it actually is, but I'd always prefer to think something is rational and logical even if it's subjective rather than objective. If you want to make something tangible, it's an art --

Art is science made clear.
- Jean Cocteau

0 Replies

Interesting...but there's so much hostility here...come on, guys...keep it clean.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

In a "one more time" attempt at providing you with a way out of your "there may be gods" conundrum,

No need to do that, Farmerman...I am completely comfortable with my argument.

And stop flattering yourself...you are the one who is wrong here.

Quote:

I offer the fact that youve decided to settle upon evolution (or its partial antithesis ,ID). EVolution, like germ theory, magnetism, gravity, continental drift, can be fully explained "Without the intervention of any god, gods, or Flying Spaghetti Monsters". Evolution can be seen in action today, with oprganisms either adapting or gene drifting their species into new niches or forms. EVIDENCE, proposed by IDers, who have tried to insert their sad belief system into science, have been asserting the need for gods (or an intelligent designer) by virtue of the concepts of Irreducible Complexity or Specified Design.

For the tenth or twelfth time, Farmerman...the fact that IDers get this crap all wrong does not impact on what I said. The comment that started all this is fairly specific:

Quote:

I do not know if there is a GOD or not...so I cannot say definitively that Intelligent Design is an impossibility...so it IS one possible explanation.

I even went on to qualified what I was saying so there could be no misunderstanding. I added:

Quote:

If there is an Intelligent Designer...the ID used the method that Darwin discovered. I think there is absolutely zero chance of the ID making humans as completed beings...mostly (also for selfish reasons) because I have trust in the fossil evidence and the scientific arguments.

But you had to go on with some of your bullshit schmarmy comments about agnosticism rather than actually considering what I had said.

Quote:

In each case the arguments have been shown to be groundless and without any credibility at all.

What the **** does it take to get information into that concrete brain of yours. I AM NOT DEFENDING ID...OR IDers. I AM DEFENDING WHAT I SAID.

I do not give a **** that they have no credibility...or that their arguments are groundless. They could be wrong on every goddam point they have ever made (and I suspect they are) BUT MY COMMENTS STAND AS REASONABLE AND LOGICAL.

CAN YOU FINALLY ******* GET THAT!???

I AM NOT DEFENDING ANY IDers OR ANY ID ARGUMENTS...I AM DEFENDING MY COMMENTS.

Jesus H. Christ!

Quote:

WHether a god exists or not, it doesnt effect our abilities to use the concepts and precepts of evolution. It only seems important to you.

Yes, it is...because that is the basis of my argument. IT HAS TO BE IMPORTANT TO ME...because IT IS MY ARGUMENT.

IF THERE HAPPENS TO BE A GOD...THEN I CANNOT DEFINITIVELY STATE THAT INTELLIGEN DESIGN IS AN IMPOSSIBLILITY...SO IT IS ONE POSSIBLE EXPLANATION.

How can I finally get that across. Especially since I have already acknoledged that IF THERE IS A GOD AND IF THE GOD DESIGNED THINGS...the god did it by allowing natural selection to randomly arrive at where we are.

YOU ARE ******* STONE HEADED, Farmerman!

Quote:

I will respectfully depart

What...again??? I thought you “departed” back several posts.

Quote:

...and hopre that your temper doesnt get in the way of your mouth (anymore)

**** you...I have perfect control of my ******* temper at all times.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

At his request....Frank's Belief System.

1. A belief in "naive realism" including "objective facts" and "truth".
2. A belief that traditional "logic" is sufficient for debating ontological and epistemological issues.
3. A belief in the unity and consistency of "himself" .
4. A belief that "barber-shop one-liners" coupled with occasional expletives constitute acceptable or intelligent answers.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank Apisa wrote:

**** you...I have perfect control of my ******* temper at all times.

Nice!

That's almost worthy of a new sig line Wink

2 Replies

@rosborne979,

There's no real mystery to one of the Discovery ID advocate's claim that, for instance, the eye is too complex to be formed by the evolutionary process. The gene discovered that actually guides the construct of every organ in the human body (or any animal for that matter) starts with the Watson/Crick model and to begin learning since they seem to be below high school sophomore level:

http://dev.nsta.org/ssc/moreinfo.asp?id=1050

This is as close as we can get to the "god gene". The giant atom smasher is trying to discover the "god particle' which will require another word in the lexicon. Quark has been taken, so perhaps Quirk could fill the bill. Oh, wait, that's too descriptive of the presumptive egotistical character of the squirrely ID'ers. That's what their description of scientists seems to involve, so I'll throw it back into their faces.

Frankly (sorry), the IDiots are pushing rational minds into dumping all their metaphysical make believe concepts into the nearest round file even if they were considering the viability of any religion (other than Scientology, or any of the neo factions of cultist mind *******). They can preach to the peanut head choir and be deluded that their ideas are being seriously considered by anyone who has even a modicum of a good science education. It makes ID closer to the realm of impossible than they desire. But, after all, I don't think they care.

2 Replies

Frank's argument is impossible to get past. I don't wonder he's frustrated.
Maybe he's just gobsmacked that grown up people who have been put through an expensive educational process cannot understand the simple and obvious point he is grounded upon. It is a FACT. With no possibility of being refuted. An attraction in itself. To stand on unassailable ground is attractive.

It is well known that atheism is a branch of Christianity. In its wisdom, Christianity, through its theologians, has carefully, and with a great deal of science and patience, engineered a small number of atheists in order that they might study the exigencies of life without any considerations of morality. An aid to thinking clearly without fear or favour. Spinoza was anathematised for it. In very strong language.

These rare beings have been granted high status in the Christian hierarchy and are very often imitated by lesser beings who, despite being riddled through and through with Christian morality, take up some of the elementary forms of atheism for various psychological reasons.

It is quite similar to some sports fans thinking they know anything about the top flight sportsmen and their methods from their position on the couch looking over their beer bellies.

There are two sides to agnosticism. One is the conviction that an individual does not know whether there's a god/s or not and the other is the conviction that no else ought to think they know whether there's a god/s or not. Frank is a member of the second group and, obviously, he has to be in the first group as well. Many in the first group are not in the second one.

But basically, the conviction that one doesn't know is the Buddhist position and the conviction that no one else ought to think otherwise is the Buddhist preacher's position.

Only the conviction that no one else ought to think there is or is not a god/s invites argument because that is the only position in which social consequences are a factor. An individual thinking he does not know is of minute social interest. It is only when he preaches that no one ought to know that he becomes of social interest.

Where I disagree with Frank is that when the Christian world collided with the world of agnosticism in the far east it pissed all over it and milked it for all it was worth. It was a sitting duck and has only ceased to be so recently because it is adopting our Christian science and double entry book-keeping to which we owe so much despite the little difficulties we are currently facing.

Where I disagree with the conviction that there is no god/s is that I can't see how it would ever have got out of the tree tops and it's capacity to discover the science of dynamic force in mathematics is zero. No " teeny bit" mealy-mouthed bullshit. ZERO!!!. No chance.

I support the Christian world view because it works from an evolutionary perspective. So far. The Buddhist world view may well triumph in the long run but as Mr Keynes said- "In the long run we're all dead."

The atheist world view is the biggest piece of **** that was ever thought up because it was the original world view of the most primitive of primitive mankind and of all the other animals, grubs and pond life which only knows how to eat, **** and copulate. With no lingerie, make up or foreplay.

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Light, I don't think it'll be much longer before we "discover" what is the basis of life. We already have DNA and can put billions of information on the top of a pin head. We're now at the atomic level of research, and I believe it will reveal how life originated on earth, and their subsequent evolutionary process.

1 Reply

Ridiculously over-promoted judge's "breathtaking inanities" notwithstanding.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Light, I don't think it'll be much longer before we "discover" what is the basis of life. We already have DNA and can put billions of information on the top of a pin head. We're now at the atomic level of research, and I believe it will reveal how life originated on earth, and their subsequent evolutionary process.

Come back the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It's not as daft as that load of shite which is proof that ci. knows **** all about modern science.

Talk about forlorn hopes and wild belief systems. That takes first prize.

0 Replies

c.i. must have WCS. (White coat syndrome).

0 Replies

@spendius,

The Riddler's back -- where's Batman when you need him?

1 Reply

@Lightwizard,

Did you really find that post of mine difficult to understand LW? Why don't you try, just this once, to give it careful consideration.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You win Frank, Im exhausted at trying to understand your logic .But youve given us all some great comedy material, who can ever forget:

**** you...I have perfect control of my ******* temper at all times.(said Tony Soprano)

OR THE WONDERFULLY ENLIGHTENING :

If there is an Intelligent Designer...the ID used the method that Darwin discovered. I think there is absolutely zero chance of the ID making humans as completed beings...mostly (also for selfish reasons) because I have trust in the fossil evidence and the scientific arguments.
PS, Im sure science is all the better for your trust and confidence.

BUT BY FAR < THE BEST IS:

I do not know if there is a GOD or not...so I cannot say definitively that Intelligent Design is an impossibility...so it IS one possible explanation.

HAve you ever carefully looked at how totally ridiculous that statement is?The fact that ALL the others have evidence and testability to support them, and that ID has nothing but wishes and prayers , then you equate the power of prayer to good scientific evidence. WHY izzat? are you still keeping your options open for a deathbed conversion?

2 Replies

Frank has, frankly, got me mystified. While I respect his right to think any way he wants, the logic thing eludes me.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Don't worry, those judges will recognize you even in a comic book villain disguise. Don't fall out of the butterfly net.

You can try and be cryptic with the psychiatrist.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

That seems to be the only "logical" conclusion. Don't wish to anger god and get sent to hell; better to play it safe.

1 Reply

@spendius,

Spendi,

Quote:

Maybe he's just gobsmacked that grown up people who have been put through an expensive educational process cannot understand the simple and obvious point he is grounded upon. It is a FACT. With no possibility of being refuted. An attraction in itself. To stand on unassailable ground is attractive.

Sorry, but this is the epitome of epistemological ignorance. The ground is easily "assailable" by those who are less epistemologically ignorant (perhaps not being hampered by a personal animosity to that "expensive educational process"). One only need to consider the origin of the word "fact" from the Latin facare "to do" or "to construct" to begin the "assault". Kant and Kuhn might put in an appearance as later reinforcements .

You conclude with,

Quote:

The atheist world view is the biggest piece of **** that was ever thought up because it was the original world view of the most primitive of primitive mankind and of all the other animals, grubs and pond life which only knows how to eat, **** and copulate. With no lingerie, make up or foreplay.

You were there were you ?
See point 4 of "Frank's Belief System".

2 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

You win Frank, Im exhausted at trying to understand your logic .But youve given us all some great comedy material, who can ever forget:

**** you...I have perfect control of my ******* temper at all times.(said Tony Soprano)

Well you were able to see a joke for what it was. Amazing!

But if you or c.i. or Edgar cannot see the logic in what I presented...none of you should not be engaged in the kinds of conversations taking place here. You simply are not equipped for it.

Quote:

OR THE WONDERFULLY ENLIGHTENING :

If there is an Intelligent Designer...the ID used the method that Darwin discovered. I think there is absolutely zero chance of the ID making humans as completed beings...mostly (also for selfish reasons) because I have trust in the fossil evidence and the scientific arguments.

Not sure what you see funny about this. If you think it is funny...you simply do not know how to read with comprehension.

Quote:

BUT BY FAR < THE BEST IS:
I do not know if there is a GOD or not...so I cannot say definitively that Intelligent Design is an impossibility...so it IS one possible explanation.

If there is a GOD...there is ID. Not the way the Iders think it was designed...not the way the idiotic Bible says it was designed...but just plain the way it was designed. That is what people like Darwin...and the other scientists are discovering. If there is a GOD...they are investigating the way the GOD designed life.

You are a ******* ignoramus if you do not understand that...and cannot comprehend the logic in it.

It is absolutely unassailable. (Unless of course you want to become a disciple of Fresco and his jerkoff belief system where he simply defines it as assailable.)

Quote:

HAve you ever carefully looked at how totally ridiculous that statement is?

The only reason you think it is ridiculous is because you do not have the brain power to think that statement through. Sorry, I honestly did not realize you were as stupid as you are when this discussion began.

Quote:

The fact that ALL the others have evidence and testability to support them, and that ID has nothing but wishes and prayers , then you equate the power of prayer to good scientific evidence. WHY izzat? are you still keeping your options open for a deathbed conversion?

I really feel sorry for you. This depth of ignorance in a person purporting to be a scientist of some sort is discouraging.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I really feel sorry for you. This depth of ignorance in a person purporting to be a scientist of some sort is discouraging.

.

I can easily drop down to your level but I choose not to. If youve purged your meanspiritedness and I in any way have helped then my work is done.
STill, being "unequipped " to debate with the likes of you is true, I find that I rarely make any convincing points to my parakeet.

0 Replies

Intelligent Design Theory: Science or Religion?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know