2
   

Intelligent Design? A Test Case

 
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 03:35 pm
real life wrote:
JLNobody wrote:
........One can't prove a negative, not to mention the existence of non-empirical "supernatural" beings.


Piffka seems to be of a different opinion. Should be interesting.


Actually... this is what I said... I'll put it in bigger letters so you can read it more slowly. Maybe you'll get it then:

Quote:
First off, I am struck that this is a blasphemous since you are told to have faith without cause. And what happens if the test shows there is no god? Are you willing to accept that? As a scientist, you must. Otherwise YOU are not being an honest scientist........


If you put your god into science, then you must be willing to put him or her to the standard tests that all the rest of the science rests on. If your experiments, whatever they are, point to there being no god... what are you going to do? You've got a theory and it is going nowhere. Do you lose faith?

It really is a foolish road you've chosen.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 03:44 pm
Think of that poor little grasshopper nuttier than Jack Nicholson in "The SHining". Goin out his(or her) skull. Shouldnt we be thinking of it?
why are earthworms given the genus "Lugubrius" terrestris? are they sad?

(Lightening up for the Christian Version of Purim)
0 Replies
 
Piffka
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 04:22 pm
Or... as Kurt Vonnegut said on The Daily Show"

"Of course I believe in Intelligent Design, how else can you explain a giraffe, a hippopotamus... and the clap?"
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:38 pm
I do find it very difficult not to believe in UNintelligent design. Randomness might involve fewer ironies.

The clap. Is that like the sound of one hand?
0 Replies
 
real life
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:44 pm
Piffka wrote:
real life wrote:
JLNobody wrote:
........One can't prove a negative, not to mention the existence of non-empirical "supernatural" beings.


Piffka seems to be of a different opinion. Should be interesting.


Actually... this is what I said... I'll put it in bigger letters so you can read it more slowly. Maybe you'll get it then:

Quote:
First off, I am struck that this is a blasphemous since you are told to have faith without cause. And what happens if the test shows there is no god? Are you willing to accept that? As a scientist, you must. Otherwise YOU are not being an honest scientist........


If you put your god into science, then you must be willing to put him or her to the standard tests that all the rest of the science rests on. If your experiments, whatever they are, point to there being no god... what are you going to do? You've got a theory and it is going nowhere. Do you lose faith?

It really is a foolish road you've chosen.


Yes we all know what you said. You postulated that there could be an experiment that could disprove the existence of God. Go ahead and show how that's done.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:49 pm
Miss Flyer made no such contention, nothing remotely like that. That's a standard tactic of "real life," to allege that someone has made a contention which they must then support. You're so full of it, it's leakin' off the page . . .
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2005 07:52 pm
And I was NOT addressing my remarks to Piffka.
0 Replies
 
Greyfan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2005 08:17 pm
username asked for a little documentation, stating that a "quick search of the internet" had turned up very little.

All I have is the article in The Week magazine (Sept 23, 2005), which cites a New York Times article without specifying the date. It states that the research was done by a team at the French National Center for Scientific Research, and quotes a Dr. Frederic Thomas.

Two reasons that an internet search may not have turned up much in the way of corroboration are 1.) if the study is recent and 2.) if the study was published in French.

Although we are undoubtedly moving in that direction, I don't think we are at the point where the validity of a report can be established merely by referring to the internet.
0 Replies
 
Greyfan
 
  1  
Reply Sun 6 Nov, 2005 08:20 pm
Eric Idle's parody of a familiar song might be of interest as a more general indictment of the nature of our intelligent designer:

All things dull and ugly,
All creatures short and squat,
All things rude and nasty,
The Lord God made the lot.
Each little snake that poisons,
Each little wasp that stings,
He made their brutish venom,
He made their horrid wings.
All things sick and cancerous,
All evil great and small,
All things foul and dangerous,
The Lord God made them all.
Each nasty little hornet,
Each beastly little squid,
Who made the spikey urchin,
Who made the sharks, He did.
All things scabbed and ulcerous,
All pox both great and small,
Putrid, foul and gangrenous,
The Lord God made them all.
AMEN.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence of God! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 10/22/2021 at 04:36:46