Originally posted by Teallaura
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Natural Science 301 Guidelines
This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Physics professor endorces Intelligent Design
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI agree, but... there is still no evidence for anything but this finite universe. If Shuny wants to make a claim that matter and energy are eternal I think it would be on him to produce the beef.
For Shuny or anyone else to validate a claim they do indeed have to produce evidence when confronted (it's not necessary to produce evidence on point upon which both parties agree) or a logical proof that X is indeed the case (which is actually evidence but I know full well someone will argue otherwise... )."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by MaxVel View PostCould be, if you type in a hurry you can easily make silly typos.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostWhat DO you understand?
1) The theory of evolution.
2) Geology
3) Biology
4) Astrophysics
5) Paleontology
Is there anything in science you DO understand?
I haven't seen any evidence.
Maybe you can go over to Mossrose's, she could bake you an apple pie, smack you over your fideistic skull with her dough roller at few times, and have a deep conversation about which of youse is more ignorant of science.
K54
Of course, it's possible you have made substantive posts I've missed - wouldn't want to argue from Ignorance, after all.
"He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by Teallaura View PostFunny, I get the same impression from your posts. Lots of ad homs (as in the actual fallacy and not mere internet speak for name calling - although you surely do that, too) and plenty of snide asides but no substance whatsoever that I've seen.
Of course, it's possible you have made substantive posts I've missed - wouldn't want to argue from Ignorance, after all.
Especially if you're interested in truth.
So, how's 'bout you regaling us with YOUR definition of "Intelligent Design"?
Maybe then we could have an "intelligent" conversation.
But somehow I doubt it...
K54
P.S. I absolutely HATE it when ignoramuses make a mockery of Creation that God has laid out some plainly for H. sapiens to perceive.
I really and truly feel sorry for you and Mossrose and Cerebrum and "Mr." Black and Jorge and...
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostHey, could one of you "intelligent" YECs define "Intelligent Design" and how it differs from some form YECism?
K54
ID was conceived by Phillip Johnson et al as a "big tent" group, which would take no official position on the age of the earth. ID focuses on evidence for design and evidence against macroevolution. ID does not focus on the age of the earth, and is composed of both YECs and OECs. I believe the YECs are in the minority; the founders and most of the early leaders are OEC, not YEC ( e.g. Johnson, Behe, Dembski)."Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." – Albert Einstein
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostP.S. I absolutely HATE it when ignoramuses make a mockery of Creation that God has laid out some plainly for H. sapiens to perceive.
I really and truly feel sorry for you and Mossrose and Cerebrum and "Mr." Black and Jorge and..."It's evolution; every time you invent something fool-proof, the world invents a better fool."
-Unknown
"Preach the gospel, and if necessary use words." - Most likely St.Francis
I find that evolution is the best proof of God.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I support the :
sigpic
Comment
-
Originally posted by Kbertsche View PostI am definitely NOT a YEC, but I'll answer your question, as it is an easy one.
ID was conceived by Phillip Johnson et al as a "big tent" group, which would take no official position on the age of the earth. ID focuses on evidence for design and evidence against macroevolution. ID does not focus on the age of the earth, and is composed of both YECs and OECs. I believe the YECs are in the minority; the founders and most of the early leaders are OEC, not YEC ( e.g. Johnson, Behe, Dembski).
As usually used, ID has come to mean pretty much "I cannot believe life (or whatever) could have occured naturally, therefore god (uh, the Designer) must have done it." With the implicit understand that "naturally" means "entirely due to random chance" whereby any sort of process is simply disallowed - except POOF (assuming POOF is a process, of course).
In practice, ID is a fundamentally mendacious approach to misdefining evilution, which is decreed not to occur. And I think this is where the YEC confusion comes in. YECs and ID cdesign proponentsists share a rejection of evolution altogether, something OECs tend not to do.
Comment
-
Originally posted by phank View PostNot as easy as you think, I suspect. Johnson, a lawyer, came up with ID in direct response to the majority decision in Edwards v. Aguillard. His purpose was to keep the essence of creationism while omitting the "magic words" the Court seemed (to him) to define as connoting religion. That is, you can't mention any gods, or religious figures or scriptures. Essentially, ID came to mean that something undefined, at some undefined time, using mechanisms undefined, did something unspecified resulting in, you know, us. And further more that all of this undefined stuff is in principle inadmissible of any operational definition, so that it can't be tested in principle.
As usually used, ID has come to mean pretty much "I cannot believe life (or whatever) could have occured naturally, therefore god (uh, the Designer) must have done it." With the implicit understand that "naturally" means "entirely due to random chance" whereby any sort of process is simply disallowed - except POOF (assuming POOF is a process, of course).
In practice, ID is a fundamentally mendacious approach to misdefining evilution, which is decreed not to occur. And I think this is where the YEC confusion comes in. YECs and ID cdesign proponentsists share a rejection of evolution altogether, something OECs tend not to do.
"ID" in the Philip Johnson sense is scientifically unfalsifiable -- just like belief in the supernatural. In the Mossrose sense then it's a "religion".
If we can't even agree that Intelligent Design(tm) IS a religion and Evilution ain't, then all discussions are gonna end up like this.
K54
P.S. Not to offend anyone (heehee), but if anyone can show that SCIENTIFIC evolution is a RELIGION is going to earn 1,000 Klaus points.
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostP.S. Not to offend anyone (heehee), but if anyone can show that SCIENTIFIC evolution is a RELIGION is going to earn 1,000 Klaus points.
Does religion necessarily have to be non-falsifiable? No, lots of it has been falsified beyond any rational doubt, deterring the Believers not at all. Does religion necessarily rest on the LACK of evidence? Not at all - some beliefs exist despite evidence, and some are even supported by arguably some evidence. So does religion need to be organized? When a growing percentage of the population identifies themselves as "spiritual but not religious", what distinction is this really?
Bottom line: the word "religion" can mean whatever you BELIEVE it means. You could make a strong case that the belief that evolution is a religion, is itself a religion, in the sense that it's believed and religions can believe anything.
Comment
-
Originally posted by phank View PostThis sounds like Kent Hovind's bet, especially if this must be shown to your satisfaction. After all, what precisely is a "religion"? Considering the bogglingly broad scope of preposterous nonsense people have sincerely believed throughout history (some of which can't be mentioned here even in this day and age, much less in Pakistan), about the only common thread is that people believe stuff -- and believe it with a fervor proportional to the preposterosity.
Does religion necessarily have to be non-falsifiable? No, lots of it has been falsified beyond any rational doubt, deterring the Believers not at all. Does religion necessarily rest on the LACK of evidence? Not at all - some beliefs exist despite evidence, and some are even supported by arguably some evidence. So does religion need to be organized? When a growing percentage of the population identifies themselves as "spiritual but not religious", what distinction is this really?
Bottom line: the word "religion" can mean whatever you BELIEVE it means. You could make a strong case that the belief that evolution is a religion, is itself a religion, in the sense that it's believed and religions can believe anything.
I dunno. Tell me.
That's what's make the bet pompous bloviating.
K54
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostIt's not really funny at all.
Especially if you're interested in truth.
So, how's 'bout you regaling us with YOUR definition of "Intelligent Design"?
Maybe then we could have an "intelligent" conversation.
But somehow I doubt it...
K54
P.S. I absolutely HATE it when ignoramuses make a mockery of Creation that God has laid out some plainly for H. sapiens to perceive.
I really and truly feel sorry for you and Mossrose and Cerebrum and "Mr." Black and Jorge and...
My point stands, you do not argue substantively that I have seen (case in point) and you are hypocritical to complain about what others believe - or not.
You are the thing you profess to hate. That is the truly sad bit - or you're just trolling, one of the two.Last edited by Teallaura; 10-27-2014, 11:29 AM."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
-
Originally posted by klaus54 View PostIt's notable that I agree more with Phank, the New Atheist, than with KB, Mossrose, and Teallaura.
....
And you show a shocking lack of concern for truth given your previously stated position that you cared about truth."He is no fool who gives what he cannot keep to gain that which he cannot lose." - Jim Elliot
"Forgiveness is the way of love." Gary Chapman
My Personal Blog
My Novella blog (Current Novella Begins on 7/25/14)
Quill Sword
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by eider, 04-14-2024, 03:22 AM
|
30 responses
109 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by alaskazimm
Yesterday, 05:39 PM
|
||
Started by Ronson, 04-08-2024, 09:05 PM
|
41 responses
163 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Ronson
04-12-2024, 09:08 AM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-18-2024, 12:15 PM
|
48 responses
142 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
03-20-2024, 09:13 AM
|
Comment