Utopia Temple
Main Forum Page Register an Account for Free! Calendar Frequently Asked Questions about this Board View New Posts Advanced Search Login
  Utopia Temple Forums > General Discussions > Respectable General Discussions > Religious Discussions

« Previous Thread | Next Thread »
Post New Thread Reply
Author Thread
Posts: 993/1637
(12-May-2008 at 15:09)
You know that you can not win monopoly, so you say:

"This game is crap!"

So why do you say ID is crap? It is eternal and absolute truth. It is not a theory!
#41  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4941/4986
(12-May-2008 at 15:23)


You're free to believe that ID is "eternal and absolute truth", but that position has the impressive amount of zero evidence going for it. Until you produce some evidence, ID is not science.

dantendo called ID crap in the context of "ID as a scientific theory". He is completely right there. ID is not a scientific theory, and if it is presented as such then it is indeed crap. If presented as a personal belief - kept out of education - then I have no problems with it.
#42  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 995/1637
(13-May-2008 at 00:57)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Apeiron: View Post
You're free to believe that ID is "eternal and absolute truth", but that position has the impressive amount of zero evidence going for it. Until you produce some evidence, ID is not science.

dantendo called ID crap in the context of "ID as a scientific theory". He is completely right there. ID is not a scientific theory, and if it is presented as such then it is indeed crap. If presented as a personal belief - kept out of education - then I have no problems with it.
Science? On a cosmic level it is chimps still stuffing sticks into ant holes. "Oh this theory looks tasty! Yum, yum, yum..."

The problem is that a great truth could be starring you in the face but while your minds are hardened by convention you still miss it entirely.

So be it, you say. Well, if ID is not science, then I say so be it also. It is a massive risk, but the reward is possibily even greater.

Last edited by Gotterdammerung, 13-May-2008 at 00:59.
#43  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1727/1988
Donated $2.08
(13-May-2008 at 02:27)


Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
So be it, you say. Well, if ID is not science, then I say so be it also. It is a massive risk, but the reward is possibily even greater.
Ok, just to double check: are you agreeing that ID is not science?

"Why should I have to work for everything?! It's like saying I don't deserve it!" - Calvin.
#44  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Stewie Add Stewie to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 996/1637
(13-May-2008 at 08:13)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Stewie: View Post
Ok, just to double check: are you agreeing that ID is not science?
From what Apeiron is saying (who is more well-verses in the sciences than myself), there is no scientific basis for ID and nor does there present any indication on the face of things that ID or other similar 'myths' ought to be taken seriously.

Then, on the face of things, no: ID does not present a scientific premise. However, this is not to say that as a rule ID is non-scientific, in the same way any other unseen phenomena yet to reveal itself could be consider non-scientific. It is, however unhelpful, still in the realm of possibility that ID could one day be scientific.

The way I see the situation is that ID is a glimpse into a much higher truth than our current scientific developments have managed. Of course many physicist and the like will say that this is cop out, because such a belief also entails that God exists , God communicated this esoteric knowledge by some magical way and so on: the unscientific rhetoric continues.

If I was a scientist, then this would be the best I could propose: that in order to study the 'science of ID' we have to study the path to ID, that is to study the casual relationship of energy and continue the break down matter and study its nature; much like in quantum mechanics, in the world of the 'unseen'. In discovering the breakdown of casuality on the quantum level this could give an increased sense that the randomness of nature could be attributed to an outside force, i.e. God. Of course, seeing as though science will forever be incomplete, there will always be skeptics.

I am trying to accommodate your demand for scientific knowledge, and I think that it is possible to support ID with its methodology. This does, though, also demand a slightly different approach. ID is the end product; the holy grail, if you will. Why should it ought to be so? It is a mode of methodology for studying the universe. Whatever your reservations are, still by having another ultimate goal in mind for science, such as the 'theory of everything' or even to further science itself (for its own sake), still equates to the same kind of mindset for believers in ID. It is a faith in the way of doing things: an orientating force, something, that in some way, we all have.

If ID is just too scentifically challenging for your n00blet minds to take seriously, then I understand.
#45  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 416/564
(15-May-2008 at 03:34)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Gotterdammerung: View Post
It is, however unhelpful, still in the realm of possibility that ID could one day be scientific.
wtf? If it isn't scientific now, then I refuse to call it anything other than a crap theory until it is. If you can find a wording of intelligent design that makes it testable, then I am ready to have a look.

Quote:
The way I see the situation is that ID is a glimpse into a much higher truth than our current scientific developments have managed.
Explain how ID has enhanced our understanding of anything...

Quote:
If I was a scientist, then this would be the best I could propose: that in order to study the 'science of ID' we have to study the path to ID, that is to study the casual relationship of energy and continue the break down matter and study its nature; much like in quantum mechanics, in the world of the 'unseen'. In discovering the breakdown of casuality on the quantum level this could give an increased sense that the randomness of nature could be attributed to an outside force, i.e. God. Of course, seeing as though science will forever be incomplete, there will always be skeptics.
What has quantum mechanics got to do with ID?

Quote:
I am trying to accommodate your demand for scientific knowledge, and I think that it is possible to support ID with its methodology. This does, though, also demand a slightly different approach. ID is the end product; the holy grail, if you will. Why should it ought to be so? It is a mode of methodology for studying the universe. Whatever your reservations are, still by having another ultimate goal in mind for science, such as the 'theory of everything' or even to further science itself (for its own sake), still equates to the same kind of mindset for believers in ID. It is a faith in the way of doing things: an orientating force, something, that in some way, we all have.
You are mixing it up. You don't change science to make ID a theory - you have to make theories to fit in with the logical and rigorous method of thinking we know as science - your idea is, as it were, completely unscientific.

Quote:
If ID is just too scentifically challenging for your n00blet minds to take seriously, then I understand.
Yes, it is scentifically challenging. It stinks.
#46  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 998/1637
(15-May-2008 at 05:16)
Fine. Then it's settled. ID is not a science and the belief in it is irrational. Feel better?

Quote:
Explain how ID has enhanced our understanding of anything...
A religious vigor towards existence is more enlightening than progress for the sake of progress for the sake of ignoring the question of the reason for progress. At least creationism offers a reason for understanding the universe, i.e. to more appreciate God on a holistic level. Science is completely clinical and barren is this regard. Question: why pursue science in the first place?
#47  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 4946/4986
(15-May-2008 at 05:22)


You're merely pointing out that a drunken man is happier than a sober one.

I thought Bertrand Russel had killed this fallacy by now.
#48  
View Public Profile Visit Apeiron's homepage Find more posts by Apeiron Add Apeiron to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 999/1637
(15-May-2008 at 10:56)
No, I am pointing out the the pursuit of science is only blindly continued so we dont have to ask the question why we are continuing in the first place.
#49  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gotterdammerung Add Gotterdammerung to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2138/2150
Donated $5.00
(15-May-2008 at 11:20)


At the end of the day - who really cares?

Religion: Oh, we're better than you!
Atheists: No way! We're way better!

Etc...

Just get on with life no matter your beliefs, and stop screwing with my taxes! Done.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.

Where has my avatar gone?

The true meaning of silence
#50  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gus Mackay Add Gus Mackay to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1297/1312
(15-May-2008 at 18:46)


This isnt about being better or not and it does matter because it is about science education. Inteligent design is nothing other than rebranded creationism and does nothing to advance the knowlege of the world arround us, while the theory of evolution explains a natural phenomenon thus increasin our knowlege of the world arround us. Note the difference.

Official #la drunken bum and gun-nut
Ladies, does this rag smell of chloroform to you?
To Naz "Nacho, nacho man I've got to be, a nacho man Nacho, nacho man"
I don't respect your beliefs and I don't care if you're offended. Cheers.
#51  
View Public Profile Visit Antikristuseke's homepage Find more posts by Antikristuseke Add Antikristuseke to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Randomized)
Posts: 231/469
(15-May-2008 at 19:18)


I fail to see how people can believe a theory 2000 years old over scientifical explainations like big bang and evolution. Back in the days people believed there were 4 elements: water, fire, earth and air. Nowadays science knows it's about 136 of 'em, created the periodic system, and there's noone who will argue about that. Back then they also thought the earth was flat. We nowadays know it isn't. Anyone saying it is might even be laughed at. However, when it comes to evolution and big bang, aparantly they knew a lot more about such things 2000 years ago than now, cuz there's still a lot of people who believe in intelligent design.

Just because we create stuff, doesn't mean we were created ourselves.
#52  
View Public Profile Visit Black Oranje's homepage Find more posts by Black Oranje Add Black Oranje to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1298/1312
(15-May-2008 at 19:33)


Randomized, even the ancient greeks knew the earth isnt flat, the "fact" that people in medieval times thought the world was flat is a myth that was created during the enlightenment era to belittle what was before in order to get change through faster.
There is some history about what people thought about the Earth at different times, though the main point of the piece is elsewhere. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm

Official #la drunken bum and gun-nut
Ladies, does this rag smell of chloroform to you?
To Naz "Nacho, nacho man I've got to be, a nacho man Nacho, nacho man"
I don't respect your beliefs and I don't care if you're offended. Cheers.

Last edited by Antikristuseke, 15-May-2008 at 19:35.
#53  
View Public Profile Visit Antikristuseke's homepage Find more posts by Antikristuseke Add Antikristuseke to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
(Posted as Randomized)
Posts: 234/469
(15-May-2008 at 20:15)


Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Antikristuseke: View Post
Randomized, even the ancient greeks knew the earth isnt flat, the "fact" that people in medieval times thought the world was flat is a myth that was created during the enlightenment era to belittle what was before in order to get change through faster.
There is some history about what people thought about the Earth at different times, though the main point of the piece is elsewhere. http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScien...ityofWrong.htm
I know the greeks knew, and I recently heard about the medieval thing too.

I was just naming common examples. The point remains the same. Why do people stick so strongly to a 2000 years old idea.
#54  
View Public Profile Visit Black Oranje's homepage Find more posts by Black Oranje Add Black Oranje to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Research Group
Posts: 490/670
Donated $112.99
(15-May-2008 at 20:18)


For that exact reason, it's 2,000 years old, it's familiar, it's deeply rooted into society.

Last edited by advocatus, 15-May-2008 at 20:18.
Edit reason: I misspelled a word I shouldn't of misspelled.
#55  
View Public Profile Find more posts by advocatus Add advocatus to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 417/564
(16-May-2008 at 00:37)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Gus Mackay: View Post
At the end of the day - who really cares?

Religion: Oh, we're better than you!
Atheists: No way! We're way better!

Etc...

Just get on with life no matter your beliefs, and stop screwing with my taxes! Done.

IT DOESN'T MATTER.
When did I say either that I was atheist or that I was better?

I have simply been arguing the point that ID is not a theory that can be thought of as an alternative scientific explanation to how we got here, and that the 'criticisms' of evolution are far from being able to show that it could not have happened.

More to the point, it does matter. At least one person in this thread has said that the curriculum in schools should be changed - and you agreed with him. Don't you think that what is taught in high schools is extremely important?
#56  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 2139/2150
Donated $5.00
(16-May-2008 at 04:08)


Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by dantendo: View Post
More to the point, it does matter. At least one person in this thread has said that the curriculum in schools should be changed - and you agreed with him. Don't you think that what is taught in high schools is extremely important?
While schools keep teaching such theories as Haeckels (sp) embryo's, science is an absolute joke.

You want a proper science education in schools? Great! Also teach the issues with the prevailing theories, and how they might be wrong. Schools should stop presenting science as solid fact, but rather a fluid belief on the world that changes at any given time under any given circumstance.

Where has my avatar gone?

The true meaning of silence
#57  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Gus Mackay Add Gus Mackay to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 1025/1971
(16-May-2008 at 04:34)


Quote:
You want a proper science education in schools? Great! Also teach the issues with the prevailing theories, and how they might be wrong. Schools should stop presenting science as solid fact, but rather a fluid belief on the world that changes at any given time under any given circumstance.
of course they should teach that way, but to include intelligent design in that would be ridiculous because there is no scientific evidence to support it!

Tax collectors are a valid military target - chobham
#58  
View Public Profile Find more posts by Spectre19 Add Spectre19 to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 418/564
(16-May-2008 at 09:20)
Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Gus Mackay: View Post
While schools keep teaching such theories as Haeckels (sp) embryo's, science is an absolute joke.

You want a proper science education in schools? Great! Also teach the issues with the prevailing theories, and how they might be wrong. Schools should stop presenting science as solid fact, but rather a fluid belief on the world that changes at any given time under any given circumstance.
Yeah, because I supported the Haeckel's embryos to start with... I think I have even posted somewhere in this forum what the problems with that theory were. However, there are some aspects to Haeckels theory which were correct - and should be taught - which makes it very difficult to teach nothing wrong at all..

Your following logic sucks - 'because science classes teach some wrong stuff, they should be made to teach this other wrong stuff too'. Dude, that doesn't even make sense. Science classrooms should be taught a selection of the most important scientific theories that can be grasped by the students in the class, not what someone with an axe to grind thinks the students should learn.

Science doesn't change it's 'belief' at any given time or circumstance - Only in an extreme circumstance are theories totally scuttled. For example, if you were correct, given the laws of relativity, Newton's laws should have been scrapped. However, they are still useful in a single relativistic reference frame - and hence they are still being used in many applications, even though we know they are slightly incorrect in most circumstances.

And as I said before: I am happy for the problems with the theory of evolution to be taught - if and when you find me a reference in a reputable peer reviewed journal.
#59  
View Public Profile Find more posts by dantendo Add dantendo to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Posts: 694/699
(16-May-2008 at 10:15)


Re: Intelligent design

Originally Posted by Gus Mackay: View Post
While schools keep teaching such theories as Haeckels (sp) embryo's, science is an absolute joke.

You want a proper science education in schools? Great! Also teach the issues with the prevailing theories, and how they might be wrong. Schools should stop presenting science as solid fact, but rather a fluid belief on the world that changes at any given time under any given circumstance.
If this is you suggesting that ID should be taught as a prevailing theory, the class might go a little something like this:

Hypothesis: Everything in the universe was designed by some higher being.
Observation: Well it looks like it could have been designed.. there are other theories around that explain it better, but we're not talking about those now.
Test: err.. sorry, we cant do that. you'll just have to believe me. The bible verse blah blah says this is how it happened, and that was a long time ago, so we're just going to use that as evidence.
Conclusion: Inconclusive. Hypothesis cant be tested.
Next subject!

Is that what you want? whats the point of wasting class time?

Last edited by jond, 16-May-2008 at 10:16.
#60  
View Public Profile Find more posts by jond Add jond to your Buddy List Reply with Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Forum Jump:

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Teaching Intelligent Design Unconstitutional: Courts Reichstag Respectable General Discussions 27 23-Dec-2005 11:27
Bush wades into evolution debate Reichstag Respectable General Discussions 179 07-Nov-2005 14:00
Intelligent Design: "DUH" and the Flying Spaghetti Monster. tlhInganHom Respectable General Discussions 112 03-Oct-2005 03:05
'Intelligent Design' Grashnak Religious Discussions 12 05-Aug-2005 17:26
The logic of a supreme being MAPS Religious Discussions 12 07-Aug-2004 05:08


All times are GMT+1. The time now is 06:31.

Powered by vBulletin (modified)
Copyright ©2000-2006, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.