View Full Version : ID is not PURE crap
It is just junk science... no, it's not even science. There is nothing about or conatined within the theory of Intelligent Design that can be proved or disproved. The only thing going for this theory is the sheer complexity of evolution and its tendency to create, what appears to be, order. This makes ID simply speculation. Still, what is at the root of any science? How was the theory of gravity initiated? What can be found at the beginning of physics? Speculation. So while nothing in ID can yet be proved, again nothing can be disproved.
It's a developing theory. What intrigues me, though, is that ID is the first attempt at the integration of science and religion. Sure, many have come before us who knew that science and religion were not mutually exclusive, but that fact can no longer be denied, and is even being accepted by the masses. It's is a cultural stepping stone, a new development for society... it's progression. What can come of this? Faith + Science is an extremely powerful combination and it seems that ID is the first step toward a complete integration.
It is being formally recognized now. I believe it is only a matter of a decade or 2 before this completion is made.
Redratio1
10-05-2005, 01:23 PM
You mean, in couple of decades our kids won't know what the scientific method is.
mataj
10-05-2005, 02:17 PM
So while nothing in ID can yet be proved, again nothing can be disproved. This is exactly the problem with ID. It's not disproveable. It does not make verifiable predictions, therefore it's not scientific theory.
It's a developing theory. As stated above, it's not a theory at all. Moreover it's "ad ignorantiam" fallacy. ID goes as follows: "Science doesn't know exactly & for sure how the 1st living cells came into being, therefore...", "Fossile evidence is insufficient, therefore...", "Science doesn't know this, science doesn't know that, therefore..."
ID's reasoning is based on ignorance, on things science doesn't know yet, or doesn't know for sure. Such reasoning can only produce more ignorance, therefore it's useless at best.
What intrigues me, though, is that ID is the first attempt at the integration of science and religion. Sure, many have come before us who knew that science and religion were not mutually exclusive, but that fact can no longer be denied, and is even being accepted by the masses. It's is a cultural stepping stone, a new development for society... it's progression. What can come of this? Faith + Science is an extremely powerful combination and it seems that ID is the first step toward a complete integration.
It is being formally recognized now. I believe it is only a matter of a decade or 2 before this completion is made.Religion and science were integrated most of the time. Consequentially, phylosophers were given hemlock to drink (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates), and astronomers were burned at the stake (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giordano_Bruno). Separation of religion & science was a major civilizational advancement. Reintegration would mean receding a couple of centuries in the past.
Integration of religion and science also has a name: Natural Theology. Centuries ago, Occam (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_of_Ockham) proved, that natural theology is impossible. His reasoning states, that religious truth can be known from the revelation only, and not through the study of natural phenomena. God is revealed through miracles, which are by definition supernatural. If study of nature & natural phenomena could reveal anything about miracles, about supernatural, miracles would be to no purpose.
In Occam's time, it was customarily to quote bible in naturalistic & techincal texts, and to find some sort of theological explanation for phenomena being described. Occam realized, that it doesn't make much sense to make biblical explanation for things like crossbow release mechanism, or advanced methods of pig farming. Occam's intention was to "protect" theology from such mundane stuff. Scientists later applied Occam's logic in the opposite direction, to protect science from religion.
Thanks to Occam, scopes of science and religion are clearly defined. It also became clear, that integration of science and religion is neither possible, neither beneficial for any of them.
Dangerrmouse
10-05-2005, 08:34 PM
Not pure crap, perverted crap
Michele
10-06-2005, 10:45 AM
it is a deceptive hoax that plays on small minds who tend to adorn on some kind of romantic notion of faith. they'd be better to take the money invested in campaigning for this load of mammal doo doo and investing into improving overall education in our public schools, rather than to just add to their further erosion.
mataj
10-06-2005, 11:37 AM
Republican war on science (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=12&articleID=0000226E-C6D8-1332-86D883414B7F0000)
Scaryclouds
10-06-2005, 12:19 PM
it is a deceptive hoax that plays on small minds who tend to adorn on some kind of romantic notion of faith. they'd be better to take the money invested in campaigning for this load of mammal doo doo and investing into improving overall education in our public schools, rather than to just add to their further erosion.
Perhapes you have just as small of a mind for absoltuly rejecting such a notion.
mataj
10-06-2005, 03:19 PM
Perhapes you have just as small of a mind for absoltuly rejecting such a notion.Absolutely rejecting ID as unscientific has nothing to do with one's mind. It's more like absolutely rejecting the notion of one plus one being three. One plus one is two, no matter how big or small the mind is.
Similarily, ID is clearly not a scientific theory. As such, it does not belong in science classes. It's as simple as that- unless of course, someone wants to eliminate science alltogether.
lord tammerlain
10-06-2005, 03:28 PM
ID is fine in religon and religous class. It is not scientific in any way shape or form. From a scientific viewpoint it has no more basis then stating Mole Men live under the earth in huge Mole Men cities, and battle vs the evil Lava men.
el nopal
10-06-2005, 09:52 PM
And I thought this thread would include the Ego and Super ego. They will be pissed to find out ID has become Intelligent Design- which is complete nonsense.
Although science is based on faith at a certain level.....
For future posters, IM ADDRESSING THE INTEGRATION OF RELIGION AND SCIENCE, as it has now been formally recognized by ID, not the CONTENT of ID. It seems only Mataj has noticed this.
Hell, I even said it wasn't science.
gowachin
10-07-2005, 02:39 AM
ID is fine in religon and religous class. It is not scientific in any way shape or form. From a scientific viewpoint it has no more basis then stating Mole Men live under the earth in huge Mole Men cities, and battle vs the evil Lava men.
Awwww, crap! My science class taught that it was the Mole Men who were evil! That's what I get for going to high school in a volcano.
mataj
10-07-2005, 04:44 AM
Although science is based on faith at a certain level.....Not at all. Science is based on facts. Fact is a statement anyone can verify. There's nothing to believe here, if you don't want to.
There is a widespread mistaken belief, that science tells us complete, exact, final, and reliable truth. It doesn't. Science is only as complete, accurate, and reliable as the facts on which it's based.
Facts are never entirely accurate. There always are measurement errors.
Facts are never entirely reliable. Six billions of people established, that objects fall on the floor if dropped. That fact is pretty certain, but there still is a miniscule probability, that we all made a mistake.
Facts are never complete. There always will be a couple of pieces of a puzzle missing. There are a lot of things, that are out of science's scope- everything, that can not be verified in an objective manner. And no, religion can't help here, on the contrary. We are not supposed to give up, and draw the missing pieces of a puzzle ourselves. We must reconcile ourselves with the fact, that they are missing, and keep searching until we find them.
Scentific theories are everything but final. They are constantly evolving, adapting to new facts as they are becoming available.
Nevertheless, it is quite reasonable to believe that what science tells us is true, because it's the best, most reliable picture of our world we got. But, one must never forget about the limitations of science.
NiteGuy
10-07-2005, 05:47 PM
For future posters, IM ADDRESSING THE INTEGRATION OF RELIGION AND SCIENCE, as it has now been formally recognized by ID, not the CONTENT of ID. It seems only Mataj has noticed this.
Hell, I even said it wasn't science.
Then why would you, or anyone else, want to "integrate" this non-science into science classes and texts?
The only reason that I can see, is pure religious indoctrination, nothing less. As to the actual integration of the two, I don't really see it. I do see some hard right religious getting onto school boards and trying to jam their agenda onto the populace at large, but that's quite a different thing from being "accepted by the masses" as you suggest in your first post.
Also, fortunately, this delusional science of ID seems only to affect a very very small number of school boards in the country. But, still I say let these school boards go ahead. It is their right to do this I suppose.
On the other hand, it would also be the right of every college and university in the country to refuse entrance to their institutions to anyone "educated" in one of these districts. Why? Because if these school boards get their way, none of their students will have even a modest grasp of the most basic concepts of science as it exists in the real world. Biology, physics, quantum mechanics, all of it will have been reduced for these students to one thing - if you can't explain it all, 100%, this instant, it only proves that there must have been a higher intelligence involved. In other words, Goddidit.
So when their kids are reduced to high school grads with no better prospect in life than "you want fries with that?", maybe then they will see the error of their ways - but somehow, I doubt it.
mataj
10-07-2005, 07:53 PM
Then why would you, or anyone else, want to "integrate" this non-science into science classes and texts?It's not an integration, integration of religion and science is not possible. It's a sort of mimicry.
Many people trust science far more than religion. That's why certain new age religions choosed to mask themselves as science or medicine, and thus avail themselves of it's reputation of veracity. They promote themselves far easier this way. Christian fundamentalists obviously chosed to employ this proven method themselves.
This "integration" is actually a variant of the old "many respected scientists say that ..." trick. Very effective, and very popular with quacks and snake oil salesmen.
NiteGuy
10-07-2005, 08:47 PM
It's not an integration, integration of religion and science is not possible. It's a sort of mimicry.
Many people trust science far more than religion. That's why certain new age religions choosed to mask themselves as science or medicine, and thus avail themselves of it's reputation of veracity. They promote themselves far easier this way. Christian fundamentalists obviously chosed to employ this proven method themselves.
This "integration" is actually a variant of the old "many respected scientists say that ..." trick. Very effective, and very popular with quacks and snake oil salesmen.
I know all this perfectly well, Mataj. I was asking him in the language he used in his original post. I also notice he hasn't responded yet. Hmmm....
Sgt Schultz
10-07-2005, 11:10 PM
The only reason that I can see, is pure religious indoctrination, nothing less. .
Of course it is. I've yet to see any ID supporter admit that there is the possibility that life was "designed" by aliens who seeded our planet billions of years ago. Wouldn't such a scenario be possible under their "theory" of intelligent design as being put forth by the Discovery Institute? But I already know the answer. :rolleyes:
Scaryclouds
10-07-2005, 11:56 PM
it is a deceptive hoax that plays on small minds who tend to adorn on some kind of romantic notion of faith. they'd be better to take the money invested in campaigning for this load of mammal doo doo and investing into improving overall education in our public schools, rather than to just add to their further erosion.
I guess I should of clarified what part of Michele's post I was replying to. For the record I am agianst incorporating ID into educational curriculum it does go agianst the 1st amendment, I can see how my post could easily confuse a person.
Duo_Maxwell
10-08-2005, 12:45 AM
C'mon. Let them teach ID, it will only take 10 seconds.
Teachers will merely need to say the following:
The theory of Intelligent Design states that if something cannot be explained now Godiddit.
Then why would you, or anyone else, want to "integrate" this non-science into science classes and texts?
I have never advocated ID being taught in classes. You're drawing this conclusion from...... where?
The only reason that I can see, is pure religious indoctrination, nothing less. As to the actual integration of the two, I don't really see it.
You don't see it? Where as once scientists were persecuted and punished producing logical theories that conflicted with religion, there is now a religious belief created with an attempt to coincide with established scientific beliefs...
I do see some hard right religious getting onto school boards and trying to jam their agenda onto the populace at large, but that's quite a different thing from being "accepted by the masses" as you suggest in your first post.
Well, try hard to understand, not everyone who believes ID is a conspirator. Not all have an agenda to bring it into schools and have it replace evolution. Some who believe it actually do only that, believe it. Yeah, there are those who see this and exploit it as an opportunity to bring the failing Christian God back into schools, but that's probably not the majority.
Also, fortunately, this delusional science of ID seems only to affect a very very small number of school boards in the country. But, still I say let these school boards go ahead. It is their right to do this I suppose.
Wow, and you attacked me for wanting to bring ID into school? So, it is alright to let a few hundred children be misinformed each year because you suppose it is their right? You can't teach a science that is not really science at all.
On the other hand, it would also be the right of every college and university in the country to refuse entrance to their institutions to anyone "educated" in one of these districts. Why? Because if these school boards get their way, none of their students will have even a modest grasp of the most basic concepts of science as it exists in the real world.
Now you're talking outright insanity. Allow hundreds of children to be taught a certain form of education (because it is their right), then ban them from colleges for receiving this education. Talk about a set-up for failure.
Biology, physics, quantum mechanics, all of it will have been reduced for these students to one thing - if you can't explain it all, 100%, this instant, it only proves that there must have been a higher intelligence involved. In other words, Goddidit.
ID- using science to attempt a new theory of God. How is this not an integration of religion and science?
So when their kids are reduced to high school grads with no better prospect in life than "you want fries with that?", maybe then they will see the error of their ways - but somehow, I doubt it.
Hey, maybe they would have a chance if they weren't rightfully taught ID in the first place as if it was valid, then had the University doors shut in their faces.
know all this perfectly well, Mataj. I was asking him in the language he used in his original post. I also notice he hasn't responded yet. Hmmm....
Yeah holy crap, I didn't respond within 3 hours. I must have a life or job or something outside of WS.
It's not an integration, integration of religion and science is not possible. It's a sort of mimicry.
It certainly is possible. It's just not possible to integrate it with any of the established religions of today. Hell, science can fit the definition of religion, too.
Many people trust science far more than religion. That's why certain new age religions choosed to mask themselves as science or medicine, and thus avail themselves of it's reputation of veracity. They promote themselves far easier this way. Christian fundamentalists obviously chosed to employ this proven method themselves.
If people trust science more than "religion," couldn't you say that science is their religion? Their answers for existance and such?
This "integration" is actually a variant of the old "many respected scientists say that ..." trick. Very effective, and very popular with quacks and snake oil salesmen.
But who's to say it won't lead to a complete and logical integration?
Simba
10-08-2005, 12:42 PM
I want my girls to learn scientific method in the public school.
The religion leave to me at Saturday mass.
I notice he hasn't responded yet, hm....
Duo_Maxwell
10-08-2005, 04:04 PM
I notice he hasn't responded yet, hm....
he's at work dude. Hotel Managers work on saturdays and sundays.
he's at work dude. Hotel Managers work on saturdays and sundays.
I know, just being an irritating punk. It's what he said about me while I was at work. Notice I waited exactly 3 hours, as well.....
mataj
10-08-2005, 04:17 PM
You don't see it? Where as once scientists were persecuted and punished producing logical theories that conflicted with religionDid they have a coice? Are you implying, that they should produce only theories that do not conflict with religion?
there is now a religious belief created with an attempt to coincide with established scientific beliefs...There is no such thing as "scientific belief". If it's belief, it's not scientific.
It certainly is possible. It's just not possible to integrate it with any of the established religions of today. Hell, science can fit the definition of religion, too.Integration is not possible, because science and religion are incompatible.
Science does not fit the definition of religion
If people trust science more than "religion," couldn't you say that science is their religion? Their answers for existance and such?"Trust" is not exactly the same as "belief".
Nevertheless, I think I know what are you trying to say here. You talk about people, who believe into science, people who believe, that science can deliver truth. That's wrong. Science has nothing to do with truth. Science is about facts, and facts only. It's not meant to be believed into. It's meant to be (empirically) verified.
But who's to say it won't lead to a complete and logical integration?Logical integration is possible, no problem, BUT- logic is not enough in science. Empirical proofs are equally important. That's why scientific theories must make predictions, that can be empirically verified. If they do not make such predictions, they are discarded no matter how logical they might be. ID does not make predictions. It offers explanation only. That's not enough.
Did they have a coice? Are you implying, that they should produce only theories that do not conflict with religion?
No, what I am saying is that science and religion once conflicted to the point of persecution. They were not interchangeable, nor was it possible to extrapolate religious beliefs from scientific observations as they opposed each other on such a strong level. Now, as people realize the validity of science and it's ability to prove and create, they realize that established religions are failing in its presence. From this, the first attempt to integrate science and religion is formally brought forth, ID. As faulty as it is, it's a start.
There is no such thing as "scientific belief". If it's belief, it's not scientific.
Integration is not possible, because science and religion are incompatible.
Yes, there is. As evolution cannot be proved, nor can the Big Bang or black holes or anything outside our line of sight, we believe them to be true or exist because undeniable evidence directs us to these form these conclusions. Really, though, it is just what we believe to be true.
Science does not fit the definition of religion
If the ultimate goal of science is to create a Universal Theory of Everything, then the answers to "why" will be found. This fits the broad definition, "religion- the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe."
"Trust" is not exactly the same as "belief".
But it is synonomous with "faith."
Nevertheless, I think I know what are you trying to say here. You talk about people, who believe into science, people who believe, that science can deliver truth. That's wrong. Science has nothing to do with truth. Science is about facts, and facts only. It's not meant to be believed into. It's meant to be (empirically) verified.
Logical integration is possible, no problem, BUT- logic is not enough in science. Empirical proofs are equally important. That's why scientific theories must make predictions, that can be empirically verified. If they do not make such predictions, they are discarded no matter how logical they might be. ID does not make predictions. It offers explanation only. That's not enough.
Agreed, except I do believe science can deliver Truth, not in itself, but coupled with religious intuition.
Michele
10-08-2005, 04:56 PM
I want my girls to learn scientific method in the public school.
The religion leave to me at Saturday mass.
Exactly. The sad part, is the Christian right has so politicalized religion that they have congregants feeling they are being persecuted. The Christians that don't seem to have fully grasped what Separation of Church and State means. (whilst some prothelytize a form of persecution all their own --- so vehemently casting dispersions upon other american citizens, i.e. Homosexuals. with so-called responsible evangelicals calling for the assassination of foreign leaders and and others implying there is justification to assassinate members of our judiciary --- our poor persecuted Tom Delay). Rather than deluding themselves into believing that Christains in America are being persecuted, they might try finding a country wherein there is no separation. Perhaps they can attempt to take another one over. In other words... they don't like separation of church and state they can find another country to boo hoo hoo about persecution in.
Or they can join the Exodus movement, move to south carolina and see just how far they will get attempting to evangelicalize the whole state toward seccession... and if push comes to shove they can try calling for a holy war on american soil.
in the mean time, they should express their faith in church, catechism, or bible study where they are FREE to design intelligence however they see fit short of arms.
mataj
10-08-2005, 07:10 PM
Now, as people realize the validity of science and it's ability to prove and create, they realize that established religions are failing in its presence. From this, the first attempt to integrate science and religion is formally brought forth, ID. As faulty as it is, it's a start.ID was not meant to integrate science and religion, it was meant to invade science, and/or adorn itself with science's plumes, figuratively speaking.
Belief in science often produced disastrous results, expecially if science was misunderstood, or it's results applied where they shouldn't be applied, for example social Darwinism, moral relativism, and so on. If the purpose of your "integration of religion and science" would be more orderly belief into science's results, that would be OK. But, that is clearly not the ID's goal.
. . .
Yes, there is. As evolution cannot be proved, nor can the Big Bang or black holes or anything outside our line of sight, we believe them to be true or exist because undeniable evidence directs us to these form these conclusions. Really, though, it is just what we believe to be true.Sheesh! Nobody is supposed to believe that stuff to be true! How many times do I have repeat this? Hell, even the 1st Newton's law is not true. It's a science, for ****'s sake! You are supposed to verify it, not to believe it. Or at least trust someone else to verify it.
If the ultimate goal of science is to create a Universal Theory of Everything, then the answers to "why" will be found. This fits the broad definition, "religion- the sum total of answers given to explain humankind's relationship with the universe."TOE is integration of quantum physics and theory of relativity. Purely physical stuff. It will not provide all the answers, because of chaotic nature of our universe. It's like weather. We know all the relevant physics in detail, but we are still unable to accurately predict it.
TOE will not provide answers to "why" either, no way. "Why" is a political, not scientific question, and answer is known for a loooong time:
"Did you ever wandered why you exist, what is the purpose of your life?"
"No."
"But you shoud! It's very important question, the most important question of all."
"Well, OK, what's the answer then?"
"The purpose of your existance is to support our cause, of course, and to help us make money. What else could it be? Now get to work, you sinful loafer, fulfil your purpose!"
But it[trust] is synonomous with "faith."Conditional faith in certain people. You could hardly call that religion.
Agreed, except I do believe science can deliver Truth, not in itself, but coupled with religious intuition.As I said before, such belief can produce undesired results. You know, Social Darwinism & stuff.
Michele
10-09-2005, 05:42 AM
ID was not meant to integrate science and religion, it was meant to invade science, and/or adorn itself with science's plumes, figuratively speaking.
which is why it is hoax, including part of the deception it is predicated upon that being that Christain are being persecuted in the U.S. That claim is patently FALSE, as false as the claim that suggests this is an integration of faith and science. While I would be one to agree that even the tenets of science have to be challenged, for if they aren't we might still believe that the world is flat. However, I do not believe theologians whose motivation is to really push forth the validity of creationism over darwin with or without any scientific evidence, are in the best position as challengers, beyond posing questions.
heel31ok
10-09-2005, 10:55 AM
Of course it is. I've yet to see any ID supporter admit that there is the possibility that life was "designed" by aliens who seeded our planet billions of years ago. Wouldn't such a scenario be possible under their "theory" of intelligent design as being put forth by the Discovery Institute? But I already know the answer. :rolleyes:
With ID the alien scenario is possible, that is why I reject. It is wishy washy and double minded. It seems to straddle to fence without actually taking a real stand.
mataj
10-09-2005, 10:59 AM
which is why it is hoax, including part of the deception it is predicated upon that being that Christain are being persecuted in the U.S "Christain are being persecuted" means "Christain not being able to impose his beliefs upon others"
heel31ok
10-09-2005, 11:29 AM
Exactly. The sad part, is the Christian right has so politicalized religion that they have congregants feeling they are being persecuted. The Christians that don't seem to have fully grasped what Separation of Church and State means. (whilst some prothelytize a form of persecution all their own --- so vehemently casting dispersions upon other american citizens, i.e. Homosexuals. with so-called responsible evangelicals calling for the assassination of foreign leaders and and others implying there is justification to assassinate members of our judiciary --- our poor persecuted Tom Delay). Rather than deluding themselves into believing that Christains in America are being persecuted, they might try finding a country wherein there is no separation. Perhaps they can attempt to take another one over. In other words... they don't like separation of church and state they can find another country to boo hoo hoo about persecution in.
Or they can join the Exodus movement, move to south carolina and see just how far they will get attempting to evangelicalize the whole state toward seccession... and if push comes to shove they can try calling for a holy war on american soil.
in the mean time, they should express their faith in church, catechism, or bible study where they are FREE to design intelligence however they see fit short of arms.
hey I know this will come as a shock but I live in SC . The exodus people were featured in the papers here recently. Now we have the "exodus" and the "travelers" in the same state.
By the way people have the right to express their faith where they want to and the free exercise thereof cannot be abridged.This includes a classroom as long as it is spontaneous and not instigated by the state.
And contrary to your belief there are christians who are persecuted in this country just like those of other religions also.It is not an imagination of persecution and it will continue to build as people become more polarized in there own philosophical, political,and religious groups.
This country is more divided along these lines than it has ever been and it will only get worse not better.
The only other country of real interest would be when Israel finally ends thiscrazy palestinian thing . Hey to use your words they need to find another country to take over. Great Idea. They think they are being persecuted because of their leaders who have so politicised palestine that the congregants are feeling persecuted.While they proselitise a form of persecution all their own casting aspersions and bombs on other citizens i.e. Israeli Jews. With so called responsible leaders calling for assasination of domestic leaders and and assasinating representatives of the common people of that country, poor persecuted Israeli leaders.Rather than deluding themselves into believing that palestinians are persecuted they might try finding a country wherein there is no separation(a wall of separation) Perhaps they can attempt to take over another country.They do not like separation of Israeli Jews and Palestinians, let them find another country to boo hoo about persecution in.They design intelligence in the way they see fit and not short of arms either.
Crap, crap, crap! Is it any wonder why American are children falling behind the rest of the world in the sciences? I like this word "crap". I saw a program on the history channel about the origins of it.
Derry&Peek
10-27-2005, 10:21 PM
It's philosophy man.
It's not a bad argument..I must confess...even as an unbeliever it strikes me as plausible.
It's the whole...
"If you were walking on Mars, and out of nothing you stumbled across a wristwatch, would you not think that someone made that wristwatch?" Of course! It's a complicated mechanism, and requires a designer.
Thus is nature...
The standard response has alawys been...'ya, but just because there is this complex mechanism DOES NOT imply a designer! It might just be the case that it just happens that the universe is such and that everything turned out like this which allows this to happen! It's a fluke baby..."
And anyways...even if there is a 'designer' why the f!ck does that have to be GOD anyways?! It just implies that someTHING created something. Could equally have been the Devil himself...
Derry & Peek
(mostly peek, with a shot of derry)
It's philosophy man.
It's not a bad argument..I must confess...even as an unbeliever it strikes me as plausible.
It's the whole...
"If you were walking on Mars, and out of nothing you stumbled across a wristwatch, would you not think that someone made that wristwatch?" Of course! It's a complicated mechanism, and requires a designer.
Thus is nature...
The standard response has alawys been...'ya, but just because there is this complex mechanism DOES NOT imply a designer! It might just be the case that it just happens that the universe is such and that everything turned out like this which allows this to happen! It's a fluke baby..."
And anyways...even if there is a 'designer' why the f!ck does that have to be GOD anyways?! It just implies that someTHING created something. Could equally have been the Devil himself...
Derry & Peek
(mostly peek, with a shot of derry)
got a case of schizophrenia?
towski
10-27-2005, 10:27 PM
got a case of schizophrenia?
Perhaps we have new conjoined twin members!
Russikan
10-28-2005, 12:04 AM
The only other country of real interest would be when Israel finally ends thiscrazy palestinian thing . Hey to use your words they need to find another country to take over. Great Idea. They think they are being persecuted because of their leaders who have so politicised palestine that the congregants are feeling persecuted.While they proselitise a form of persecution all their own casting aspersions and bombs on other citizens i.e. Israeli Jews. With so called responsible leaders calling for assasination of domestic leaders and and assasinating representatives of the common people of that country, poor persecuted Israeli leaders.Rather than deluding themselves into believing that palestinians are persecuted they might try finding a country wherein there is no separation(a wall of separation) Perhaps they can attempt to take over another country.They do not like separation of Israeli Jews and Palestinians, let them find another country to boo hoo about persecution in.They design intelligence in the way they see fit and not short of arms either.
The Problem is that Christians in this country are like Muslims in Saudia Arabia complaining about the Jews. They are the Majority and and hold all the power.
Name some non Christian Senators, (there might not be any) or an athiest anything in government. When you can name one I'll let you ride the dead horse of your persecution some more.
Soren
10-28-2005, 12:30 AM
Leiberman. I want to ride. :crying: Why isn't the horse moving? ;)
This religious believer thinks ID is little more than warmed over deconstructionism (a school of literary criticism) run amok. It's an insult to science and religion.
Leiberman. I want to ride. :crying: Why isn't the horse moving? ;)
This religious believer thinks ID is little more than warmed over deconstructionism (a school of literary criticism) run amok. It's an insult to science and religion.
Not so much an insult to religion. I'd consider it beneficial; just look at all the followers. You have to admit, not many revolutionary theories were accepted as viable by the societies of the day. Not to say this is revolutionary, but the point stands...
Soren
10-28-2005, 12:50 AM
Not so much an insult to religion. I'd consider it beneficial; just look at all the followers. You have to admit, not many revolutionary theories were accepted as viable by the societies of the day. Not to say this is revolutionary, but the point stands...Great philosophy? :confused: It's an inch deep and a mile wide. I'd say it makes more for great comedy.
Great philosophy? :confused: It's an inch deep and a mile wide. I'd say it makes more for great comedy.
I'm sure the reactions were the same towards the idea of a sun at the center of a universe. What makes it so comedic, again?
heel31ok
10-28-2005, 11:48 AM
The Problem is that Christians in this country are like Muslims in Saudia Arabia complaining about the Jews. They are the Majority and and hold all the power.
Name some non Christian Senators, (there might not be any) or an athiest anything in government. When you can name one I'll let you ride the dead horse of your persecution some more.
Hillary!Kennedy!Frank!Schumer!
towski
10-28-2005, 11:51 AM
Hillary!Kennedy!Frank!Schumer!
Wha?
Hillary is the same type of Christian as most of us in this country. A professed christian, but not particularly active in the church, and certainly not letting religion make her decisions for her.
Last I checked, Kennedy is a practicing Catholic.
Don't know about the other two, but I'll check.
heel31ok
10-28-2005, 11:57 AM
Wha?
Hillary is the same type of Christian as most of us in this country. A professed christian, but not particularly active in the church, and certainly not letting religion make her decisions for her.
Last I checked, Kennedy is a practicing Catholic.
Don't know about the other two, but I'll check.
if that is the case then no wonder there is a backlash against christianity. I also do not think it is catholicism that Kennedy has been practicing all these years. You are joking right?
towski
10-28-2005, 12:03 PM
if that is the case then no wonder there is a backlash against christianity. I also do not think it is catholicism that Kennedy has been practicing all these years. You are joking right?
No, heel, I'm not. Millions and millions and millions of americans are not evangelical fundamentalist christians. What you really mean is that they are not the kind of christians you want them to be, fundamentalist christians who place god before the law of the land, right?
heel31ok
10-28-2005, 12:20 PM
No, heel, I'm not. Millions and millions and millions of americans are not evangelical fundamentalist christians. What you really mean is that they are not the kind of christians you want them to be, fundamentalist christians who place god before the law of the land, right?
God's law is to obey those who are in authority over you . I am fundamental in belief in the fact that I take the Bible as the fundamental basis for my belief and relationship with God and other people . I am not sure how you mean fundamentalist which has to mean something different.
Christianity is defined by the Bible and being Christ like. Evangelical means to evangelize. Fundamental means down to basic precepts. How do you mean them?
The fact that Abortion is legal does not mean that I have to agree with it. That also does not mean I will kill someone who runs a mill. I do not see that Hillary or Kennedy is trying to end abortion because of what they believe in their christianity and most certainly in the case of Kennedy his Church is against it so you cannot say he is actually practicing it can you? this kind of Christianity is what many rail against for being hypocritical .
You say they do not let their religion make their decisions for them. If religion tto them is their basis for what is right or wrong then I cannot trust them to do right. If it is not then it is a sham and a show.I f someones belief in God is not a guide to their decision making then their profession of faith is in serious question.They do not have to belive like I do in every way but all who are christians do have " fundamental '' belifs to uphold.
towski
10-28-2005, 12:31 PM
God's law is to obey those who are in authority over you . I am fundamental in belief in the fact that I take the Bible as the fundamental basis for my belief and relationship with God and other people . I am not sure how you mean fundamentalist which has to mean something different.
Christianity is defined by the Bible and being Christ like. Evangelical means to evangelize. Fundamental means down to basic precepts. How do you mean them?
Let's just say I don't see an awful lot of professed Christian leadership behaving in what I would define as a Christ like manner. I believe many Christians selectively embrace what they consider to be christ-like. You think Jesus would support war? Would Jesus bomb an abortion clinic? Would Jesus support the death penalty? I doubt he would, just like you don't think he would support abortion. Selective christ-like behavior, IMHO.
The fact that Abortion is legal does not mean that I have to agree with it. That also does not mean I will kill someone who runs a mill. I do not see that Hillary or Kennedy is trying to end abortion because of what they believe in their christianity and most certainly in the case of Kennedy his Church is against it so you cannot say he is actually practicing it can you? this kind of Christianity is what many rail against for being hypocritical .
Fair enough. But quite simply, just because you wouldn't advocate it doesn't mean it isn't being advocated in your name. I came across a site the other day called repentamerica that published photos of a planned parenthood doctor's car and license plate. I wonder why they would do that? :rolleyes:
You say they do not let their religion make their decisions for them. If religion tto them is their basis for what is right or wrong then I cannot trust them to do right. If it is not then it is a sham and a show.I f someones belief in God is not a guide to their decision making then their profession of faith is in serious question.They do not have to belive like I do in every way but all who are christians do have " fundamental '' belifs to uphold.
Not everybody interprets what the bible is saying in the same way. Are you placing yourself in the position that only what you believe is correct, and anyone who believes differently is wrong? That seems to be a frequently held position of the christian right.
The big problem that I have with the Christian right is their lack of respect for differing beliefs. I feel that the Christian right is working to convert this to a Christian theocracy, all other beliefs be damned. And in so doing, they attempt to falsely portray themselves as a persecuted minority. Sorry, not buying it.
Soren
10-28-2005, 02:07 PM
I'm sure the reactions were the same towards the idea of a sun at the center of a universe. What makes it so comedic, again?The earnestness people have in making their argument "scientific" by using the uncertainties involved in science against itself. Frankly it illustrates that these people don't "get" science. That is why I think it is recycled deconstructionism, and a little bit funny.
The earnestness people have in making their argument "scientific" by using the uncertainties involved in science against itself. Frankly it illustrates that these people don't "get" science. That is why I think it is recycled deconstructionism, and a little bit funny.
The people who attempt to make it a science are laughable, I agree. But I still don't think ID gets the credit it deserves. Not to be taught in schools, but just to be recognized as step away from organized religion and towards a complete acceptance of science.
Russikan
10-29-2005, 12:33 AM
The people who attempt to make it a science are laughable, I agree. But I still don't think ID gets the credit it deserves. Not to be taught in schools, but just to be recognized as step away from organized religion and towards a complete acceptance of science.
It's not a step away from religion, it's a step away from science, look who believes it, and why. It's because they want to convert those dirty heathens to Christianity.
Russikan
10-29-2005, 12:58 AM
Hillary!Kennedy!Frank!Schumer!
No!No!A Jew? Poor you!And as for Schumer, he's hard to find anything about. But I do know that he sponsored the legislationformaking arson more of a crime in Churches and that supports vouchers. I don't know what he is, but I doubt he's an atheist, and he probably is a Christian.
vBulletin v3.6.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.