Message 436 of 438 (519646)
08-15-2009 7:59 PM
*****Long past time to wrap this one up*****
Ideally, "Links and Information" topics should not be debate topics. But this one (no surprise) took of into such. Long ago I thought of moving it to the "Intelligent Design" forum, but never did.
Going to close this one down somewhere in the next 6 hours or so. In the meantime, perhaps we could have a scavenger hunt to find the last message that had a direct connection to Ben's movie?
If there's a theme happening that someone thinks is worth pursuing further, please make use of the Proposed New Topics forum. If you do, please clearly define the new topic theme in both message 1 and in the topic title.
It really helps moderators figure out if a topic is disintegrating because of general misbehavior versus someone in particular if the originally non-misbehaving members kept it that way. When everyone is prickly and argumentative and off-topic and personal then it's just too difficult to tell. We have neither infinite time to untie the Gordian knot, nor the wisdom of Solomon.
There used to be a comedian who presented his ideas for a better world, and one of them was to arm everyone on the highway with little rubber dart guns. Every time you see a driver doing something stupid, you fire a little dart at his car. When a state trooper sees someone driving down the highway with a bunch of darts all over his car he pulls him over for being an idiot.
Please make it easy to tell you apart from the idiots. Message 150
Member (Idle past 1211 days)
Re: Intelligent Design
I'm saying science does not directly pursue the truth. It attempts to explain through falsification and testable methods. It attempts to compare competing hypotheses and theories to each other.
If you have a better method for testing and validating explanations of natural phenomena to determine if they adequately reflect reality I am all ears.
|Traditional scientific explanations automaticall resist or disqualify any inference to designers that cannot be found through empirical means.|
No, not disqualify. Rather science remains mute on the subject of the supernatural, religious or otherwise. We cannot test capricious supernatural causes (phenomena that defy the natural laws of the universe) using the scientific method. Science can only test and validate natural phenomena not supernatural phenomena.
|"You can't put God in a test tube", they say. I say, "You can't put Attila the Hun in one either."|
Yes, but Attila the Hun cannot stop the motion of the Sun in the sky, speak whole universes' into existence, raise the dead and remove all traces of his existence from the annals and artifcats of history.
The probablity of the existence of Attila the Hun can be discovered through the scientific method and historical analysis. We can look at the literary and archaelogical evidence and determine the likelihood of Atilla the Hood existing. We can even determine the likelihood of the existence of Biblical figures such as Abraham, Moses, David and Jesus. However, how do you scientifically determine the likelihood that Jesus was the Son of God? Or the supernatural miracle of Jesus raising Lazereth from the dead? Or the parting of the Red Sea? Or God speaking into existence the creation of the universe?
I think that science does reflect reality many times but not in all senarios that attempt to explain reality.
And you determine this how?
|Why does ID have to break natural laws and be something totally inclusive of the supernatural?|
Because intelligent design by its very definition invokes a supernatural creator. One cannot create the very laws of the universe if he is bound by them.
|Obviously, when people design objects from intelligent processes, they didn't have to break natural laws or evoke the supernatural.|
No, because the people who create these things are part of the natural universe itself. God is not.
If we allow all the miracles in the Bible to be accepted as naturally occuring phenomena than the known laws of physics fly out the window. 100 feet of water in a sea or ocean could part at a moments notice, dead fish and bread could multiply spontaneously, people could live inside the stomachs of marine mammals for days, foliage could burn without being consumed, animals could talk, celestial objects can stop and stand still at a moments notice, children can be born through immaculate conception, the dead rising from the grave, cats and dogs living together etc.
Might as well chuck all the scientific books, journals, etc out and go back to living in the dark ages.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
Edited by DevilsAdvocate, : No reason given.
"You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe." - Carl Sagan
"It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring." - Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
|This message is a reply to:|
| ||Message 433 by traderdrew, posted 08-15-2009 12:11 PM|| ||traderdrew has not yet responded|