A Study of Intelligent Design Debate

quote:

---

Originally posted by mark24:
Who is this in reply to?

---

Me.

correctamundo------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

I mean no disrespect to anyone, but I must ask why do you debate about this topic. I can understand a little for fun, but what motivates you to get into so much depth? What could you possibly hope to achieve?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
i meant native americans. i guess you might never be able to change my mind because there too many assumptions and guesses that have to made for the ToE to be proven.

​

---

oh my....reading that or being blind...hum....dont know which is better.
There's nothing BUT assumptions and guesses in creationism....its not substanciated by ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER....not even the begining of a shred of it...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Solid Snake:
I mean no disrespect to anyone, but I must ask why do you debate about this topic. I can understand a little for fun, but what motivates you to get into so much depth? What could you possibly hope to achieve?

---

But this is a wonderful topic to debate!
Unlike a lot of difficult science, the principal thinking on the subject is relatively easy for intelligent and interested parties to consider without expert knowledge.
Why be interested? Well for my part there are four reasons:
1. In the abstract it is a complex issue which includes a considerable amount of logic, psychology, information theory and science.
2. Some of those involved in the discussion are entertaining - often inadvertently so.
3. Intelligent design is an important plank in the attempts by creationists to achieve some intellectual respectability - and it is thus linked by some of them to a politico-social agenda of which I thoroughly disapprove. Thus I seek to meet its challenges and either refute it if i find it to be wrong or refute any politico-social implications that may be wrongly drawn from it.
4. One of my principal personal interests is the philosophy of the Scottish Enlightenment. Hume approached the argument from design with his usual robust intelligence and tellingly refuted it. It is most interesting to me today to see how modern arguments from and to design compare to those he tackled.What can we hope to achieve? Well one thing is sure, not discussing achieves nothing either!
1. We can clarify our own thoughts through argument.
2. We can possibly persuade others to change their views, perhaps in a minor way, perhaps more significantly.
3. We can correct misunderstandings.
4. We can ensure that we witness to what we believe to be right if it is threatened.
5. We can have a lot of fun.Perhaps what you mean is "can we ever hope to come to an unassailable conclusion?" But if the inevitable answer "no" means it is not worth continuing, then science, philosophy, theology, and most all the glories of human thought are pointless.

​

[This message has been edited by Mister Pamboli, 03-08-2002]

You really have to look at it from someone elses point of view. Topics such as creationism or Evolution are not very likely to be proven, let alone in your life time. Of all topics to debate why this one? To be blunt, if one of those was actaully proven guess how many people in this whole world would actaully care? As opposed to something like cloning, if it was capable and justafiable to being done to a human people might actually take an interest (Can you imagine a whole team of young Michal Jordans). Honestly although I take part in it, I beleive time can be much better spent as opposed to putting so much time into these debates. They also seem quite limited when you think about how many people will read them.------------------
"There is no true reality. Things are only as real as your mind says it is. You have to find something to believe in, something worth fighting for, and pass it on to future generations." ~~David Hayter

​

[This message has been edited by Solid Snake, 03-08-2002]

quote:

---

"There is no true reality. Things are only as real as your mind says it is. You have to find something to believe in, something worth fighting for, and pass it on to future generations." ~~David Hayter

---

JM:What an insanely absurd quote. Sounds like something out of a gaming magazine.CheersJoe Meert

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:

oh my....reading that or being blind...hum....dont know which is better.
There's nothing BUT assumptions and guesses in creationism....its not substanciated by ANY EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER....not even the begining of a shred of it...

​

---

if i were an evolutionist id probably choose blind too but the difference between the two is that creationism is pure faith and does not need evidence. Evolution would require an exact dateline of all mutations from now to whenever evolutionists think the earth was created, because if one part was missing then us creationists would be able to use divine intervention as an explanation. Religion cant be a science and science cant be a religion, thats where we both make horrible mistakes.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------JM:What an insanely absurd quote. Sounds like something out of a gaming magazine.Cheers
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------In a way I actaully can be a very absurd person. My views are open to change at any time, and i can still be very bull-headed. The quote is just a quote, and personally I thibk it makes you think. The ending of it may be a little much, but the beginning makes a hell of alot of sense to me. Just look at Penguin's (No offense to you) I'll take mine over that any day.So in other words, "Don't mess with me, I'm one bad Mofo."
~~Sorry I couldn't resist

your signature does sound very stupid and it is stupid i dont think anyone but you would disagree.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

This would be my closing signature if I didn't use my TrueCreation image :"Unbiased scientific inquiery is the basis of true knowledge and understanding. In deposition of my vernality, I should not be underestimated."--I like my image because it makes people say when they see a new post with that on the bottom, "oh no, TC is here, we better put on our thinking caps!". ------------------

​

[This message has been edited by TrueCreation, 03-09-2002]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
if i were an evolutionist id probably choose blind too but the difference between the two is that creationism is pure faith and does not need evidence. Evolution would require an exact dateline of all mutations from now to whenever evolutionists think the earth was created, because if one part was missing then us creationists would be able to use divine intervention as an explanation. Religion cant be a science and science cant be a religion, thats where we both make horrible mistakes.

​

---

Fact of the matter is i'm not an evolutionist...but it seems like the most resonable explanation so far so i tend to lean toward it. Plus,i've reviewed to much historical evidence that cast several doubts on th biblical accounts to simply accept creationist version without rock solid evidence...which is not forth comming so far

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
Fact of the matter is i'm not an evolutionist...but it seems like the most resonable explanation so far so i tend to lean toward it. Plus,i've reviewed to much historical evidence that cast several doubts on th biblical accounts to simply accept creationist version without rock solid evidence...which is not forth comming so far

​

---

you will never get rock solid evidence on anything epescially anything relating to Jesus or the bible.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi

quote:

---

Originally posted by KingPenguin:
you will never get rock solid evidence on anything epescially anything relating to Jesus or the bible.

​

---

I see no reason why not....if they do exist,then proving their existance should be possible somehow,someway,someday.

quote:

---

Originally posted by LudvanB:
I see no reason why not....if they do exist,then proving their existance should be possible somehow,someway,someday.

​

---

your right but when the apocalypse comes itll be too late to save you.------------------
"Overspecialize and you breed in weakness" -"Major" Motoko Kusanagi