Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 85 (8937 total)
26 online now:
Aussie, Diomedes, DrJones*, PaulK, ringo, Tanypteryx (6 members, 20 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: ssope
Happy Birthday: AdminPhat
Post Volume: Total: 861,775 Year: 16,811/19,786 Month: 936/2,598 Week: 182/251 Day: 11/59 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Silly Design Institute: Let's discuss BOTH sides of the Design Controversy...
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 112 of 219 (529858)
10-10-2009 8:28 PM


Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Silly design = The designer effecting the pre-evolution abiogenesis of the first living organism on tiny planet earth after which he leaves it to design itself from there on from the mirey soup.

Edited by Buzsaw, : Accidently bumped the submit button before finished


Replies to this message:
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 8:37 PM Buzsaw has responded
 Message 124 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 12:47 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 126 by xongsmith, posted 10-12-2009 3:57 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 114 of 219 (529883)
10-10-2009 10:07 PM
Reply to: Message 113 by Coyote
10-10-2009 8:37 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Hi Coyote. For the purpose of this topic I did not designate a designer. The designer is a generic term which could refer to a god entity or some super intelligence from a highly advanced planet from the cosmos etc.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 113 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 8:37 PM Coyote has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 10:11 PM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 116 of 219 (529953)
10-11-2009 9:13 AM
Reply to: Message 115 by Coyote
10-10-2009 10:11 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
Coyote writes:

You titled your post "Creationist Side Of Silly Design."
I ask again, what do creationists have to do with intelligent or any other kind of design pretending to be a science?

(But I have already answered that in my previous post.)

1. The generic word/term creation/creationist need not nessitate that everything discussed and debated relative to creating/making something involves religion as per your first response.

2. What is considered science need not exclude intelligent design relative to something created/made.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 115 by Coyote, posted 10-10-2009 10:11 PM Coyote has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 117 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-11-2009 9:39 AM Buzsaw has responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 118 of 219 (530027)
10-11-2009 11:27 PM
Reply to: Message 117 by DevilsAdvocate
10-11-2009 9:39 AM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
DA writes:

It would be like if someone was trying to push an astrology movement into the scientific community and schools without having it go through the scientific-method process of experimentation, testing, analysis, and peer review to determine if their claims are valid.

I don't think it's fair to classify intelligent design with astrology. That's as illogical as classifying a Model T Ford with a 2009 Cadilac.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 117 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-11-2009 9:39 AM DevilsAdvocate has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 119 by Granny Magda, posted 10-11-2009 11:50 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 120 by Coyote, posted 10-11-2009 11:53 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 121 by jacortina, posted 10-11-2009 11:59 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 122 by DevilsAdvocate, posted 10-12-2009 4:35 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 127 of 219 (530262)
10-12-2009 8:06 PM


Coyote and Magdna:

1. Behe is not spokes-guru of ID or of astrology. He's just one scientist who expressed an opinion based on nothing imperical.

2. Of course you evolutionists are just as biased in your opinions as you think ID proponents are. You people have managed to narrow the definition of science to exclude any minority POV. You have the media, the academic and the establishment bully pulpit from which you can dictate evolutionism POV.

3. From a fair and balanced source, Merriam Webster, the following is the definition of science ID theory study can be regarded as a science, interpreting observable design complexity of what exists relative to laws of science, probabilities, archeology etc. Imo, astrology falls short of this in comparison whether or not a man or a court has a different opinion.

Notice the testing via scientific methodology is 3rd down from the first general definition of science.

1 : the state of knowing : knowledge as distinguished from ignorance or misunderstanding
2 a : a department of systematized knowledge as an object of study b : something (as a sport or technique) that may be studied or learned like systematized knowledge
3 a : knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method b : such knowledge or such a system of knowledge concerned with the physical world and its phenomena : natural science

Having said the above, I am aware of EvC's position on science but when you say ID is in no way science, that is just false, unfair and unbalanced.


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replies to this message:
 Message 128 by RAZD, posted 10-12-2009 8:24 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 129 of 219 (530270)
10-12-2009 8:27 PM
Reply to: Message 126 by xongsmith
10-12-2009 3:57 PM


Re: Creationist Side Of Silly Design
xongsmith writes:

the Designer just made the subatomic coefficients work out that way...auh ay..ee ay.

Hi Xong. ID science observes things relative to life, archeology, etc, studies possibilities, probabilities, etc and applies them to applicable science laws to arrive at conclusions.

Imo, subatomic coefficients, relativity, QM, etc could be compared to abstract forms of obscure modern art, i.e. (abe:silly design)

Edited by Buzsaw, : add phrase


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 126 by xongsmith, posted 10-12-2009 3:57 PM xongsmith has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 130 by Blzebub, posted 10-12-2009 8:48 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Buzsaw
Inactive Member


Message 153 of 219 (531290)
10-16-2009 8:57 PM
Reply to: Message 151 by hooah212002
10-15-2009 8:40 PM


The Human Skull Not Silly.
The first man, according to the Genesis record was designed for a far less violent planet than it became after the fall, so no, the human skull doesn't fit the description of silly design for the environment which it was designed.

Edited by Buzsaw, : rewording


BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by hooah212002, posted 10-15-2009 8:40 PM hooah212002 has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 154 by hooah212002, posted 10-16-2009 9:11 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded
 Message 156 by Coyote, posted 10-16-2009 9:17 PM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019