marc9000 writes:
All the countless atheist websites all over the net are getting their funding from somewhere. Best selling books by Sam Harris and Dawkins and dozens of others like them are being sold to somebody.
I just want to point out that just because you cannot handle hearing other opinions does not imply that no one can. My youth leader from my time in a Catholic Church has purchased and read Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins, and Christopher Hitchens and yet she is still a practicing Catholic. The reason she purchased and read these books is because she knows what she believes and is not afraid to read other information. You, on the other hand, have made up your mind and shoved your head into the sand to avoid reading any further information that may disagree with your worldview.
Also, what you are talking about in regards to the "usefulness" of intelligent design is completely misunderstood. What that statement is saying is that as a theory, Intelligent Design can be used to explain anything, because there is an individual (God) not constrained by the laws of physics. If there can be no predictions (Because everything can be an example of something that can break physical laws), then what can the theory be used to test. Similarly, you try to compare it to deep space exploration.....oh, wait, but you are wrong. Predictions have been made consistently throughout deep space exploration, and when they do not pan out, the theory must be adjsuted or discarded. In fact, currently there are some thoughts that we may have something wrong in our theory of planetary formation because we found what is considered an "Impossible" planet. This planet is an Earth sized planet that orbits its parent star at a distance of 1.6 million km. Its entire orbit around the star takes eight and a half hours. Yet, our theories of planetary formation stated that no planet this size could form this close to its host star, nor could it move into this region and be captured this close. This means that there is something wrong with the theories and revision is necessary. Whereas, with intelligent design, one could simply say that the designer planned it that way. No testability anything that disagrees with ID can simply be assimilated under this idea that the designer can change physical laws.
Source
marc9000 writes:
I think global warming is like a lot of things in science, a conclusion is first reached, then evidence is worked through backwards to come to that conclusion.
Says the man who admits he will refuse any information that forces him to question Genesis.....Pot, meet kettle.
Also, your argument about Global Warming/Climate Change is incorrect, it was not worked backwards, it was a slow process of actually understanding the damage that we as a species are capable of causing toward the carbon cycle, and through which, the damage we cause the planet.
marc9000 writes:
Ignore the scientific community would be more accurate. To pay attention to constituents who have the ability to look at the sky, feel the temperature with their bodies, and concern themselves with their society's finances.
If we ignore those actually doing science (ie, the scientific community) then how will knowledge in these fields progress? Also, why should we listen to individuals simply because they exist. The right to be listened to and trusted is earned not given. Your opinion means nothing until you have shown me why it should mean something. End of story...Evidence, or get the **** out.
marc9000 writes:
So when I say that the topic of this thread is to question the wisdom of allowing unlimited, untestable, unfalsifiable, useless and impractical exploration to go on just to satisfy a special interest, can't some areas of exploration that are going on today be held up to the same standards that ID clearly is/was?
Please provide specific examples of how any of the accepted branches of science are not limited, how they are untestable, how they are unfalsifiable, and how they are unpractical? Otherwise this is simply the opinon of someone who has yet to show that his opinion is valid, what with the lack of actual evidence he posts.
The theory of evolution by cumulative natural selection is the only theory we know of that is in principle capable of explaining the existence of organized complexity. - Richard Dawkins
Creationists make it sound as though a 'theory' is something you dreamt up after being drunk all night. - Issac Asimov
If you removed all the arteries, veins, & capillaries from a person’s body, and tied them end-to-endthe person will die. - Neil Degrasse Tyson
What would Buddha do? Nothing! What does the Buddhist terrorist do? Goes into the middle of the street, takes the gas, *pfft*, Self-Barbecue. The Christian and the Muslim on either side are yelling, "What the Fuck are you doing?" The Buddhist says, "Making you deal with your shit. - Robin Williams
™ Version 4.2