Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 66 (9034 total)
86 online now:
CosmicChimp, PaulK, Percy (Admin) (3 members, 83 visitors)
Newest Member: Barry Deaborough
Post Volume: Total: 885,545 Year: 3,191/14,102 Month: 132/724 Week: 74/96 Day: 3/16 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 12 of 204 (445206)
01-01-2008 2:06 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:04 PM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Not knowing where the laws of nature came from has not caused science to throw them out.

There is evidence that the laws of nature exist.

Why should the concept of intelligent design be any different?

There is no evidence of a designer.

It really is that simple.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:04 PM sinequanon has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 19 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:58 PM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 20 of 204 (445232)
01-01-2008 2:59 PM
Reply to: Message 19 by sinequanon
01-01-2008 2:58 PM


Re: There is no evidence of a designer?
Looked.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 19 by sinequanon, posted 01-01-2008 2:58 PM sinequanon has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 47 of 204 (445434)
01-02-2008 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Buzsaw
01-02-2008 10:22 AM


Re: And Should it be Taught in Our Schools?
Please present the ID model.


Immigration has been a problem Since 1607!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Buzsaw, posted 01-02-2008 10:22 AM Buzsaw has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 63 of 204 (447876)
01-11-2008 9:37 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Beretta
01-11-2008 6:36 AM


Stop repeating falsehoods.
Evolution has been a philosophical alternative to the creation story from the beginning. If there is no God, only matter, then let's make up our own story of where we came from avoiding God having anything to do with it.

Try for once to get a few things right.


  1. Evolution is a fact. We can see it happening today and see that it happened in the past.
  2. The Theory of Evolution is the best explanation so far on how the Fact of Evolution happened.
  3. Evolution and the Theory of Evolution are two different things.
  4. Neither has anything to say about the existence of God.
  5. Neither says that there is no God.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Beretta, posted 01-11-2008 6:36 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 4:01 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 71 of 204 (448167)
01-12-2008 10:25 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by Beretta
01-12-2008 4:01 AM


Re: Stop repeating falsehoods.
Trying to head towards the topic.

The Topic happens to be "Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?"

So let's try to step through this in small manageable increments.

Step 1:

Who is the Designer?


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 4:01 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:51 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 78 of 204 (448189)
01-12-2008 11:54 AM
Reply to: Message 77 by Beretta
01-12-2008 11:51 AM


Re: Stop repeating falsehoods.
A equally appropriate question would be "Is evolution religion in the guise of science" -it takes far more faith and ignorance of evidence to believe that blind chance produced us I would say.Is your brain operating according to natural chemical reactions or is there a reason for your rationality?

Irrelevant since that is not the topic.

I'll go with the God of the Bible but the actual overall point of the debate is "can blind chance and mutation produce everything we see?

No, the point of the thread is "Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?", so it appears your answer is "Yes, ID is religion.

Thank you for playing.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Beretta, posted 01-12-2008 11:51 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 80 by Archer Opteryx, posted 01-12-2008 12:23 PM jar has not yet responded
 Message 83 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 3:37 AM jar has responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 102 of 204 (448399)
01-13-2008 10:12 AM
Reply to: Message 83 by Beretta
01-13-2008 3:37 AM


Re: ID is not religion
Sorry but recanting is futile.

Thanks for playing.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 83 by Beretta, posted 01-13-2008 3:37 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 129 of 204 (449057)
01-16-2008 9:59 AM
Reply to: Message 128 by nator
01-16-2008 9:55 AM


Re: Branching Off
So, we should teach, in history class, that the Holocaust never happened?

No, we should teach that some ignorant people believe that it did not happened just as some ignorant people believe in ID.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 128 by nator, posted 01-16-2008 9:55 AM nator has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 148 of 204 (449253)
01-17-2008 11:48 AM
Reply to: Message 146 by Beretta
01-17-2008 9:52 AM


The Christian Cult of Ignorance in a nutshell.
Beretta writes:

And in the same vein who needs to know that we must have evolved in order to investigate what we see around us?

Who needs to know?

That sums up the manifesto of the Christian Cult of Ignorance. They seem to think it is better NOT to know the truth than to challenge their dogma.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by Beretta, posted 01-17-2008 9:52 AM Beretta has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 169 of 204 (449837)
01-19-2008 11:28 AM
Reply to: Message 166 by Beretta
01-19-2008 6:38 AM


More Palm the Pea con games.
The belief that evolution happened is the only reason you imagine any one creature gave birth step by step to any other creature that is fundamentally different.

We have been over this falsehood several times, most recently in the Conclusion vs Presupposition. Evolution is a conclusion based on the evidence and not a presupposition.

It is time you stopped repeating that falsehood.

Stephen Jay Gould said "The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary stages between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution."

Well I suppose that makes him a fool for not agreeing with you even though he really believed in evolution -hence 'punctuated equilibrium' as a way out of the quandry.
Luckily now we don't have to look for transitional forms because the nagging problem will never be solved so everything is a transitional form -end of problem!

Glad that you mentioned this falsehood as well so we can correct it for you and you will stop repeating it.

That quote is simply another example of the dishonesty of Biblical Creationists. The folk that pulled that quote out of context had access obviously to ALL that Gould said, yet they pulled that one piece out of context to try to con gullible folk like you.

Why do they continue to lie?

The full quote is:

Gould writes:

" 2. The saltational initiation of major transitions: The absence of fossil evidence for intermediary states between major transitions in organic design, indeed our inability, even in our imagination, to construct functional intermediates in many cases, has been a persistent and nagging problem for gradualistic accounts of evolution. St. George Mivart (1871), Darwin's most cogent critic, referred to it as the dilemma of "the incipient stages of useful structures" -- of what possible benefit to a reptile is two percent of a wing? The dilemma has two potential solutions. The first, preferred by Darwinians because it preserves both gradualism and adaptation, is the principle of preadaptation: the intermediate stages functioned in another way but were, by good fortune in retrospect, pre-adapted to a new role they could play only after greater elaboration. Thus, if feathers first functioned "for" insulation and later "for" the trapping of insect prey (Ostrom 1979) a proto-wing might be built without any reference to flight.

I do not doubt the supreme importance of preadaptation, but the other alternative, treated with caution, reluctance, disdain or even fear by the modern synthesis, now deserves a rehearing in the light of renewed interest in development: perhaps, in many cases, the intermediates never existed. I do not refer to the saltational origin of entire new designs, complete in all their complex and integrated features -- a fantasy that would be truly anti-Darwinian in denying any creativity to selection and relegating it to the role of eliminating new models. Instead, I envisage a potential saltational origin for the essential features of key adaptations. Why may we not imagine that gill arch bones of an ancestral agnathan moved forward in one step to surround the mouth and form proto-jaws? Such a change would scarcely establish the Bauplan of the gnathostomes. So much more must be altered in the reconstruction of agnathan design -- the building of a true shoulder girdle with bony, paired appendages, to say the least. But the discontinuous origin of a proto-jaw might set up new regimes of development and selection that would quickly lead to other, coordinated modifications." (Gould, Stephen J., 'Is a new and general theory of evolution emerging?' Paleobiology, vol 6(1), January 1980, pp. 126-127) source

Not only is it an example of Biblical Creationists dishonesty, it is also from 1980, and quite a bit has been learned since then.

Finally, none of that has ANYTHING to do with the topic which is "Is Intelligent Design Religion in the Guise of Science?" and which you have already answered in the affirmative. You already admitted that ID is nothing but religion in Message 77 when you said:

I'll go with the God of the Bible but the actual overall point of the debate is "can blind chance and mutation produce everything we see?

when asked "Who is the Designer.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 166 by Beretta, posted 01-19-2008 6:38 AM Beretta has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 172 by Beretta, posted 01-20-2008 1:13 AM jar has responded
 Message 173 by Rrhain, posted 01-20-2008 1:14 AM jar has not yet responded

  
jar
Member
Posts: 33343
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004
Member Rating: 3.3


Message 177 of 204 (450026)
01-20-2008 10:57 AM
Reply to: Message 172 by Beretta
01-20-2008 1:13 AM


Beretta continues the con game.
And as usual the Biblical Creationists response is to misrepresent what has been said.

So by inference anyone that believes in the God of the Bible and dares to admit is, is unscientific. Any conclusions that person may accept or reject are then based on religion which makes that person dishonest because it is 'religion in disguise.'

No, that is NOT what I said, but like Biblical Creationists before you have done, just another perversion of the truth like they did with the Gould quote.

What is being quoted, which is not at all out of context nor misrepresented is the problem which many evolutionists have admitted, exists.

Yet another misrepresentation of the truth. When you present only part of the evidence, withhold data as you do in the Gould Quote, that is called a "Sin of Omission." Science has standards of ethics and when a scientist is caught in such behavior they are sanctioned severely, often with total loss of any future employment in the sciences and certainly every piece of work they have ever done is called into question.

It is sad that there does not seem to be any standard of ethics in Biblical Creationism or ID.

And finally we touch on the topic.

We actually want to impose a limit on how much imagination should be allowed by the faithful of the imaginative evolution religion and show people how to think critically rather than be told that evolution (macro) happened, it's a FACT, you HAVE to believe us even though we've never seen it happen.

Once again you misrepresent truth. Evolution has been seen to happen and you have been given examples of that. Macro evolution can certainly be supported and explained by the existing TOE and is an unavoidable conclusion based on the evidence.

BUT you also once again show that Intelligent Design is nothing but Religion in the Guise of Science.


Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by Beretta, posted 01-20-2008 1:13 AM Beretta 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 © 2021