1

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 11:21:29 AM »

No shit. But did you not notice the difference in the "process" that I pointed out? Science abounds in hypotheses: some confirmed, some unconfirmed and some failed. Dark Energy is an unconfirmed hypothesis that very well could fail. If you wish to put the ID hypothetical creator in with this category then be my guest, I would actually have more respect for you than any other ID proponent. Of course that means that ID would have a long way to confirm the hypothesis but at least it would be a lot more scientific.

Sean,
I must commend you.  That was the smartest thing I’ve read in this thread.  To be honest, I’ve never debated ID with anyone before.  It sounded like a very viable theory and wanted to hear criticism for it.  I already believe in God, so I’m obviously very biased on the subject.  As I’ve mentioned before, although the original premise cannot be proved, the rest of the theory does its best to apply scientific principles to it.  I was curious to know how non-ID individuals see it.
I still consider it ‘scientific’, but you do make a good point in isolating the difference in the fact that most ID proponents will always hold ‘faith’ in that original premise regardless.  I do have to say, I am one of those.  Then again, many atheist seem to have that same amount of tenacity in their belief.


I wish I could remain, but I must go.
To everyone else…I’ve enjoyed it.  You all kept me Thoroughly Entertained!

2

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 11:07:11 AM »

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

actually abiogenesis has not failed at all. The conditions of the young earth are long past. Scientists can get amino acids that will begin duplicating themselves, and eventually the ones that replicate better become more populous.

The current state of our planet is not very hospitable to large amounts of amino acid. They tend to be broken down and such by organisms. Also considering the process took possible millions of years, how is a scientist supposed to do this in the lab, when the technology and idea to do this has only been around for decades, not millions of years?

With your logic, christians having had 2000 years, should have proven god by now, or at least made him in a lab.

"It all happened in the un-observable past" I hear some say.  How convenient.

In a lab, we can create just about any conditions we want to, yet we still fail at abiogensis.

The closest our top scientists can get to a living cell is duplicating amino acids?  That falls WAY short of a living cell.

The more intellegent scientist try, and fail, the more impossible it becomes.
(And even if they did, it proves it takes an intellegent designer to create a cell)

Wrong. We have no idea yet how DNA, RNA, mitochondria or any other part of the living cell work in ways to sustain itself. Amino acids are incredibly complex, and we're not going to just be able to slap a few together, get some DNA and hot shit, we made a living cell. It's still going to take a while before we're ever going to understand it. We're doing a good job so far, but look at the complexities at hand: Humans have 42 chromosomes, and we're incredibly complex, yet a small plant can have as many as 400+ chromosomes, and yet be amazingly simplistic in design. Knowing why this is and what constitutes the process' at hand is key, and we just aren't there yet. This is in no way proof of intelligent design, just proof in ignorance to take the time to understand your environment around you.

The irony. 
The whole notion behind ID is that when you come across something SO complex as DNA, and with such purpose to it’s complexity (a design to it), and don’t see a natural explanation for it’s existence, you consider the possibility that it was designed by an intelligent creator. 

3

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 10:48:24 AM »

What creditibility?

By the way, abiogenesis != evolution != abiogenesis.

Also, dark energy != evolution != dark energy.

As for the first post, one of the main differences between Dark Energy and a hypothetical creator is that physicists are willing to try and find out whether they're right or wrong about dark energy and physicists know that dark energy is hypothetical. What ID proponent is willing to do that?

abiogenesis != evolution != abiogenesis  -  Understood.


The reason I brought up "Dark Energy" is to show that we as humans sometimes use a 'hypothetical force' as we explain the cosmos.  The ENTIRE point of this thread was to show that those who formulate ID may start with a premise (hypothetical force) that is debatable, but the PROCESS thereafter can still be considered as scientific as other theories that try to explain the cosmos and our existance.

4

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 10:38:45 AM »

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

actually abiogenesis has not failed at all. The conditions of the young earth are long past. Scientists can get amino acids that will begin duplicating themselves, and eventually the ones that replicate better become more populous.

The current state of our planet is not very hospitable to large amounts of amino acid. They tend to be broken down and such by organisms. Also considering the process took possible millions of years, how is a scientist supposed to do this in the lab, when the technology and idea to do this has only been around for decades, not millions of years?

With your logic, christians having had 2000 years, should have proven god by now, or at least made him in a lab.

"It all happened in the un-observable past" I hear some say.  How convenient.

In a lab, we can create just about any conditions we want to, yet we still fail at abiogensis.

The closest our top scientists can get to a living cell is duplicating amino acids?  That falls WAY short of a living cell.

The more intellegent scientist try, and fail, the more impossible it becomes.
(And even if they did, it proves it takes an intellegent designer to create a cell)

5

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 10:29:55 AM »

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

How does abiogenesis fail compared to ID?

The fact that we, highly motivated intellegent beings, cannot create a living cell, even in a laboratory.

6

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 10:10:46 AM »

Abiogenesis really has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is correct.

But it's the failure of abiogenesis that gives ID much of it's credibility.

7

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 09:42:13 AM »

Evolution is based on the theory that, starting from abiogenesis,

...so the theory STARTS with it's WEAKEST link.

The more 'science' has been applied to the challenge of spontanious life from non-life, the more we realize what an incredible miracle it really is!

Oops, did I say 'miracle'?? 

8

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 09:37:38 AM »

2 of 3 ain't bad...

Did I mention 'unashamedly'

9

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 09:36:50 AM »

It is not a theory. A theory is based off of observations and backed by tests.

edit: this refers to ID.

Evolution is build upon a great deal of un-observable 'guesses'.

No, the hypothesis for evolution was based on assumptions based on observations. Then predictions were made based on this theory. These predictions have held up. Therefore evolution is a theory based on everything required for it to be a theory. It has shown that it can even predict what will happen.

Can ID make predictions? Will it predict something that we will find? Has it predicted what will happen?

Observations like scientists creating a fully functional first cell in a laboratory?
Oh wait, that hasn't happened yet.

Surely, but would you settle for  cells ecolving in a laboratory environment?

I understand that there are observable portions of the evolutionary theory.  It's the major challenges like abiogensis that leave huge holes that cannot be ignored.  Part of the reason some have come to believe in ID is from LACK of observance of spontanious life.

10

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 09:33:02 AM »

can I venture a guess that you're an American Christian, South of the Mason-Dixon line?

American, yes.  Christian, unashamedly.  Born and raised in Colorado.

11

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 09:27:40 AM »

Would that be a round one??

12

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 09:22:18 AM »

It is not a theory. A theory is based off of observations and backed by tests.

edit: this refers to ID.

Evolution is build upon a great deal of un-observable 'guesses'.

No, the hypothesis for evolution was based on assumptions based on observations. Then predictions were made based on this theory. These predictions have held up. Therefore evolution is a theory based on everything required for it to be a theory. It has shown that it can even predict what will happen.

Can ID make predictions? Will it predict something that we will find? Has it predicted what will happen?

Observations like scientists creating a fully functional first cell in a laboratory?
Oh wait, that hasn't happened yet.

13

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 09:14:23 AM »

It is not a theory. A theory is based off of observations and backed by tests.

edit: this refers to ID.
[/quote]

Evolution is build upon a great deal of un-observable 'guesses'.

14

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 09:11:13 AM »

"To the believer, no proof is necessary. To the non-believer, no proof is possible." - Derek Acorah

Very true.

15

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Intelligent Design IS scientific

« on: October 01, 2008, 09:00:52 AM »

In a ‘scientific’ article on FoxNews, I read the following: “Dark energy is the name given to the ‘hypothetical force’ that could be drawing all the stuff in the universe outward at an ever-increasing rate.” (emphasis mine)

On this site, I hear proponents from two different theories debating the existence of a ‘hypothetical force’ called ‘gravity’, yet both theories are considered ‘scientific’.



Then I hear people make the statement that the Intelligent Design (ID) theory is ‘unscientific’.  The theory may have a debatable original premise: the existence of a ‘hypothetical force’ (i.e. a ‘Creator’) but the developed theory BASED upon a this premise is no less ‘scientific’ than evolution.  Both are theories, both have to make un-testable assumptions, and both try to develop an explanation for the cosmos we observe.

You may not believe in the existence of this ‘hypothetical force’ , but you CANNOT possibly convince me that ID is by any means less scientific than evolution.

16

Philosophy, Religion & Society / Re: Why Jesus & Not Others!?

« on: September 12, 2008, 07:16:16 AM »

Why Jesus is considered a God in Christianity? starts listing me all of your reasons, maybe one of the reasons is valid and I would say: "Yeah, he deserves to be worshiped for that"
 

Yup in Islam Mohammed & Jesus are both messengers of God and both respected messengers have signs and proves from god they are messengers

“Worshiping Jesus” is an all or nothing thing, AbdulAziz.  You can’t call him a ‘prophet’ and ‘respected’ without accepting everything he says.  He himself gave indication he is God.*  He also said “I am the way and the truth and the life.  No one comes to the Father except through me.” 

So he is either God, and the ONLY way to the Father, meaning you have to denounce your belief in ‘Allah’ as God in order to accept Christ as God.  OR he is a liar (or crazy) and you have to denounce him as a ‘respected prophet’.

You’re going to have to choose, Abdul.


*I can provide scripture if you’re interested.  Trying to keep this short.

17

Flat Earth Q&A / Re: BELIEVE

« on: September 11, 2008, 12:52:51 PM »

I believe your all complete twats.

You're is a contraction, or a combination of the words you and are.
Your is the possessive form of you, referring to something that a person has.

Is it possible that you are the twat?

An excellent job clearing up that grammatical error!  Your quite the teacher.

18

The Lounge / Re: language

« on: September 10, 2008, 03:29:22 PM »

C++

Better yet, C Sharp.  Much cleaner syntax, just as OO.