Who Here is a Christian? bLinD fAiTh rEbeLs :) - Page 12 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 01-06-2006, 05:46 PM   #166
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Why does the exclusion of the concept of ID extend to things such as mathematical models showing the improbability (or impossibility) of evolution? That is my biggest problem with the exclusive presentation of evolution. It disregards the data that exposes the holes in the theory.

This isn't about teaching Genesis.
__________________

__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:53 PM   #167
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s
Anyway, I've never heard a proponent of ID say that the Hindu theory of "the cycles of destruction and creation" should be EXCLUDED from biology class.
Feels weird, quoting myself.

nbcrusader, this response from me was to anitram after she said that she'd never seen proponents of ID saying the Hindu theory SHOULD ALSO be included.

Not sure if that was clear?
__________________

__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 05:55 PM   #168
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Why does the exclusion of the concept of ID extend to things such as mathematical models showing the improbability (or impossibility) of evolution? That is my biggest problem with the exclusive presentation of evolution. It disregards the data that exposes the holes in the theory.

This isn't about teaching Genesis.
and a poll tax in the South was not about suppressing the black vote.

(Afterall, it was only a dollar,
even the poorest could manage that amount if they truly cared about voting)
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:01 PM   #169
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s
[B]
"Could be proven by evidence?" COULD??
Yet, you have no problem whatsoever believing in their existance before it's even PROVEN.
Not very "scientific."
I am not saying that Aliens exist, I am that they would be provable and that their existence is entirely consistent with a naturalistic view of the universe. The discovery of alien life would fit with what we know already.
Quote:
]But more about 'proof' in the scientific world . . .
Are you also trying to say that EVERYTHING that is readily accepted in the scientific community can be traced back to irrefutable proof? Absolutely NOT!
No theory is 100%, that is another attribute of science - it changes as more evidence comes to light. Newtons theory of gravity correctly explained most falling bodies however it fell apart when we discovered that light is not infinitely quick, it took Einstein to devise a new way to describe gravity, his hypothesis about the nature of gravity was based on the evidence of the speed of light, it was also testable and falsifiable by checking if light from stars bent around the sun.
Quote:
I brought God into the discussion in response to your using the word "designer."
By definition God is not falsifiable and God is not science, at least the leaders of the ID movement have the common sense not to give away their game by using the term God - thats what got creationism so effectively kicked out of the classroom.
__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:01 PM   #170
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader

That is my biggest problem with the exclusive presentation of evolution. It disregards the data that exposes the holes in the theory.
ABSOLUTELY right!!!!!!!

The presentation is too often that it's infallible. Without question. The only possible explanation.

WHY DO WE KEEP IGNORING THE HUGE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM?

That's what I want to know.

It's like no one in the schools wants to so much as address the white elephant; the elephant = the existence of alternate beliefs.

It's sad that it's so insulting to 'the scientific community' to even consider addressing an alternate belief based on what Irvine continues to categorize as words like, "myth," which is just rude, so I won't even respond to those posts, because again, how can it be myth if it can't be proven . . . but the scientific comminity is somehow horrified at the thought.

I think it's just SAD that their minds are so closed.
It's funny, to me, that believers are often categorized that way . . . but I must say, if *that* is true, believers are not alone . . .
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:03 PM   #171
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by nbcrusader
Why does the exclusion of the concept of ID extend to things such as mathematical models showing the improbability (or impossibility) of evolution? That is my biggest problem with the exclusive presentation of evolution. It disregards the data that exposes the holes in the theory.

This isn't about teaching Genesis.


the exclusive presentation of evolution?

would you say "the exclusive presentation of plate tectonics"?

it does not disregard data -- and would you be so kind as to point out what these holes are? -- any and all scientific theories are well aware that there are areas into which we do not have knowledge.

yet.

through ever more rigorous research, testing, hypothesizing, and thinking, we just might be able to fill in these holes.

what ID does is take these holes and instead of seeking to push human knowledge further, it posits that we should say, "too complex -- must be God."

it's exceptionally anti-intellectual.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:06 PM   #172
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s

It's like no one in the schools wants to so much as address the white elephant; the elephant = the existence of alternate beliefs.


you've effectively undermined your own argument.

science doesn't concern itself with "beliefs."

it concerns itself with theories based upon facts.

end of story.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:06 PM   #173
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

it's exceptionally anti-intellectual.
The insults never end.

Well, I guess those who disagree with you are just STOOPID, is that it?

If believing what you do is what enables one to TALK the way you do and embrace such blazing elitism, I'm glad I disagree with you.
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:07 PM   #174
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 04:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511
what ID does is take these holes and instead of seeking to push human knowledge further, it posits that we should say, "too complex -- must be God."

it's exceptionally anti-intellectual.
Is ignoring the holes or filling with unprovable theories just as anti-intellectual?

Especially the life from nothing aspect of evolution.

Create a single living cell in a lab and have a better argument.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:09 PM   #175
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

you've effectively undermined your own argument.

science doesn't concern itself with "beliefs."

it concerns itself with theories based upon facts.

end of story.
Science expects other to BELIEVE *it* - - so it IS about beliefs, thank you very much.

And scientists believe theories before they are PROVEN, because they believe ones that later change when more is learned about the subject. They believed it before the change in belief, which was only BELIEVED TO BE PROVEN, but actually wasn't.

So . . .
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:10 PM   #176
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s


The insults never end.

Well, I guess those who disagree with you are just STOOPID, is that it?

If believing what you do is what enables one to TALK the way you do and embrace such blazing elitism, I'm glad I disagree with you.


good gosh, you're just looking to be offended. enjoy the feeling of persecution?

firstly, intelligence and intellectualism are different things. learn the distinction, then get back to me.

secondly, i don't think your STOOPID. but i do think you're being anti-intellectual in that you're failing to understand the terms of the debate.

go back and look at what the judge had to say -- essentially, that while there might indeed by an Intelligent Disigner, it is NOT science.

go learn what science is and isn't, what it does and what it doesn't do.

you'll find that it isn't nearly as threatening as you'd like it to be.

where, oh where, is LivLuv? she's so eloquent on these matters.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:13 PM   #177
Blue Crack Addict
 
deep's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: A far distance down.
Posts: 28,501
Local Time: 04:20 AM
What ID supporters really are concerned about is:

that God created man in his image.

Are you (supporters) honest enough to admit this?
__________________
deep is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:14 PM   #178
Blue Crack Supplier
 
Irvine511's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 30,473
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s


Science expects other to BELIEVE *it* - - so it IS about beliefs, thank you very much.

no, science expects others to LEARN it.

it is not about belief.
__________________
Irvine511 is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:17 PM   #179
The Fly
 
got2k9s's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: at a place called Vertigo
Posts: 184
Local Time: 07:20 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Irvine511

good gosh, you're just looking to be offended. enjoy the feeling of persecution?

firstly, intelligence and intellectualism are different things. learn the distinction, then get back to me.

secondly, i don't think your STOOPID. but i do think you're being anti-intellectual in that you're failing to understand the terms of the debate.

go back and look at what the judge had to say -- essentially, that while there might indeed by an Intelligent Disigner, it is NOT science.

go learn what science is and isn't, what it does and what it doesn't do.

you'll find that it isn't nearly as threatening as you'd like it to be.

where, oh where, is LivLuv? she's so eloquent on these matters.
Oh, you're not being rude? Continually telling me to go back and learn this or that . . . or 'understand the argument before I criticize,' etc. You certainly are treating me like you think I am stupid. But perhaps you can't help it, as that's obviously an extension of your elitism.

I am not failing to understand the terms of the debate - - I understand them perfectly.

What I am trying to say, and am getting TIRED of saying, is that everyone ignoring the elephant in the room is idiotic. It is a FEAR OF RELIGION in the school system that drives the "anti-ID" side of the debate just as much as you all say that RELIGION drives the "pro-ID" debate.

IT OFFENDS the scientific community to even consider that a supernatural being exists, because it is so comfortable to rest in ones belief of superiority.

BAH!

So, stop trying to point me in the direction of 'education' or 'intellect' and step down off that high horse.
__________________
got2k9s is offline  
Old 01-06-2006, 06:17 PM   #180
ONE
love, blood, life
 
A_Wanderer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The Wild West
Posts: 12,518
Local Time: 10:20 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by got2k9s

All this talk, not just from you, melon, so I'm clear . . . but from all who equate "science" with "proof" for the reason ID should not be DISCUSSED in school . . . if this is the reasoning, then NOTHING should be taught in science class.

NOTHING is proven beyond question.
Earth being spherical, thats a scientific theory and that could technically be disproven

It's like someone else already said (A_Wanderer, maybe? Can't remember who) . . . even scientific ideas are constantly revised. And melon, you agreed (as I do, too) that 'science' is a living thing.

Quote:
Evolution ISN'T AN INFALLIBLE TEACHING.
You are right, scientific theories never become the absolute truth, that is because they are not religion. They are tweaked and modified to explain what is observed, the natural world has some very strange examples out there, some that when first discovered fly in the face of what we may think makes sense (for instance why are there drone bees? what evolutionary purpose is for these insects to aid the colony? They themselves dont get to breed so what leads to the evolution of sterile animals? - the answer turns out to be the degree of relatedness between the drones and the queen and the breeding males, the drones by enabling the sucess of that breeding are actually ensuring that their common genetic material gets passed down, these conclusions are based on study and observation, they can even lead to new hypothesis about the mechanisms of evolution and provide spectacular insight)

This is moot anyhow because ID would not disprove evolution, ID is adressing the first life forms. In that it cannot provide the evidence, using the religious minded canard of "absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"


Quote:
It's just the most widely embraced one within the scientific community, who is, frankly, already averse to consider what can not be touched, even if it COULD be proven.
Ever touched a black hole? The scientific community is more than capable of embracing ideas that are literally out of this world that push the boundaries of what we thought we knew just years earlier - provided the phenomena is explainable, unexplained phenomena (like cosmological inflation) is not unexplainable, it is also not something that tears science apart. By finding explanations for the new pieces of evidence it gives a more complete picture.

This is opposed to religious belief where if one part of the thing is disproved then ones entire faith must be questioned.
__________________

__________________
A_Wanderer is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:20 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com