Why is everybody on this forum starting threads
obviously, explicitly designed to get everybody banned? Also, sorry in advance, Longo.
De-Ting said:
Like all theories, including the theory of evolution and the big bang, this cannot be proven...so don't try to disprove it. But feel free to discuss it and disagree with it.
Ehhhhhhh...no. The difference between the "theory" of intelligent design and the "Theory of Evolution", apart from the obvious definition of a "scientific theory", is so significant that speaking about them as if they were at all in the same class of thought is ridiculous. It boils down to this: Evolution by natural selection has mountains of evidential and, aha,
falsifiable support backing it up. Intelligent design, ignoring the blatant motives of the
social movement behind it, has all the scientific support of the flying spaghetti monster. You cannot legitimately expect the idea of Santa Claus to command the same respect that the Big Bang does. The ideas I've listed have discharged their burden of proof and earned their place; yours are grammatical traps based on a flimsy understanding of the scientific method.
Your intuition is not a better measuring stick than my test tube.
Looking at the other possibilities, such as stars, planets and LIFE just appearing out of the blue with some random mixing of particles that combined with each other, intelligent design makes a little more sense out of it. Why would the particles come together and form life? Isn't it possible that they were pushed together? Brought together, instead of almost illogically floating into each other?
What are the odds that big balls of masses would appear and gain a gravitational pull, when they are just floating around in the nothingness of space? Why is our earth the only one we know of with the proper terms (distance from the sun, water, oxygen, carbon) for supporting life?
You're working on this backwards. The factors allowing life to bloom on Earth did not cause that life to bloom; life bloomed within the confines of certain factors allowing and
guiding its arisal. Behold this delicious tuna sub, existing within the perfect parameters to satiate my hunger! But wait...
I made the tuna sub
to the allowed parameters, because I was hungry. The analogy isn't that good--it implies want or desire, its inherent sloppiness aside--but you see what I'm saying, yes?
If the universe could be formed, but only one planet out of the so many we know can support life, wouldn't it be possible that someone deemed it so?
When I say this, I want you to know that I say it without the rancor I've seen some other members of this forum display: You are a meaningless bag of meat and backwards premises. Stop unravelling evidence from your assumptions and start again from the beginning.
Tylzen said:
If you told god to make an indestructible object, and later on told him to destroy it.
What would then happen? If he could destroy it, then it shows that he is not all powerful because the object was indestructible, but also if he does not, then he is still not all powerful, hehe.
Can God create a rock He cannot Himself lift?
Old school.
maca2kx said:
You make it almost too easy.
De-Ting said:
Anyway, what is intelligent design? It's the theory that everything in the known universe is simply too perfect. The idea that something or rather someone must have had some if not total involvement in the formation of our world, solar system, galaxy and even the universe.
True enough, I'd counter this, though, to say that Intelligent Design is also a flagrant attempt by religious types to get their dogma into schools under the guise of science.
Ehhh. There's a difference between the social movement supporting it and the "theory" itself. While it's been taken up by religious nuts in what they probably think is a really clever bid to slip creationism into schools, on its "theoretical" level it doesn't posit any particular religion or creating force.
But note the breath-taking contempt with which I put "theory" into quotation marks. I am a badass.
De-Ting said:
Like all theories, including the theory of evolution and the big bang, this cannot be proven...so don't try to disprove it. But feel free to discuss it and disagree with it.
Nothing can be proven beyond any doubt whatsoever but it takes only one piece of contrary evidence to disprove something. I'll keep an eye out for people trying to disprove Intelligent Design and maybe try to help them.
You've got that backwards. The burden is on the ID nutters to provide some support to their arguments, not for sane, rational folk to waste their time falsifying an inherently non-falsifiable idea.
De-Ting said:
What are the odds that big balls of masses would appear and gain a gravitational pull, when they are just floating around in the nothingness of space?
Well considering how gravity works, how long the universe has been around and how big the place is I'd say it's more likely than you'd think.
This.
StalfrosCC said:
There isn't a thing in evolution science that disproves Intelligent Design.
True!
There is also nothing that explicitly disproves Abe Vigoda is the "intelligent designer". Statements like this ultimately just boil down to wrangling over grammar.
Chris_Crime said:
With that said, I still side on atheists being the more arrogant of the two. I don't see Christians or Muslims attacking atheists as much as I see atheists attacking Christians and Muslims (online, with rallies, etc.). If you're gonna say something about a bombing, be abortion center or an embassy building, remember these people are hardly religious at all. They're fanatical extremists aka crazy mother fuckers.
I wasn't looking to take a stance on what's right or wrong in the God topic, but to shed light on how wrong it is to infringe upon another's beliefs.
Fine, it's good for discussion, but the same is horrible when acted upon. Religious persecution of any kind just ain't my bag, baby.
It kind of seems to me that judging other people as "not particularly religious", when they believe themselves to be so to an extreme degree, is, in fact, a form of persecution. Also, the blatant generalization about atheists aside, based on some kind of anecdotal evidence I can't discern, it's fairly demonstratable that those of the organized religion persuasion have almost always been the ones doing the majority of the, erm, "attacking". To whit: The past 2000 years or so of western history.
About evolution: I'm cool with birds coming from dinosaurs because it makes all the sense in the world to me, but if Man came from Monkeys, why are there still monkeys? Why do monkeys still exist? Shouldn't they have all gone extinct (like the dinosaur)?
Natural selection isn't a linear process. Try to think about it as a tree, with all of the branches, and all of the twigs, and the leaves, and the way things build on each other and then split, only it's an entire forest, and one of the branches sprouts off to the platypus and then another one leads to Ron Paul.
Chris_Crime said:
Yeah, it's a church, that's the whole point. And this here is your church: the online church of atheism. And atheists have way more face time with me than I'd like.
Oh man, we're so totally
hardxcore philosophy arch-foes as of right now. Get on your lucky underwear, this is going to twelve rounds.
Also, I'm uncomfortable with this whole "church of atheism" business. Church of black people, or church of left-handed people is about as sensible. Also,
why are you people talking about arrogance like it means anything within the context of this discussion? I am clearly the most arrogant out of anybody here. Let's move on to more interesting conversations.
....
.....
...............
Toomie out
)
