1. Copenhagen
    Joined
    31 May '04
    Moves
    6955
    18 Oct '05 09:21
    . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!' --Douglas Adams



    To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was always there', and be done with it. --Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
  2. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    18 Oct '05 09:321 edit
    Originally posted by nickybutt
    . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!' --Douglas Adams



    To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernat ...[text shortened]... s, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
    Interesting... rhetoric does make ID look dumb and stupid?
  3. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    18 Oct '05 09:381 edit
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Interesting... rhetoric does make ID look dumb and stupid?
    Hold on. How are the two quotes above guilty of either presenting a strawman version of the ID view, or of presenting an argument from ignorance?

    Edit: Never mind, you seem to have retracted your earlier claim. Good.
  4. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    18 Oct '05 09:411 edit
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Hold on. How are the two quotes above guilty of either presenting a strawman version of the ID view, or of presenting an argument from ignorance?

    Edit: Never mind, you seem to have retracted your earlier claim. Good.
    Yessss. I was a little quick out of the blocks there. False start...
  5. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    18 Oct '05 09:44
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Yessss. I was a little quick off the marks there. False start...
    Go get 'em, tiger!
  6. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    18 Oct '05 09:50
    Originally posted by bbarr
    Go get 'em, tiger!
    😏😵
  7. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52613
    18 Oct '05 18:52
    Originally posted by nickybutt
    . . imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, 'This is an interesting world I find myself in, an interesting hole I find myself in. It fits me rather neatly, doesn't it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well. It must have been made to have me in it!' --Douglas Adams



    To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernat ...[text shortened]... s, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
    My take on ID and creationism is it doesn't explain anything it simply
    invokes something supernatural, end of story. It can never claim
    to be science or scientific.
  8. Earth Prime
    Joined
    16 Mar '05
    Moves
    21936
    18 Oct '05 19:05
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    My take on ID and creationism is it doesn't explain anything it simply
    invokes something supernatural, end of story. It can never claim
    to be science or scientific.
    Gah! Of course it isn't based on science. It's based on faith, but there is scientific evidence.
  9. Standard memberHalitose
    I stink, ergo I am
    On the rebound
    Joined
    14 Jul '05
    Moves
    4464
    18 Oct '05 19:25
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    My take on ID and creationism is it doesn't explain anything it simply
    invokes something supernatural, end of story. It can never claim
    to be science or scientific.
    It can never claim to be science or scientific.

    Are you talking about the actual creative act or the evidence proposed in support of ID? The first is a once-off event and cannot be repeated for emperical analysis. The other... well it depends what you mean by science.

    If, by science you mean: The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena, then the ID aspect that does exactly that can be considered science. Methinks its very far from end of story.
  10. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    18 Oct '05 22:021 edit
    Originally posted by Halitose
    [b]It can never claim to be science or scientific.

    Are you talking about the actual creative act or the evidence proposed in support of ID? The first is a once-off event and cannot be repeated for emperical analysis. The other... well it depends what you mean by science.

    If, by science you mean: The observation, identification, description, exper ...[text shortened]... hat does exactly that can be considered science. Methinks its very far from end of story.[/b]
    Of course some people could "consider" it science. But such consideration would not change the fact that ID is NOT science.

    Also, I am glad to see you qualified the word "evidence" with "proposed" since there simply is no evidence in support of ID. There is merely a wealth of observations that happen to be compatible with the claims of ID -- in roughly the same way that all my current observations and sensations happen to be compatible with the notion that there is a giant invisible easter bunny standing right next to me, looking over my shoulder, watching me type this post. However, my current observations and sensations are in no way evidence in support of such a notion.

    Do you think ID is any more "scientific" than Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?
  11. Donationbbarr
    Chief Justice
    Center of Contention
    Joined
    14 Jun '02
    Moves
    17381
    18 Oct '05 22:43
    Originally posted by LemonJello
    Do you think ID is any more "scientific" than Flying Spaghetti Monsterism?
    FYI, the correct term is Pastafarianism.
  12. Joined
    24 Apr '05
    Moves
    3061
    18 Oct '05 23:311 edit
    Originally posted by bbarr
    FYI, the correct term is Pastafarianism.
    "Ramen" to that, brother. At any rate, to label The Almighty as a "monster" belittles his love for us -- He yearns to touch us all with His Noodly Appendage.

    In the words of the Prophet, Bobby Henderson: "I think we can all look forward to the time when these three theories are given equal time in our science classrooms across the country, and eventually the world; One third time for Intelligent Design, one third time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism, and one third time for logical conjecture based on overwhelming observable evidence."

    http://www.venganza.org/
  13. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    18 Oct '05 23:46
    Originally posted by Halitose
    Interesting... rhetoric does make ID look dumb and stupid?
    Not only rhetoric but the lack of evidence for Id helps too
  14. Meddling with things
    Joined
    04 Aug '04
    Moves
    58590
    18 Oct '05 23:47
    Originally posted by Halitose
    [b]It can never claim to be science or scientific.

    Are you talking about the actual creative act or the evidence proposed in support of ID? The first is a once-off event and cannot be repeated for emperical analysis. The other... well it depends what you mean by science.

    If, by science you mean: The observation, identification, description, exper ...[text shortened]... hat does exactly that can be considered science. Methinks its very far from end of story.[/b]
    oh puhleeeze
  15. Joined
    27 Mar '05
    Moves
    88
    19 Oct '05 00:22
    Originally posted by nickybutt
    . . ..To explain the origin of the DNA/protein machine by invoking a supernatural Designer is to explain precisely nothing, for it leaves unexplained the origin of the Designer. You have to say something like 'God was always there', and if you allow yourself that kind of lazy way out, you might as well just say 'DNA was always there', or "Life was alw ...[text shortened]... s, The Blind Watchmaker : Why the Evidence of Evolution Reveals a Universe without Design p. 141
    Even if one assumes that "someone made" God, I would still point out that we're not responsible to God's maker, only to our maker.

    If a person stands before God and says "I didn't believe in you because I can regress beyond you to somebody that made you", God could always answer, "It doesn't make any difference if someone made me, the only thing that matters here is the fact that I made YOU".

    What would that person then say?
Back to Top