Forums | MacLife
You are not logged in.
#226 2005-08-11 1:28 am
- mo' ron
- PS3 4 EVA
- From: NC, USA
- Registered: 2002-10-15
- Posts: 14246
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
resedit wrote:
mo' ron wrote:
and plenty of scientist, while not exactly Christian, are of the belief that some intelligences may have guided the processes of the universe.
Can you name one who is an athiest?
By definition, and atheist doesn't believe in any kind of diety or god, so how do you expect me to name someone who is a true atheist (and not an agnostic, like a lot of them really are) that does believe in some kind of god? Is that a new tactic? Ask to do something that is logically impossible, and truly paradoxical?
Scientist aren't necessarily atheist though, if that's your implication. I personally would consider myself an agnostic for all practical purposes, but I have a simple gut feeling that our existence is due to some other force besides the natural processes of the universe, but I don't attest to this force being a god, or super-universal aliens, or a team of scientist, or what, I don't know.
What is the difference between Vista and OSX?
- Microsoft employees are excited about OSX.
Offline
#227 2005-08-11 1:30 am
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
NAG wrote:
Being vague is a great argument tactic. You can say about anything you want and then redefine it later.
NAG - I was not being vague.
In an earlier post I specifically had stated that there were evolutionists who were in fact christian, and I stated it plainly and clearly.
Schnicky chose to interpret a later statement in a way not intended because he wants a semantics fight. But I had earlier made it plainly clear that I do not believe all evolutionists are athiests - how less vague could I be?
If you want - I'll dig up that post and quote it.
In her right hand Jenny held the Bible of her mother
Jenny had a pistol in the other
-- Steve Taylor
Offline
#228 2005-08-11 1:38 am
- Chickenhawk
- Snark Snark Snark Snark
- From: Being Snarky
- Registered: 2005-06-01
- Posts: 5821
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
You sure make it seem as if we're all against ID because we hate god.
All I know is my god can beat up yer's.
(Oh wait..Judeo god and christian god are the same.....crap.) 
The recent medical controversy over whether vaccinations cause autism reveals a habit of human cognition—thinking anecdotally comes naturally, whereas thinking scientifically does not. -- Michael Shermer
Offline
#229 2005-08-11 1:44 am
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
Chickenhawk wrote:
You sure make it seem as if we're all against ID because we hate god.
All I know is my god can beat up yer's.
(Oh wait..Judeo god and christian god are the same.....crap.)
Many are against ID because they hate God.
The circle jerk bias for the poorly written article at talkorigins points that out.
If it is an ID link - it gets scrutinized till hell freezes over. But if it says what they want to hear - no scrutiny is necessary, because it is what they want to hear. The article clearly was not well done.
If they did not loathe God, then whether evolution or ID was used would not be so important to them as to circle jerk around a piss poor article. Instead, they would hold it to the same standards by which they hold ID articles. That was not the case.
Perhaps I came to the wrong conclusion, can you offer a better one?
In her right hand Jenny held the Bible of her mother
Jenny had a pistol in the other
-- Steve Taylor
Offline
#230 2005-08-11 1:48 am
- Chickenhawk
- Snark Snark Snark Snark
- From: Being Snarky
- Registered: 2005-06-01
- Posts: 5821
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
Or, perhaps scientists hate ID so much because it hurts science. It has nothing to do with religion. Its that its challenging the entire scientific method. And I still don't see why that talk orgins article was so poor.
The recent medical controversy over whether vaccinations cause autism reveals a habit of human cognition—thinking anecdotally comes naturally, whereas thinking scientifically does not. -- Michael Shermer
Offline
#231 2005-08-11 1:53 am
- mo' ron
- PS3 4 EVA
- From: NC, USA
- Registered: 2002-10-15
- Posts: 14246
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
resedit wrote:
Chickenhawk wrote:
You sure make it seem as if we're all against ID because we hate god.
All I know is my god can beat up yer's.
(Oh wait..Judeo god and christian god are the same.....crap.)Many are against ID because they hate God.
The general idea of ID is not all that crazy.
It's the more media-friendly YEC's idea of ID that gets duly mocked, for being looney.
What is the difference between Vista and OSX?
- Microsoft employees are excited about OSX.
Offline
#232 2005-08-11 1:59 am
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
Chickenhawk wrote:
Or, perhaps scientists hate ID so much because it hurts science.
How does it hurt science?
I hear that said a lot, but I have seen nothing of the sort.
If anything, I have seen science benefit - ID points out flaws in textbooks that have been teaching what science knows to be false for decades - thus resulting in the eventual removal of the bad information from textbooks. How is that bad for science? Is it good for textbook authors to be lazy and not check their facts?
It has nothing to do with religion. Its that its challenging the entire scientific method. And I still don't see why that talk orgins article was so poor.
It is poor because he mis-represented what he was arguing against, and argued against his own mis-representation of the ID theories. Furthermore, he then used proofs that are in fact challenged in legitimate ways - like the Greenland ice layers, which make an assumption that would not be the case had there been a catastrophic world wide flood.
In her right hand Jenny held the Bible of her mother
Jenny had a pistol in the other
-- Steve Taylor
Offline
#233 2005-08-11 3:23 am
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
resedit wrote:
Chickenhawk wrote:
You sure make it seem as if we're all against ID because we hate god.
All I know is my god can beat up yer's.
(Oh wait..Judeo god and christian god are the same.....crap.)Many are against ID because they hate God.
Most are against ID because they hate irrational extremism.
resedit wrote:
The circle jerk bias for the poorly written article at talkorigins points that out.
If it is an ID link - it gets scrutinized till hell freezes over. But if it says what they want to hear - no scrutiny is necessary, because it is what they want to hear. The article clearly was not well done.
Why don't you CLEARLY tell us why? Did it not follow essay format, or was it lacking in topic sentences? Bad meter?
resedit wrote:
If they did not loathe God, then whether evolution or ID was used would not be so important to them as to circle jerk around a piss poor article. Instead, they would hold it to the same standards by which they hold ID articles. That was not the case.
Perhaps I came to the wrong conclusion, can you offer a better one?
It does not follow that anyone would act this way because they loathe God. I offer this conclusion: Resedit sees a world full of wicked dirty-birdies who persecute the righteous and in order to satisfy his altruistic ego, its easier to condemn these wayward sinners as Loathers of God than to admit there may be any dull edges to his sword of truth.
EDIT: and for the record, resedit NEVER SAID you must be an atheist to believe evolution. What he said was that you must believe evolution in order to be an atheist. Which is just as idiotic.
Last edited by Metacell (2005-08-11 3:26 am)
Ho Eyo He Hum
Offline
#234 2005-08-11 4:19 am
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
Why don't you CLEARLY tell us why? Did it not follow essay format, or was it lacking in topic sentences? Bad meter?
It represented hydroplate as suggesting rock was floating on top of water, and thus since granite is heavier than water, the water would have come to top. But that is NOT what hydroplate says - hydroplate says there are (er, were) granite pillars supporting the granite crust - with inter-connecting chambers. As such the rock would not "sink" early on, it is supported by granite pillars and not water.
If he had spent five minutes looking at hydroplate theory he would have seen that. Thus, he either is arguing out of complete ignorance - or is being intentionally deceptive. In either case, it completely ruins the credibility of the page.
In her right hand Jenny held the Bible of her mother
Jenny had a pistol in the other
-- Steve Taylor
Offline
#235 2005-08-11 5:38 am
- jerwin
- Sophist
- From: The Garden of Pure Ideology
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 7055
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
resedit wrote:
mo' ron wrote:
and plenty of scientist, while not exactly Christian, are of the belief that some intelligences may have guided the processes of the universe.
Can you name one who is an athiest?
Possibly Fred Hoyle.
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
#236 2005-08-11 9:28 am
- jerwin
- Sophist
- From: The Garden of Pure Ideology
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 7055
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
resedit wrote:
While not the form you are looking for, here is an interesting quote:
I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
Also from that link
It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.
It seems that the hand of god can be detected through ordinary scientific experimentation.
[url=http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=534711]Rapha
Last edited by jerwin (2005-08-11 9:29 am)
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
#237 2005-08-11 10:11 am
- Pariah
- James Carville Fan..
- From: Belly Of The Beast, Oklahoma!
- Registered: 2001-05-24
- Posts: 18402
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
jerwin wrote:
resedit wrote:
While not the form you are looking for, here is an interesting quote:
I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
Also from that link
It is a scientifically verifiable fact that a random chance process, which forms a chiral product, can only be a 50/50 mixture of the two optical isomers. There are no exceptions. Chirality is a property that only a few scientists would even recognize as a problem. The fact that chirality was missing in those amino acids is not just a problem to be debated, it points to a catastrophic failure that "life" cannot come from chemicals by natural processes.
It seems that the hand of god can be detected through ordinary scientific experimentation.
[url=http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=534711]Rapha
"and it's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
Barack Obama
Offline
#238 2005-08-11 10:20 am
- Hank Rearden
- Watch your step
- From: Republic of Western Canada
- Registered: 2001-04-18
- Posts: 7044
- Website
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
resedit wrote:
If you are going to require that from ID - then would it also be fair to require the same from evolutionists, rather than links to places like talkorigins?
You might want to start here:
http://evol.allenpress.com/evolonline/? … index-html
Admittedly, you probably can't access many of the articles (though, you might be amazed at the wonders of Google Scholar). But, you can at least see abstracts and go from there. And, presumably, you have a library nearby that you can browse through (university library, of course...your average public library only has books on knitting and kite building)
resedit wrote:
I aske because "independent" dating methods that allegedly agree, very often are not so independent when you look at them - tree ring matching is adjusted to fit, the ice layers in greenland is another one - they went back when they didn't match and "found the missing years" in one method, etc. - indicating they aren't so independent, yet they often are presented as independent by places like talkorigins etc.
Most attempts at dating something rely on several different methods. There are methods ranging from radioisotopes to optical qualities of mineral crystals to "molecular clocks" and tons of others. Usually something is "dated" by several methods. Each method has a range of error. Results are reported for each, and any conclusions are drawn from from the ranges recovered.
Historical science, rather than empirical science, is much like a court case. You might never know exactly what happened, but if you interrogate the witnesses well, you can get a very good idea of the most likely scenario.
See, for example, this review:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/cgi- … 3/ABSTRACT
The gross heathenism of civilization has generally destroyed nature, and poetry, and all that is spiritual. -John Muir-
Offline
#239 2005-08-11 10:23 am
- Hank Rearden
- Watch your step
- From: Republic of Western Canada
- Registered: 2001-04-18
- Posts: 7044
- Website
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
jerwin wrote:
[url=http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=534711]Rapha
The gross heathenism of civilization has generally destroyed nature, and poetry, and all that is spiritual. -John Muir-
Offline
#240 2005-08-11 1:10 pm
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
Hank Rearden wrote:
jerwin wrote:
[url=http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=534711]Rapha
In her right hand Jenny held the Bible of her mother
Jenny had a pistol in the other
-- Steve TaylorOffline
#241 2005-08-11 1:11 pm
- Hank Rearden
- Watch your step
- From: Republic of Western Canada
- Registered: 2001-04-18
- Posts: 7044
- Website
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
resedit wrote:
I'll send them the link and see if they respond.
I'd actually be interested in what they say/do. Let us know.
The gross heathenism of civilization has generally destroyed nature, and poetry, and all that is spiritual. -John Muir-
Offline
#242 2005-08-11 5:16 pm
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
resedit wrote:
While not the form you are looking for, here is an interesting quote:
I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
I'm not a chemist, but I don't have to be one to know that this argument is just the old shag, which came first, the chicken or the egg. The paper's author keeps repeating himself, but the knowledge he knows is just that: The knowledge he knows. The DNA helix is 'recent' news. Why does he think that it's impossible to 'discover' how the L hand and the R hand came to be? It may be 'faith' to think that the answer exists, but it's more probable than ID will ever be scientifically acceptable.
All I can say is that this guy wants to believe in a god as the master planner. OK, go ahead and believe. Nobody cares. Say it and get it over with -- unless there is some driving 'need' to keep saying it in order to believe it's really true!
Here's one for you: If god is the master planner, who/what made or formulated god? It's like seeing a bank of multiple mirrors reflected in the mirror one is looking into. What one sees is the self looking back at multiple reflections. We've seen this effect in every fun house at an amusement park. Still, there are only 2 mirrors and 1 self. It's simple, but 'looks' complicated.
I recommend anyone who is interested in this puzzle to check out the 'Strings' theory and how it came about. One might be talking about chirality instead of the source of the universe, because according to this 'new' theory, Strings is the 'stuff' of everything. It's proved mathematically, now all we have to do is 'see' it. After that, the real questions begin: How does it work to do what it does?
Same with res. He 'wants' to believe in god. He says he's sure, but is he? I wonder. No one can be absolutely sure. It's pure bravado to say so. It's certain that a lot of people think they have been abducted by UFO aliens. Yet, no proof has been offered other than hearsay and unconfirmed photos.
No. Science is not perfect. It doesn't even pretend to be. But, it's the closest we have to a method to find out. On the other hand, ID claims perfection, but can only offer hearsay.
You have a right to your own opinion. You do not have a right to your own facts -
Offline
#243 2005-08-11 5:27 pm
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
jerwin wrote:
It seems that the hand of god can be detected through ordinary scientific experimentation.
[url=http://www.pubmedcentral.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=534711]Rapha
You have a right to your own opinion. You do not have a right to your own facts -
Offline
#244 2005-08-11 5:34 pm
- jerwin
- Sophist
- From: The Garden of Pure Ideology
- Registered: 2003-01-01
- Posts: 7055
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
www.pubmedcentral.org, for one. The articles are free.
Some subjects actually enjoy pain, and withhold information they might otherwise have divulged in order to be punished.
Central Intelligence Agency. (1983). Human Resource Exploitation Training Manual
Offline
#245 2005-08-11 8:19 pm
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
Sassy wrote:
resedit wrote:
While not the form you are looking for, here is an interesting quote:
I find it interesting that when creationists start talking about God's supernatural creation, evolutionists usually counter by saying that everything must be explained by natural science and divine intervention is not science. I find this remark extremely amusing. When we show them that the laws of natural science cannot explain the existence of chirality, evolutionists say that the process happened a long time ago by some unknown method that they cannot explain. Now who's relying on a supernatural explanation? Although they would never call it divine intervention, they certainly are relying on faith and not on scientific facts. Evolution just hopes you don't know chemistry.
I'm not a chemist, but I don't have to be one to know that this argument is just the old shag, which came first, the chicken or the egg. The paper's author keeps repeating himself, but the knowledge he knows is just that: The knowledge he knows. The DNA helix is 'recent' news. Why does he think that it's impossible to 'discover' how the L hand and the R hand came to be? It may be 'faith' to think that the answer exists, but it's more probable than ID will ever be scientifically acceptable.
All I can say is that this guy wants to believe in a god as the master planner. OK, go ahead and believe. Nobody cares.
I care.
Just like I want what is known to be incorrect taken out of textbooks, if in fact his article is factually wrong - it needs to be remedied. If I get a response from ICR I will post it, but probably in a new thread. My experience is that inquiries usually take a couple weeks to get a response from them - but since this is in inquiry that probably needs to be answered by the author of the article himself, it may take longer. I don't know.
In her right hand Jenny held the Bible of her mother
Jenny had a pistol in the other
-- Steve Taylor
Offline
#246 2005-08-11 9:23 pm
- brendave
- Rankin and Rockin like Roger
- From: Valparaiso, IN
- Registered: 2005-01-10
- Posts: 1422
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
resedit wrote:
Sassy wrote:
resedit wrote:
While not the form you are looking for, here is an interesting quote:
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=art … amp;ID=105I'm not a chemist, but I don't have to be one to know that this argument is just the old shag, which came first, the chicken or the egg. The paper's author keeps repeating himself, but the knowledge he knows is just that: The knowledge he knows. The DNA helix is 'recent' news. Why does he think that it's impossible to 'discover' how the L hand and the R hand came to be? It may be 'faith' to think that the answer exists, but it's more probable than ID will ever be scientifically acceptable.
All I can say is that this guy wants to believe in a god as the master planner. OK, go ahead and believe. Nobody cares.I care.
Just like I want what is known to be incorrect taken out of textbooks, if in fact his article is factually wrong - it needs to be remedied. If I get a response from ICR I will post it, but probably in a new thread. My experience is that inquiries usually take a couple weeks to get a response from them - but since this is in inquiry that probably needs to be answered by the author of the article himself, it may take longer. I don't know.
ID is not exclusive to the creationist belief. I, as a believer in evolution, do not see how believing in the current accepted theories negates the existence of a god. It is possible that the creation of man had to take longer than man could imagine through evolution. Can I say ID through evolution? Let the posts spread.
Offline
#247 2005-08-11 9:58 pm
- Chickenhawk
- Snark Snark Snark Snark
- From: Being Snarky
- Registered: 2005-06-01
- Posts: 5821
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
brendave wrote:
Can I say ID through evolution? Let the posts spread.
I have no problem with that. More plausible than the ID theories res has been spitting out. At least it doesn't lay waste to three fields of science.
Last edited by Chickenhawk (2005-08-11 9:59 pm)
The recent medical controversy over whether vaccinations cause autism reveals a habit of human cognition—thinking anecdotally comes naturally, whereas thinking scientifically does not. -- Michael Shermer
Offline
#248 2005-08-11 10:20 pm
- cocoamix
- Member
- Registered: 2001-03-01
- Posts: 7471
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
After 10 pages...
Jingoism - Extreme and emotional nationalism, or chauvinism, often characterized by an aggressive foreign policy, accompanied by an eagerness to wage war.
Offline
#249 2005-08-12 4:09 am
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
Chickenhawk wrote:
brendave wrote:
Can I say ID through evolution? Let the posts spread.
I have no problem with that. More plausible than the ID theories res has been spitting out. At least it doesn't lay waste to three fields of science.
Like it or not there are qualified scientists in those fields who see a young earth with intelligent design behind it. They may not have the popular view, but they are qualified.
In her right hand Jenny held the Bible of her mother
Jenny had a pistol in the other
-- Steve Taylor
Offline
#250 2005-08-12 7:36 am
- cbaines
- zzzzzap!
- From: Shreveport, La.
- Registered: 2004-08-08
- Posts: 102
Re: Intelligent Design & Neocon Politics
There is evidence of "ID" everywhere.. like this slick Powerbook I'm pecking on.. got to be one of the most ID's I've seen. Even so, its about a billion times more primitive an ID than our body systems. So if there has been all these billions of years of chance co-mingling of silicon, aluminum, and such.. how come I can't go dig up a Powerbook or pick one off a Apple bush.. and save all the money I put out for this little guy? 
... just trying to maintain..
Offline
