Forums | MacLife

ID is already taught in any competent philosophy class. It's just that it doesn't involve all the "literal interpretation of the Bible" stuff which has no place in the class anyway.

The teleological argument (or argument to design) is a pretty standard philosophical idea (just Google 'William Paley' and look for stuff about a watch). The problem is that ID in it's current guise is a bastardisation of this idea.

JakeTheTall wrote:

Can I teach that the world is flat, and supported by an infinite stack of giant turtles, in that philosophy class, too ?

Sure - I don't see why not.

Chickenhawk wrote:

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

Cuz you know, Newton's Laws of motion weren't accepted as fact until just recently.

Newtons laws of motion could be tested.

What do you call the fossil record?

Dead animals rapidly burried during a catastrophic event told of in just about every culture on the planet - a worldwide flood.

Lies! All Lies told by Satan to turn us away from the truth!

Sassy wrote:

res, are your politics Neocon?

Mostly - but like any group out there, it is hard to find anyone who agrees with everything in the group they generally are associated with.

Most of the time I agree with Rush and Sean and Mike - often considered the neocon radio trio.
So yeah - I guess that would make me neocon.

Once you get past anne coulters taunting of the liberals, a lot of what she says I think is right on as well. The taunting of the liberals is a game she plays specifically to piss the liberals off, which has two effects -

1) It gets her free publicity and helps sell her books
2) when she does speak with liberals, they are often so pissed off they fumble all over the place.

No, it is not a very nice debating tactic - but once you get passed that, a lot of her points are (imho) really good.

Mike Reagan is my favorite of the group to listen to.
And no, when I listen to them, I'm not looking for unbiased news. I get that from ABC radio (mostly AP)

Last edited by resedit (2005-08-07 8:15 pm)

brendave wrote:

resedit wrote:

Chickenhawk wrote:

What do you call the fossil record?

Dead animals rapidly burried during a catastrophic event told of in just about every culture on the planet - a worldwide flood.

What happened to all the water?

It's still there - in the oceans.
I don't think the mountains were as tall as they are now.

Look at the mid-atlantic ridge, and how vast majority of mountain ranges are parallel to it. The continents all fit around it. During (possibly cause of) the flood, the midoceanic ridge ripped apart what was a single continent. The mountain ranges are the result of accordion like compression as the continents slowed down - you can even see this accordion like compression in the bending of rocks that make up the mountains.

resedit wrote:

brendave wrote:

resedit wrote:

Dead animals rapidly burried during a catastrophic event told of in just about every culture on the planet - a worldwide flood.

What happened to all the water?

It's still there - in the oceans.
I don't think the mountains were as tall as they are now.

Look at the mid-atlantic ridge, and how vast majority of mountain ranges are parallel to it. The continents all fit around it. During (possibly cause of) the flood, the midoceanic ridge ripped apart what was a single continent. The mountain ranges are the result of accordion like compression as the continents slowed down - you can even see this accordion like compression in the bending of rocks that make up the mountains.

See, anyone can make up garbage to explain their own opinion on something.

Is there any evidence that the midoceanic ridge ripped apart what was a single continent in the recent past? smurf no. Maybe tens of millions of years ago. Oh but wait, but geologists are part of the scam you see, everything that is known about rocks and sedementry dating and the like are all false as well. Plate tectonics are real though, because they are convienient for you to use in this stupid little example of yours. Mountains wern't as tall then? Sure, why the smurf not, you can't believe those lying geologists anyway.

Is there any evidence of some huge worldwide catostophic flood, which would require another oceans worth of water? No. For something like that to work you have to be rediculously selective about your science. Wouldn't a worldwide flood lower the saline content of oceans, and raise the saline content of lakes, killing animals there? How do ground animals surivive? Oh right, some incredible ark that is capable of holding all the animal species on the planet (millions of them), inlcuding everything from elephants to black widow spiders to polar bears. Oh, and you'd need all terrestrial plant species as well. How do you keep animals in such an environemnt? Oh, some sort of hybernation. What kind of hybernation? Who cares! We can make up whatever we want to fit our story, we can't lose!


Ok, quite the rant.

[Tycho?] wrote:

resedit wrote:

brendave wrote:

What happened to all the water?

It's still there - in the oceans.
I don't think the mountains were as tall as they are now.

Look at the mid-atlantic ridge, and how vast majority of mountain ranges are parallel to it. The continents all fit around it. During (possibly cause of) the flood, the midoceanic ridge ripped apart what was a single continent. The mountain ranges are the result of accordion like compression as the continents slowed down - you can even see this accordion like compression in the bending of rocks that make up the mountains.

See, anyone can make up garbage to explain their own opinion on something.

Is there any evidence that the midoceanic ridge ripped apart what was a single continent in the recent past? smurf no.

Actually there is - the mountains for one - and secondly, the continents all fit together around it - very nicely.

Secondly - the person who came up with hydroplate theory did things the right way. He made predictions of what we should find if his theory is correct - things that other theories don't explain, and he has had many hits. These predictions are documented before the finds were made, too.

resedit wrote:

Once you get past anne coulters taunting of the liberals, a lot of what she says I think is right on as well. The taunting of the liberals is a game she plays specifically to piss the liberals off, which has two effects -

1) It gets her free publicity and helps sell her books
2) when she does speak with liberals, they are often so pissed off they fumble all over the place.

No, it is not a very nice debating tactic - but once you get passed that, a lot of her points are (imho) really good.

Wow, support for Ms. Coulter.  How about, its all about item one ?

At least with Mister Hannity and the others, there's SOME intellectual honesty.  Ms. Coulter is so rabidly anti-left, and so many of her statements are undefendable...and it can't be played off as "just a joke" or "done to get a reaction."

I don't think people get it when they say out loud "merely a flood".

Wasn't any small rising of water as a result of rain. "Fountains of the Deep" busting open and whatnot, climate change... rather significant.

So drastic in fact that it could not have happened and left the planet as it is.

Sure it could have.

The amount of force on the "thin layer of water" under the continent would have shot up as vapor (not liquid) and would be moving so fast that it would escape the atmosphere, let alone cooking the earth on it's way up.

Hydroplate theory actually suggests that comets are the result of this. I don't know, but yes - a lot of water did escape.

Brown tries too hard to make the model fit the Bible and thus completely misses the boat on everything.

Yet his predictions have a knack of being correct.

Jaligard wrote:

resedit wrote:

So drastic in fact that it could not have happened and left the planet as it is.

Sure it could have.

NICE come back.

Thanks.