Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1234512 ... LastLast
Results 17 to 32 of 211

Thread: Intelligent Design / Evolution podcast

  1. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,085
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    The point of view from proponents of ID might be; "if the Big Bang, which is simply a theory is shoved down people's throats - then why shouldn't this be mentioned as an alternative?".
    To an extent I agree with that, but I wouldn't put it in the classroom as it won't help anyone. If you have an open mind in the first place you'll take things from all points of view, so...

    Anyhow, my 2p.

  2. #18
    Hexus.Jet TeePee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gallup, NM
    Posts
    5,373
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked
    758 times in 447 posts
    My arguement isn't to stop you from having religious beliefs. As I've said, you can believe whatever you like. Firebar, since I haven't seen you post on a previous ID thread, I'll explain. The Big Bang, right or wrong, is a scientific theory. Alternative scientific theories are and should be taught in science lessons. ID is not a scientific theory, and so has no place being taught in science lessons.

  3. #19
    Goron goron Kumagoro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    3,154
    Thanks
    38
    Thanked
    172 times in 140 posts
    Did you know that all it takes to become a prof in the US is to get a teaching job in a uni.
    Not all profs are equal.

    ID is not a scientfic theory.

  4. #20
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,085
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    The Big Bang, right or wrong, is a scientific theory. Alternative scientific theories are and should be taught in science lessons. ID is not a scientific theory, and so has no place being taught in science lessons.
    I know that, I wasn't saying otherwise. Hence my stance on keeping it out of the classroom.
    I'm meerly commenting and perhaps bringing a neutral voice in to look into both sides of the argument.
    This thread has gone off topic a little I think

  5. #21
    unapologetic apologist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,954
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked
    274 times in 145 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TeePee
    ID is not a scientific theory, and so has no place being taught in science lessons.
    show me. show me how these speakers on the podcast are not scientific in their methods, their hypotheses, their logic. go on.

  6. #22
    unapologetic apologist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,954
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked
    274 times in 145 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Kumagoro
    ID is not a scientfic theory.
    you can show me too. show me how these speakers on the podcast are not scientific in their methods, their hypotheses, their logic.

    show me how the deduction that it is scientifically RATIONAL to believe that something beyond mere chance is responsible for life, and all the phenomena these scientists observe, is irrational.

  7. #23
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    1,085
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked
    2 times in 2 posts
    I think the point is that it can be made scientific if you read into it that way, but for most people materialistic methods are required. There is a lot of stuff God has done which can't be proven through materialistic physical means, or means by which people WANT. It's such a tricky subject

    The problem being is that most people don't want to believe, and hence will go ape trying to push anything like this away. Don't dwell on it too much, whats the point in arguing about it? it doesn't achieve anything.

  8. #24
    unapologetic apologist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,954
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked
    274 times in 145 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Firebar
    The problem being is that most people don't want to believe, and hence will go ape trying to push anything like this away. Don't dwell on it too much, whats the point in arguing about it? it doesn't achieve anything.
    I like the pun

    no argument, agreed. My purpose in the original post was, ultimately, to share that resource with whoever was unaware of the podcast.

    I knew debate would arise as a consequence, as it usually does, but that was not enough reason to avoid posting the linkage


  9. #25
    Hexus.Jet TeePee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gallup, NM
    Posts
    5,373
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked
    758 times in 447 posts
    Quote, er, ME:

    Science is based on the laws of nature. If something breaks those laws, the scientific method is to look for new laws. To rely on a supernatural explanation (as in ID) is to pre-judge that such laws do not exist. Since it is the very business of science to look for laws of nature, giving up and saying something is supernatural means giving up science.

    If the people in the podcast are saying unexplained phenomena have a supernatural cause, they are not scientists.

  10. #26
    Hexus.Jet TeePee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gallup, NM
    Posts
    5,373
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked
    758 times in 447 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by fuddam
    show me how the deduction that it is scientifically RATIONAL to believe that something beyond mere chance is responsible for life, and all the phenomena these scientists observe, is irrational.
    Which theory says it's chance again? I know it's not evolution...

  11. #27
    unapologetic apologist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,954
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked
    274 times in 145 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TeePee
    Which theory says it's chance again? I know it's not evolution...
    um, life on the planet? any kind of life - the first life forms. the planet forming in just the right circumstances to provide the chance for life to develop.

    go back a step.

    as has been attempted many times, scientists have thrown everything they know of, into a cauldron (so to speak), in an attempt to replicate the first life forms, and failed. Can't argue about life being seeded from another planet - same problem.

    is all about random chance.

  12. #28
    unapologetic apologist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,954
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked
    274 times in 145 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TeePee
    Quote, er, ME:

    Science is based on the laws of nature. If something breaks those laws, the scientific method is to look for new laws. To rely on a supernatural explanation (as in ID) is to pre-judge that such laws do not exist. Since it is the very business of science to look for laws of nature, giving up and saying something is supernatural means giving up science.

    If the people in the podcast are saying unexplained phenomena have a supernatural cause, they are not scientists.
    yes, as you say, you're quoting yourself. Awesomely authoritatative source.

    I asked you to quote those scientists, or illustrate their failure of logic. Again you avoid investigating that which has been thrust under your virtual nose by reverting to the tired arguments.

    you are attempting to refute MY arguments instead of theirs. I already know what you think of mine, and of me. I want to hear you argue someone with a tad more knowledge and scientific rigour.
    Last edited by fuddam; 27-03-2006 at 04:38 PM.

  13. #29
    Hexus.Jet TeePee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gallup, NM
    Posts
    5,373
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked
    758 times in 447 posts
    And you think that's chance? I'd say it was inevitable.

    How many stars are in the sky? How many have planets? How many have planets at the right temperatures? How many have the right amino acids floating around?

    Nasa say the answer is uncountable, but if you start with the 200 billion stars in our galaxy, then work your way through the 80 or so other galaxies, you end up with a statistical certainty.

    You say scientists have tried everything they know of, but you can't assume they've tried everything they'll ever know.

  14. #30
    Hexus.Jet TeePee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Gallup, NM
    Posts
    5,373
    Thanks
    134
    Thanked
    758 times in 447 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by fuddam
    yes, as you say, you're quoting yourself. Awesomely authoritatative source.
    It's a basic logical arguement. I'm the definative source of my own logical arguement. No-one is better qualified to state my arguement! Which part do you have a problem with?

    I don't need to quote these 'scientists' to show the failing of ID.

  15. #31
    unapologetic apologist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,954
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked
    274 times in 145 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TeePee
    And you think that's chance? I'd say it was inevitable.
    why? could be just as reasonable to posit that the circumstances will never be right.

    How many stars are in the sky? How many have planets? How many have planets at the right temperatures? How many have the right amino acids floating around?

    Nasa say the answer is uncountable, but if you start with the 200 billion stars in our galaxy, then work your way through the 80 or so other galaxies, you end up with a statistical certainty.
    ok, so you're quoting statistics? GOOD! Because then we have common ground. Those scientists know a little more about the figures involved than you or I, a little more about probability, and they are saying the chance of it all coming together in such perfect sync, across all fields / spheres / planes, is so incredibly fantastically remote, that it requires a ludicrous FAITH in chance..........

    You say scientists have tried everything they know of, but you can't assume they've tried everything they'll ever know.
    agree totally. Maybe one day they'll be able to create life in that bubble. Have no problem with that. So far they have failed, and that was in spite of human intervention, ie consciously creating the most creditable cirumstances, deliberately, humanly. To simply appeal to chance is a massive copout. Is like saying it's inevitable those infinite monkeys will write all the works of Shakespeare (the internet has definitely put paid to that idea).

    you could reply that infinite monkeys + infinite time = 100% they will create Shakespeare. well, you can say that all you want. It does not have any scientific credibility, just speculation.

  16. #32
    unapologetic apologist
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    1,954
    Thanks
    363
    Thanked
    274 times in 145 posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TeePee
    I don't need to quote these 'scientists' to show the failing of ID.
    well, maybe you don't understand how they view ID, n'est pas? your (limited) understanding is not necessarily shared by them.

    all you're doing is refuting your perception of a concept.

Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 1234512 ... LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Intelligent Design
    By Rave in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: 19-01-2006, 01:28 AM
  2. 2005 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution MIEV
    By |{££|" in forum Automotive
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: 13-11-2005, 01:48 AM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 19-10-2005, 11:49 PM
  4. Evolution question.
    By Galant in forum General Discussion
    Replies: 22
    Last Post: 10-09-2004, 10:18 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •