Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- Anarchitect0
hopefully
ID will not become
american as
american pie.
- JazX0
ahh here's what I was talking about flagellum/discipler:
The Lewis Overthrust Fiasco
One of the famous examples is the so-called Lewis Overthrust in Glacier Park, Montana. The Lewis Overthrust — a block of rock that is supposed to have been thrust up and out over the shale deposit beneath it — is about 35 miles wide and 6 miles thick. According to uniformitarian evolutionists and their geologists, this massive formation has ridden over the shale deposit below it for a distance of about 40 miles. The problem for evolutionists is very simple. This enormous mass of rock is so-called Pre-Cambrian limestone that according to them, is supposed to be about 500,000,000 years older than the rock on which it rests, which is a very thin layer of so-called Cretaceous shale. In an effort to avoid the obvious negating of their arbitrary dating theories, they have come up with this idea. But anyone with dull normal intelligence and no education at all could stand and look at this phenomena and see the utter ridiculousness of it. How could eight hundred thousand billion tons of rock slide over a thin layer of soft shale for great distances without entirely obliterating the shale layer?
----
I can't explain this one.
- Mimio0
No Discipler, it's more like the ID people say "look!, it's science", and the vast majority of the world scientific community saying "no, it's not."
- flagellum0
Tick, if ID is not science then neither is Archaeology, or any other field where one discriminates between Specified Complexity and random natural mechanisms. It's that simple. Shouting "it's not science!" doesn't change the fact that it is. But if you choose to side with political propagandists instead of openly looking at the facts... have it your way. I've asked you in this thread to tell me exactly how the core tenets of ID are religion and not science and you didn't even touch it. We both know why.
Only part of this thread is about Philosophy. ;)
- balboa0
Don't be ridiculous, EVERYONE agrees that it's blue-green.
;)
- JazX0
I thought this thread was about whether or not the Chicken came before the Egg!?!?
drats!!
- TheTick0
When scientists argue it can get heated, heck, even personal, but ultimately one is proved correct and the other eats crow, and bad feelings are brushed over. No one ever went to war over a theory of gravity or plank's constant.
People have taken lives, alienated people, committed atrocities, lied, gone to war, tortured, manipulated and controlled people all in the name of God for millenia.
I know what side I'm on. I think I have a good idea of where some others on this thread either are or are arguing for without thinking out the complications.
And yes, this thread IS about philosophy, because ID is not science.
I'd rather argue whether Aqua is more blue-green than green-blue.
- balboa0
My point is let's not get tied up in winning the battle at the sake of the war. Sometimes embracing alternative or INDIRECT approaches is the best way to deal with an opponent that has only one way of engaging.
We don't have to play by the same rules.
Come to think of it, we don't have to play at all.
I'm sure that flagellum is secretly rubbing his little hands (vestigial limbs?) together in glee at having spun 20 or so of you into a huge existential hissy-fit. Stirring it up is the sole point. Raising a ruckus and then squealing with delight that your theory has as much cultural mass as the prevailing one is what it's all about.
As semi-intelligent designers, we should have seen this trick coming from miles away. Hype works through it's sheer persistence, and even we occasionally buy it -- hook, line and sinker.
Misdirection is the strategy. Watch what the other hand is doing.
- mrdobolina0
Can anything ever really be "irreducibly complex" or is it just the limited intelligence that humans have at any given time.
- JazX0
absolutely! ;)
smart man he is
- Anarchitect0
you're excellent.
@ copy.pasting William Rapsberry's 'Our Civil Disagreement'.
- JazX0
Can it be that trying to see the other guy's side simply takes too much of our time and energy? Sometimes I suspect that the desire to savage rather than convince an opponent stems from the nagging suspicion that just maybe we are on the wrong side of the logic. I mean, if you are convinced that your position is the correct one, why wouldn't you want to examine it and explain it in a way that might win a convert or two?
- mrdobolina0
I am sorry I am not a scientist, I cant debate against discipler in scientific terms about something that he has obviously studied incredibly, right or wrong.
But dont get it twisted, this debate is all about god.
Discipler believes that the christian god is the designer. He has stated this in the past when I asked him and now he dances around it ALWAYS.
God is the elephant in the room that he never talks about anymore because it messes up his argument. He has learned this from past debates on this subject.
He talks about science incessantly, but then brings up things like the "uncaused-cause". Please explain to me the scientific basis of the uncaused cause.
ID is the trojan horse to inject religion into the public schools. This is why religious leaders are behind this.
- JazX0
If you are having an argument with some "enemy", try to reword his position in a way that would make it at least palatable to you. Then invite him to do the same thing with your position. You won't appreciate the dispute-melting magic in that until you try it a few times.
The trouble, of course, is that such an approach is unlikely to produce winners and losers, and we've come to think that producing winners and losers is the essence not just of politics but also of life.
- JazX0
No, balboa, the answer is to directly... DIRECTLY respond to the scientific arguments. Something absent from these debates. Instead, I hear propaganda and emotional rhetoric.
flagellum
(Jan 6 06, 11:28)I'm going to have to agree with flagellum here. There is very little science in these threads and mostly philosophical jargon. I don't care for that talk. Just pounce in when something interesting get's spewed out that's factual or at least somewhat factual.
- flagellum0
No, balboa, the answer is to directly... DIRECTLY respond to the scientific arguments. Something absent from these debates. Instead, I hear propaganda and emotional rhetoric.
- balboa0
TheTick: Well put and I totally agree with you.
But let's not get sucked into the trap of our repeated defense validating the attacker's assertions.
Escalation is not necessarily the answer, no matter how passionate we are about our POV.
Ignorance is not the answer either. I'm just advocating moderation and the pitfalls of philosophical jiu-jitsu.
- JazX0
You may well imagine that we will at some times differ. But it is because of your clear and cogent explanations of your viewpoints that I am able to understand why some people hold opinions and values different from my own, and how their experiences have produced what seems to them reasonable beliefs.
Because you do this, and do not simply rant at me... I can appreciate and understand and respect those ideas, even when I do not agree with them. And it does happen, rather often actually, that you convince me that I don't know what I am talking about and that yours is the correct understanding.
- flagellum0
well jazX, people are more concerned about their egos and what makes them "feel" intellectual, rather than following the evidence even if it makes them feel uncomfortable or challenges something they've held on to for so long.
- flagellum0
The Tick speaks of enlightment, but refuses to look at where the last 30 years of scientific discovery has been pointing. I call this sticking one's head in the sand. He is stuck in a caricature of history and what he thinks science is. He opts for what makes him feel comfortable rather than what the evidence shows. I couldn't sleep at night if I took this approach to life.