Intelligent design
- Started
- Last post
- 690 Responses
- version30
discipler has never given anything to this community, never said shit in threads non religion based, just yesterday, i reagrranged all the photos for the ps battles Ive kept, helped someone with some html and gave away about 15 pieces of clipart to somone in a rush, got things figured with shilohous to host all of his type connct at pixeltwins as well as my personal and professional needs. hell i got engaged on this site not 30 minutes ago but 9 months fucking later discipler is still telling me that his imaginary friend is my reason for being. i want to beat the shit out of his hypocritical face. so if anyone sees him in any other type of thread please let me know until then i will make it a ppoint to put this bible thumping sheep in his place.
discipler, shut the fuck up!
love,
the regular users of this site that hate that religion is brought here top be discussed and QBN doesn't delete them anymore liek they used to
- Mimio0
I know ID can't scientifically identify the "Designer" it says is(or was) at work on biological systems. That's one of my criticisms of it, the theory is not really rooted in science, since it hides it fundamental mechanisms.
- -sputnik-0
and your body is full of Thetans, but you can only know they're there if you believe enough.
i'm out...this is simply too silly.
- discipler0
I disagree, Mimio. How can you argue that the observance of Specified Complexity in biological systems, is not science? You're going to have to throw out Archaeology too.
- discipler0
Here's some more spooky "mysticism" for you too, sputnik:
- pavlovs_dog0
The simple fact is creationism (ID) does not make one single testable claim, therefore it is not science.
Bad philosophy? Sure...
- ukit0
It's amazing to see so many absolutists here. As if no one today can acknowledge that the opposing side has a good point.
What's wrong with you guys?
JazX
(Dec 20 05, 09:56)I'd like to think that most people are open to alternative explanations and new discoveries in science. I think the problem I have with ID is that it seems to be a case of policy and/or political and social motivations dictating science. No matter what people like Discipler say, the people who are pushing ID clearly have an agenda. Don't get me wrong - I'm not against Christians or Christian fundamentalism, any more than I'm against fundamentalist Buddhists or fundamentalists Muslims. But it's the marketing of their views in the guise of science, executed in such an conspiratorial and intellectually dishonest way, that is so troubling, and that makes me glad for the outcome of the decision today.
- discipler0
http://www.canada.com/nationalpo…
oh pavlov, you sound just like the media in their ignorance. :)
Can you explain why Creationists are retreating from ID, then? Can you explain what a Biblical text has to do with Specified & Irreducible complexity in molecular machines?
Didn't think so.
- version30
"discipler kicks kittens and puppies, throws trash in the street, doesn't recycle, has an ongoing sexual relationship with his pastor behind his sisters back and performs oral sex on his father while he sleeps"
this is quoted from somewhere, i just lost the link.
- discipler0
ukit, in many cases and with many of the ID proponents, there is definitely an agenda. An agenda to release the throttle grip of Atheistic Materialism which says we are the produce of an accident. I whole-heartedly endorse this unscientific agenda.
It just so happens that the last 30 years of scientific discovery fully supports this agenda.
- Mimio0
I think the "Specified Complexity" you speak of are highly debatable observations that are not shared across the majority of the scientific community. The majority of scientists still see good reason to believe that there are natural explainations to biological systems. I'd be careful not to render your shared opinions with Michael Behe( an other ID advocats) as fact so soon.
- discipler0
If it is not shared, mimio, it is because it is new science. We have only recently become privy to the liliputian world of the cell. But there are some things which we absolutely DO know. We know that a naturalistic mechanism cannot purposefully arrange parts and build specified machinery. Biochemists are employing advanced Mechanical Engineers just to begin to understand how these machines work. Thus, the inference to an intelligent causal agent, is a logical one.
- ukit0
An interesting read:
http://www.geocities.com/CapeCan…
Governing Goals
* To defeat scientific materialism and its destructive moral, cultural and political legacies.
* To replace materialistic explanations with the theistic understanding that nature and hurnan beings are created by God.
Nope, nothing religious about it.
- discipler0
also an interesting read, regarding the "Wedge" document:
- liquid0
discipler .....let me help you out...
Einstein's definition of stupidity is doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results.
And if you would like the bibles take on the subject.
Proverbs 23:9
let me clarify... ...I am concentrating on the part where they will scorn wisdom ...according to the bible anyone who doesn't believe is a fool by default... those aren't my words to anyone here...I am just pointing them out to discipler. If he wants to throw the bible at people there are plenty of things in there that disagree with what he says and how he does things.
and please....discipler dont dig up scripture to come back at me...you have been doing this for a long time...for you to do it a few times...okay.... but now you just need to give it up...
if someone was interested in what you had to say they would email you.
- pavlovs_dog0
Ok I'll bite.
Name one single testable claim of ID.
- discipler0
again liquid, the primary reason I post here and yes, repeat myself ad nauseum, is because there are hundreds of lurkers who do not post, some of whom might actually be objective and seeking.
- discipler0
Sure, testability:
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
One single claim:
"If it could be shown that biological systems like the bacterial flagellum that are wonderfully complex, elegant, and integrated could have been formed by a gradual Darwinian process (which by definition is non-telic), then intelligent design would be falsified on the general grounds that one doesn’t invoke intelligent causes when purely natural causes will do. "
- liquid0
version...we may agree to disagree on our beliefs but I agree with you about discipler
why dont you go to a site that just talks about this topic then...
2 things I barely get involved in anymore....politics and religion..and since then....version3 no longer wants to hang me by my toenails and pummel me with an organic carrot. nick/backwards whatever doesn't jump into any thread I write in to tell me I am an idiot...
I can post help when I have it....I can get help when I need it....
so....as that verse states about reasoning with fools .....I will consider you one and take its advice and no longer try to convince you otherwise...
- pavlovs_dog0
lolz
"can't"
thats a negative.
hundreds of posts and you fail on this most basic level.