Satann Coulter
- Started
- Last post
- 261 Responses
- pavlovs_dog0
i win.
- lowimpakt0
Ann Coulter = "the black hole of reason and compassion"
that is her alright.
- ********0
- gramme0
i win.
pavlovs_dog
(Jun 15 06, 18:36)Haha. Ok buddy, if you think so...
Notice how I don't sling around any slanderous names like 'fundy' or 'idiot' or what have you. That shit doesn't make your argument any stronger, it just makes you sound angrier.
And Johndiggity....
Are you sure we've actually found the FARTHEST stars in this universe? Let's suppose you're correct, and that the universe appears to be 13 billion years old, give or take. Does that automatically disclude the posibility of a universe being called spontaneously into existence by a supreme being (call it/him/her whatever you will), and that universe being called into existence at a certain level of completion, that is to say fully formed planets & stars that appear to be very, very old?? IS it completely impossible? What I say is impossible and untenable is the notion that there is an infinite regression of events with no original Author. Things do not move unless acted upon, that is a basic law of the universe that science embraces readily enough. I have no scientific proof for the existence of the biblical God, but the best efforts of Nietzche & co. have not been able to convince me otherwise.
The trouble with all these 'scientific' notions we're discussing here is that science, by definition, is based on direct observation. Theories of evolution are based almost entirely on speculation and theorizing (in a philosophical, not a scientific sense).
So (not necessarily to JD but to people like mr. dobs, etc.) there is really no sensible reason to slam people who happen to disagree with you, especially when they have said nothing rude or slanderous.
Good day.
- lowimpakt0
i don't care how the earth was created.
but i do care how it's being messed up by knobheads and wankers - like coulter and her KKKlan.
now back to the world cup....
- johndiggity0
the gripe against intelligent design is that 1., it's being added to the lesson plan in some public schools and taught along side of the scientific theory of evolution, which does not involve the idea of god, sureme being automater, whatever. this is clearly a violation of the constitutional separation of church teachings in a state institution.
the second problem is that intelligent design by all means is not scientific, rather it is philosophic. it's main tenent is the assumption that there is, again, god, which has yet to be proven scientifically.
the theory of evolution is based upon observable facts, and hypothesis derived from examining all available data.
and in case you are interested, check out this article detailing the mapping process of the universe: http://www.newscientist.com/arti…
and for more about how our universe may have been created, multiverses, parallel dimensions: http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/…
i think the main downside to intelligent design is that it's a conversation ender. if taught and followed, it ends all other questioning and research into the very fundamental question of who we are and where we came from. humans as a species are much too curious to accept this.
- Mimio0
Right, it's a supernatural explaination. It claims that the natural world cannot produce life, that it requires a supernatural initiation. That's just not science. Michael Behe is William Paley all over again. Same argument.
- gramme0
Right, it's a supernatural explaination. It claims that the natural world cannot produce life, that it requires a supernatural initiation. That's just not science. Michael Behe is William Paley all over again. Same argument.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 07:14)....And I stated in my last post that I have no scientific proof of my belief in God. It is purely philosophical and faith-based. It is a much more tenable position, philosophically speaking, than the idea of infinite regression.
People today do not want to accept the notion of absolute truth because truth, by definition, is narrow; it excludes a host of possible falsehoods. That idea gives people philosophical claustrophobia. Truth, as I understand it, is defined by sources outside of me. My pitifully small mind and extremely limited paradigm of experience is not worthy or capable of creating truth from scratch. People these days would rather determine truth on their own terms than on the terms of some Being greater than them; this allows them to live as they see fit. What people miss is the fact that by thinking/living this way, they become slaves to their own drives, flaws and limitations. If I am to be a slave to something, I would rather have it be Something much bigger than me.
For those intent on calling people like me fundamentalists, please remember tha I didn't write the Bible...I just happen to believe it.
And for the record, if God was proved beyond any doubt to not exist, I would still believe in him, because no other system of belief feeds my soul in the same way. Period.
- Mimio0
Good thing Boltzman didn't invoke supernatural initiation when he developed kinetic theory. Otherwise there would have been no reason to pursue the discovery of atoms and molecules as the explaination.
- gramme0
And for the record, if God was proved beyond any doubt to not exist, I would still believe in him, because no other system of belief feeds my soul in the same way. Period.
gramme
(Jun 16 06, 07:27)Actually, scratch that notion...that's the stubbornness speaking.
I'd prolly go back to the agnostic drawing board and smoke mountains of weed with e-pill.
- Mimio0
And for the record, if God was proved beyond any doubt to not exist, I would still believe in him, because no other system of belief feeds my soul in the same way. Period.
gramme
(Jun 16 06, 07:27)Can't be done. You can't prove something's state of non-existence.
- gramme0
Good thing Boltzman didn't invoke supernatural initiation when he developed kinetic theory. Otherwise there would have been no reason to pursue the discovery of atoms and molecules as the explaination.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 07:42)Shouldn't plain old curiosity have been a good enough reason?? Besides, I awould agree with you that 'invoking' spiritual ideas whilst conducting science is bad science, because it's introducing theology and philosophy, which are abstract practices that fly in the face of the cold rationality of science. I can totally go with that one.
- Mimio0
The point being... that is what the ID movement is up to. It's trying to give philosophical viewpoints equal footing with science.
- gramme0
Can't be done. You can't prove something's state of non-existence.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 07:45)I agree. I was just making a point about what I find to be meaningful.
See my post after that tho, after thinking a bit further I don't think I'd still be a Christian if it was all a lie. It would be rather foolish, since it all flies in the face of natural human tendencies. I'd just retreat to a cave in Indonesia and spend the rest of my days chasing mirages among the reefbreaks...
- gramme0
The point being... that is what the ID movement is up to. It's trying to give philosophical viewpoints equal footing with science.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 07:48)The thing is though man, BOTH ways of explaining origins involve A LOT of guesswork. Science can only take us so far. Anyone who thinks science has not already failed us needs to revisit the history of the past century.
I think kids' parents should have the option of letting them take ID or Darwinian science classes. I don't think either method should be forced upon ANYONE.
- Mimio0
I don't see science as a failure. I thought ID was trying to be science? It's dishonest as an idea if it's original conceit is that the scientific method is flawed and inadequate for explaining reality. Claims like that require proof.
- kyl30
what about the democracy myth?
- Mimio0
Also, I see science as a field trying to use the natural world to describe the natural, as it is intellectual agreeable that the natural world exists. If ID is a philosophy, why should public schools offer it as science to their students? And why should a certain religion's fragile beliefs be repected in the realm of science?
- gramme0
I don't see science as a failure. I thought ID was trying to be science? It's dishonest as an idea if it's original conceit is that the scientific method is flawed and inadequate for explaining reality. Claims like that require proof.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 08:01)Science has not yet been able to explain the origin of the universe beyond a reasonable doubt. And when we start talking about an infinite regression, which is what evolutionary theory suggests, then your 'science' becomes philosophy, just like Creation Theory.
I think both methods of explaining origins are by nature philosophical matters, because we're dealing with many things that cannot be observed or calculated. Science has very clear limits in this area. Science is based upon observation, and there was NEVER any observations of the Big Bang. That is pure, unadulterated philosophy my friend, plain & simple.
Unfortunately, in this 'advanced' day & age, we still can't come up with all the answers using empirical methods. Faith has to come in somewhere, and everyone believes in something.
- gramme0
Also, I see science as a field trying to use the natural world to describe the natural, as it is intellectual agreeable that the natural world exists. If ID is a philosophy, why should public schools offer it as science to their students? And why should a certain religion's fragile beliefs be repected in the realm of science?
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 08:06)I could say the EXACT same thing about the Big Bang theory. Anyone who thinks that theory is science needs to buy a dictionary and learn the difference between science and philosophy.
Unlike some Christians, I have never claimed here that ID and science are or should be inseparable. I think methods of explaining the origins of the universe will always be linked with science, but they will always be two different things, regardless of which side of the fence you fall on.