Satann Coulter
- Started
- Last post
- 261 Responses
- Concrete0
hhmmmmm.... before letting scientific hypothesis develop and either get proven or disproven, lets go the easy way, and say some divine entity did it.
pyeaton
(Jun 15 06, 17:46)How is that the easy way?
If you accept that 'some divine entity did it' you have to be accountable for your actions.
This is why a lot of people choose scientific theory over religion. Although there are no real facts about how we got here you can do whatever you like.
- Mimio0
Don't Christians believe Jesus flew into outerspace after the resurrection? What am I to assume by him being "taken up"? It's obviously implied that heaven is a physical place, and Jesus was ressurrected a human.(Thomas touched him). Try and explain that belief.
- gramme0
Gramme, have you recognized your habit of putting God at the limit of your understanding? You keep plugging him in, you're automatically assuming the prime mover in the universe is God. That's not scientific.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 08:37)I have not yet claimed that my belief in God is scientific, Mimio!! I thought that should have been abundantly clear by now. It's faith. Faith in something that I do NOT claim to fully understand. I do not limit God to my own understanding in any way, shape or form. The nature of deity in all religions has always been understood as that which cannot be fully grasped by weak human minds.
I do however believe that He has revealed a certain limited amount of information about himself in scripture. And just to be clear, that idea is purely unscientific, as it should be.
- Mimio0
Concrete, are you implying that people that don't believe in God are wreckless outlaws tearing society apart? all kinds of people are accountable and moral.
- Mimio0
Right Gramme, my point being that the things you attribute to God doing in reality have nothing to do with science. In fact they may sometimes contradict it. I'm getting the feeling that you're trying to equate science and religion too, by relegating it's theories and methods to philosophy or religion ,which they are not.
- gramme0
Don't Christians believe Jesus flew into outerspace after the resurrection? What am I to assume by him being "taken up"? It's obviously implied that heaven is a physical place, and Jesus was ressurrected a human.(Thomas touched him). Try and explain that belief.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 08:45)Haha, no, we don't believe he flew into outer space. He was transposed into the heavenly realm, which I guess can be most simply explained as another dimension of reality, one that we don't usually have tangible experiences of in this world.
The gospels and epistles all state the notion that Jesus was fully God and fully man, the second, perfected Adam, if you will. The fulfillment of God's promises. The bible says that he humbled himself to our position, otherwise he could not have died. But the Deity in him could not be killed, and so death was swallowed in death.
Poetic, even if you don't believe it.
- Jaline0
Concrete, are you implying that people that don't believe in God are wreckless outlaws tearing society apart? all kinds of people are accountable and moral.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 08:47)What Concrete is saying is true, but he doesn't mention anything about how there are tons of non-reckless people who don't believe in God.
- Mimio0
Right gramme, but he was tangible to the apostles who touched him. Clearly not in another dimension.
- Concrete0
Concrete, are you implying that people that don't believe in God are wreckless outlaws tearing society apart? all kinds of people are accountable and moral.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 08:47)No. I meant what I said.
Even people that call themselves Christians go to war and kill fellow Christians.
Stay level headed on this one, Mimio.
- canuck0
this thread irritates me.
- gramme0
Right Gramme, my point being that the things you attribute to God doing in reality have nothing to do with science. In fact they may sometimes contradict it. I'm getting the feeling that you're trying to equate science and religion too, by relegating it's theories and methods to philosophy or religion ,which they are not.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 08:51)I'm not trying to equate the two disciplines, I just think philosophy and science, while being distinct disciplines, will be eternal bedfellows. It's always been that way, since science has not yet been able to explain everything. The rest must be explained by philosophy or faith.
I want to make it clear that I believe my understanding of things to be limited. Philosophy, like science, is a man-made endeavor, a paradigm for understanding the universe. It has not yet answered all my questions. All i have after that is faith, and I'm sure when I die much more will be revealed to me.
- Mimio0
Concrete, I think you're saying that people who don't believe in God are free to me immoral. Since they don't accept moral absolutes. Which is a total crock of shit.
- gramme0
Right gramme, but he was tangible to the apostles who touched him. Clearly not in another dimension.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 08:54)No no, I'm saying he was transposed after appearing to Thomas & co. He was very real and in the flesh when Thomas put his hand in Jesus' side.
- Concrete0
Concrete, I think you're saying that people who don't believe in God are free to me immoral. Since they don't accept moral absolutes. Which is a total crock of shit.
Mimio
(Jun 16 06, 08:58)Mimio, you came across as quite intellectual at first. Maybe you're just pasting in other peoples opinions.
Yes they are free to be immoral. Whether or not they are immoral is all down to conscience and free will.
- Mimio0
Then you've totally misunderstood pyeaton's post, he was referring to the burden of proof and I made the mistake of assuming that you were taking the oppoing view that science breeds moral relativism. Which in some definitions it does, but does not make it any easier for someone to behave morally.
...and my opinions are my own.
- flagellum0
Ok, sorry for my absence. Now, let me start by obliterating Mimio's claptrap, point by point. I'll respond to others here, later. His stuff is in quotations here:
"Again discipler, ID has no evidence supporting the identity or nature of the "designer". Therefore it fails to satisfy the scrutiny you apply Evolutionary Theory. That makes it philosophical, as the designer must be supernatural or intangible."
------------
Response:What does the nature or identity of the designer have to do with Intelligent Design (which is the study of patterns in nature which are best explained by a designing intelligence as opposed to blind natural causes)? ID is essentially design detection. is SETI (the Search for Extraterrestrial Intelligence) bunk because they are looking for specified patterns in signals, without knowing the nature of that intelligence? The nature of the designer is a second-order philosophical question which science cannot answer. ID is design detection. Please, do yourself a favor and learn about something before you make attempts at dismantling it. Once again, you have conflated the science with it's implications. And once again I ask: what is philosophical about observing cellular machinery which is irreducible? What is philosophical about digital code along the spine of the DNA molecule? What is philosophical about observing a fossil record which flies in the face of Darwinian gradualism and demonstrates a massive influx of specified and novel genetic information? Do tell.
--------
"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. "-------
Response:There is absolutely nothing supernatural about Intelligent Design. It is design detection. It is, for instance, looking at the 4 nucleotide alphabet in the nucleus of the cell, recognizing it as specified information, recognizing that only intelligent agency produces specified information and then making the logical inference to a designing intelligence. Where is the supernatural in that? Again, mimio conflates the science with it's implications. Methinks you listen too much to the rhetoric of your political gurus and just regurgitate their ignorance.
Secondly, ID does not claime that the "natural world cannot produce life" (assuming I understand what the heck that means). It simply states that Darwinian mechanisms are not sufficient to explain biological systems as they cannot generate Complex Specified Information. Only intelligent agents can produce specified information. You may choose to believe that this teleological agency is supernatural or that some other material intelligence is responsible for said information. This is why there can be agnostic ID proponents. And there are plenty of them.
Michael Behe is a biochemist and one of many many many who embrace ID. He is honest enough to follow the evidence where it leads. And it led him to conclude that Darwinian evolution cannot explain what he observes. How could he possibly be using the same argument that William Paley used in his watchmaker thesis, when Paley couldn't see inside the cell!? Paley's argument was a theological one. Behe's is based on observable scientific evidence. Again, mimio, your political bias is showing.
--------
"It's trying to give philosophical viewpoints equal footing with science."
--------
Response:Balderdash. Again, you conflate the science with it's implications. And you do this because you don't like the implications. Just as the Big Bang has implications, so does Intelligent Design.
---------
"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."
--------
Response:ID does no such thing. It suggests that Darwinian mechanisms are insufficient in explaining the origen and development of phyla. And you don't understand what the scientific method is. If you did, you would understand that Bacteria-to-Babboons Darwinian evolution is thoroughly unscientific as it is an unwarranted extrapolation from observable adaptation within species. Mimio you should try applying your same criticism of ID to the notion of Darwinian MacroEvolution. But you won't because you have a glaring bias that prevents you. The fact is that anybody who understands how biological systems are generated via CSI, understands the fossil record, the Cambrian Explosion, Haldane's Dilemma, etc... etc... knows that MacroEvolution is nothing more than a bed-time story.
-------
"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?"
---------
Response:Almost too amusing to merit a response. More political rhetoric from ignorance. But...
Science is the search for truth based on observable evidence. Science should be seeking the best possible explanation. Period. If the explanation has implications which we are uncomfortable with. Too bad. We should not limit discovery to that which fits in with reductionist material explanations. Follow the evidence wherever it leads. Public schools should teach the controversy about Darwinian Evolution. All of it's glaring holes should be exposed. There should be dialogue. And teleological explanations should not be banned from the free marketplace of learning. Since after all, the evidence points more and more toward teleology in nature.
---------
"The big bang isn't philosophy it's a scientific theory based on observed galatic red-shift and emissions from the microwave background that permeates the universe, just like light and radiation does."
---------
Response:No it is not philosophy. You got that part right. But it has philosophical IMPLICATIONS. We know from observing the microwaves and their expansion that there was a beginning. A catalyst. Something outside of time and space initiated it. And it is it's implications that caused many in the scientific community to want to censor the idea when it was first proposed. They were uncomfortable with it's implications. I suspect you would have been among those trying to censor it, mimio.
--------
"I just think Darwinian evolution is a better explaination than Creationism."
--------
Response:When did Biblical Creationism become relevant to this discussion? How does the observance of patterns and information in nature which are best explained by a designing intelligence, become the same thing as the Bible narrative of Creation? Please support your answer.
Explain in detail how Darwinian Evolution accounts for:
1. Digital Code in the form of the 4 nucleotide alphabet in the cell. With all of it's error protection capabilites and ribosome coding instructions, etc... etc...
2. Cellular machinery which requires phD's in mechanical engineering to even begin to comprehend and which has specified interlocking components which are required simultaneously or the system fails. How does a blind, gradualistic, unthinking, non-teleological mechanism like Darwin's account for these?
3. The abrupt explosion of novel cells, tissue and body plans during the Cambrian era.
4. A fossil record which shows fully formed phyla without the gazillions of intermediates in between species which should be in abundance if Darwin's gradualism were true. This doesn't even take into account Irreducible Complexity on the molecular level and hurdles for Darwinism there. (smells like teleology to me)
5. The generation and influx of specified genetic information required in generating biological novelty.
6. The impossible precision of the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants such that life is even possible on earth.
The future of science lies in the hands of the hard sciences - Physics, Chemistry, Mathematics. The deeper we peer into these systems in nature, the more the hard sciences are being employed. The stamp collecting that is tentative Biology is a soft science on a good day and an extension of the hard sciences. The stamp collecting should always be interpreted in light of the foundational constants.
- mrdobolina0
jesus wasnt a smug prick.
- mg330
Is she so dilusional that she thinks photos like this of her are flattering?
http://www.anncoulter.com/cgi-lo…
I mean, she looks like a stand-in for Charlize Theron in Monster.
- version30
i still love that
- Point50
A horse walks into a bar.
The bartender says "Why the long face?"