Or it's being suppressed from publication because the research doesn't check out.Stingray24 wrote:
*sigh* For the 10,000th time, ID is not to scientifically prove God's existence. It merely points to a higher intelligence because of the design they've discovered in their research. It is being suppressed from publication because some do not like their conclusions. That's why this documentary has been made.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
They've scientifically proven the existence of God? This should have been the biggest news of the millenium. Link to this research please, I'm sure it's published somewhere.Stingray24 wrote:
Their research points to design by a higher intelligence and it should be a bigger story. The problem is that people would rather label it as stupid because they don't like the obvious implications instead of looking at the research.
What design did they discover in their research? Why would they surpress it from publication with all the other right-wing retard crazy shit thats floating around? So they made a documentary about repressed research that they still can't show? Where is this research published?Stingray24 wrote:
*sigh* For the 10,000th time, ID is not to scientifically prove God's existence. It merely points to a higher intelligence because of the design they've discovered in their research. It is being suppressed from publication because some do not like their conclusions. That's why this documentary has been made.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
They've scientifically proven the existence of God? This should have been the biggest news of the millenium. Link to this research please, I'm sure it's published somewhere.Stingray24 wrote:
Their research points to design by a higher intelligence and it should be a bigger story. The problem is that people would rather label it as stupid because they don't like the obvious implications instead of looking at the research.
So discovery must always have a new benefit or it is useless? Very scientific.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Just one example that's it.. I Just want one link to something that's said because of Dr. So and So who belives in ID we got "something"?
Just one? anyone?
I really don't care where we come from unless it benefits us.. Like how we found in Animal testing that testing stuff on a chimp will give a closer reaction to what the medicine will do to us..
Not ad vacating Animal testing just using as a point on how it benefits.
I really don't care where we come from unless it benefits us.. Like how we found in Animal testing that testing stuff on a chimp will give a closer reaction to what the medicine will do to us..
Not ad vacating Animal testing just using as a point on how it benefits.
I'm not sure where they're publishing it, perhaps the documentary will shed light on this.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
What design did they discover in their research? Why would they surpress it from publication with all the other right-wing retard crazy shit thats floating around? So they made a documentary about repressed research that they still can't show? Where is this research published?Stingray24 wrote:
*sigh* For the 10,000th time, ID is not to scientifically prove God's existence. It merely points to a higher intelligence because of the design they've discovered in their research. It is being suppressed from publication because some do not like their conclusions. That's why this documentary has been made.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
They've scientifically proven the existence of God? This should have been the biggest news of the millenium. Link to this research please, I'm sure it's published somewhere.
Yeah that pretty much sums it up.. If ID proves that we came from a higher power, ok great now what?Stingray24 wrote:
So discovery must always have a new benefit or it is useless? Very scientific.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Just one example that's it.. I Just want one link to something that's said because of Dr. So and So who believes in ID we got "something"?
So basically all these people are fighting to recognize something that won't benefit people any how?
Who Cares then?
My addition... I want a job that will benefit noone and give me the smug feeling of being right.. Well only if it pays well?
Last edited by cpt.fass1 (2008-04-08 07:51:08)
No, in order for it to be scientific, you must be able to conduct an experiment in such a way as to be able to prove it wrong.Stingray24 wrote:
So discovery must always have a new benefit or it is useless? Very scientific.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Just one example that's it.. I Just want one link to something that's said because of Dr. So and So who belives in ID we got "something"?
Take gravity, for example:
Throw a ball up in the air attempting to dis-prove gravity. The ball comes down and smacks you in the head. Throw the ball hard enough, it leaves the Earth. Proving that gravity exists unless you force something so hard that it can escape gravity.
Now, which experiment could possibly disprove the existence of God or divine influence in creation?
You may find what you're looking for here: http://www.iscid.org/cpt.fass1 wrote:
Just one? anyone?
I really don't care where we come from unless it benefits us.. Like how we found in Animal testing that testing stuff on a chimp will give a closer reaction to what the medicine will do to us..
Not ad vacating Animal testing just using as a point on how it benefits.
There are many branches of science, many of which do not bring about physical "benefit" to human beings.
You've misunderstood the research. They've not discovered God, they've discovered design by a higher intelligence. Two very different things. Whatever one considers to be the source of that design depends on your philosophy. Design could mean superior aliens to one person and God to another.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
No, in order for it to be scientific, you must be able to conduct an experiment in such a way as to be able to prove it wrong.Stingray24 wrote:
So discovery must always have a new benefit or it is useless? Very scientific.cpt.fass1 wrote:
Just one example that's it.. I Just want one link to something that's said because of Dr. So and So who belives in ID we got "something"?
Take gravity, for example:
Throw a ball up in the air attempting to dis-prove gravity. The ball comes down and smacks you in the head. Throw the ball hard enough, it leaves the Earth. Proving that gravity exists unless you force something so hard that it can escape gravity.
Now, which experiment could possibly disprove the existence of God or divine influence in creation?
Or it could mean, as with so many other things, that are knowledge of the universe and everything in it is so limited, that to us it appears that there must be some design, or designer. You need not go back that far to find people, that if they were to see what have today in terms of medicine and science, that we would appear to be gods to them. Who's to say that in another 100 years what we have discovered won't answer those questions, or at least give us a better understanding. However, to label a concept that cannot be scientifically tested as science is nothing short of ignorance.Stingray24 wrote:
You've misunderstood the research. They've not discovered God, they've discovered design by a higher intelligence. Two very different things. Whatever one considers to be the source of that design depends on your philosophy. Design could mean superior aliens to one person and God to another.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
No, in order for it to be scientific, you must be able to conduct an experiment in such a way as to be able to prove it wrong.Stingray24 wrote:
So discovery must always have a new benefit or it is useless? Very scientific.
Take gravity, for example:
Throw a ball up in the air attempting to dis-prove gravity. The ball comes down and smacks you in the head. Throw the ball hard enough, it leaves the Earth. Proving that gravity exists unless you force something so hard that it can escape gravity.
Now, which experiment could possibly disprove the existence of God or divine influence in creation?
Our knowledge of the universe certainly is limited and always will be. Which is part of the reason that it fascinates me that the concept of design in the universe is resisted with such intensity. We're still discovering so many things about Earth, let alone the universe, so how can design be dismissed so quickly? Scientists are supposed to be about discovery and interest in the details. They themselves are applying intelligence to everything they do. We don't look at a massive ship or skyscraper and assume it got there by chance. Why do so with the universe? Even if those folks from 100 years ago called us gods because of our medicine and science, both of those still resulted from applied intelligence, not by chance.
what about dinosaurs? Does ID believe in that?
oh please... look who is behind the movement to bring ID to american schools. You really think the creationists in the discovery institute are looking for anything else other than god ?Stingray24 wrote:
You've misunderstood the research. They've not discovered God, they've discovered design by a higher intelligence. Two very different things. Whatever one considers to be the source of that design depends on your philosophy. Design could mean superior aliens to one person and God to another.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
No, in order for it to be scientific, you must be able to conduct an experiment in such a way as to be able to prove it wrong.Stingray24 wrote:
So discovery must always have a new benefit or it is useless? Very scientific.
Take gravity, for example:
Throw a ball up in the air attempting to dis-prove gravity. The ball comes down and smacks you in the head. Throw the ball hard enough, it leaves the Earth. Proving that gravity exists unless you force something so hard that it can escape gravity.
Now, which experiment could possibly disprove the existence of God or divine influence in creation?
on the other hand....if it turns out that we were "designed" by a superior alien lifeform, the religious right is gonna be so pissed...
As soon as the research swings that way, Darwinism will be correct.B.Schuss wrote:
oh please... look who is behind the movement to bring ID to american schools. You really think the creationists in the discovery institute are looking for anything else other than god ?Stingray24 wrote:
You've misunderstood the research. They've not discovered God, they've discovered design by a higher intelligence. Two very different things. Whatever one considers to be the source of that design depends on your philosophy. Design could mean superior aliens to one person and God to another.GorillaTicTacs wrote:
No, in order for it to be scientific, you must be able to conduct an experiment in such a way as to be able to prove it wrong.
Take gravity, for example:
Throw a ball up in the air attempting to dis-prove gravity. The ball comes down and smacks you in the head. Throw the ball hard enough, it leaves the Earth. Proving that gravity exists unless you force something so hard that it can escape gravity.
Now, which experiment could possibly disprove the existence of God or divine influence in creation?
on the other hand....if it turns out that we were "designed" by a superior alien lifeform, the religious right is gonna be so pissed...
There very well may be a design or pattern to the universe, but that simply doesn't mean that there is a single, all powerful entity (e.g. God) that created it.Stingray24 wrote:
Our knowledge of the universe certainly is limited and always will be. Which is part of the reason that it fascinates me that the concept of design in the universe is resisted with such intensity. We're still discovering so many things about Earth, let alone the universe, so how can design be dismissed so quickly? Scientists are supposed to be about discovery and interest in the details. They themselves are applying intelligence to everything they do. We don't look at a massive ship or skyscraper and assume it got there by chance. Why do so with the universe? Even if those folks from 100 years ago called us gods because of our medicine and science, both of those still resulted from applied intelligence, not by chance.
OK, let's move beyond science that we have created, and move to things of nature. Floods, droughts, tidal waves, tsunamis, earthquakes, volcanos, retardation or other human abnormalities, and about every other mishap/disaster you can think of was attributed to a god(s) being pissed at us. Now we know better, and science has brought us the understanding of that. Because we don't yet know the nature of the larger, more complex, universe does not immediately lend itself to a god(s) as the only logical explanation.
The mud puddle that created life, that could be very true. But maybe, that lightning bolt came from god.
A little of BOTH theories? Coudln't a god have started the life, and let it take it's course?
This looks interesting.
The "out of the mud puddle came a fully equipped 747" comment was lame and contrived. It was a cheap way to ridicule ID. So the talking snake is the REAL method? <- same kind of cheap shot comment. I like Ben Stein, I want to see this, and don't hold that against him, but it's comments like that that ruin debates. To scoff at the other side, rather than take a respectful approach. I am sure he meant it in a way to push back at the people who are intolerant of ID, but it proves nothing.
EDIT: And I used to like Glenn Beck. Now I just think he is a pretentious tool. "liberal, socialist ANTI-AMERICAN point of view" ANTI-American?? REALLY?? lol, just, lol.
A little of BOTH theories? Coudln't a god have started the life, and let it take it's course?
This looks interesting.
The "out of the mud puddle came a fully equipped 747" comment was lame and contrived. It was a cheap way to ridicule ID. So the talking snake is the REAL method? <- same kind of cheap shot comment. I like Ben Stein, I want to see this, and don't hold that against him, but it's comments like that that ruin debates. To scoff at the other side, rather than take a respectful approach. I am sure he meant it in a way to push back at the people who are intolerant of ID, but it proves nothing.
EDIT: And I used to like Glenn Beck. Now I just think he is a pretentious tool. "liberal, socialist ANTI-AMERICAN point of view" ANTI-American?? REALLY?? lol, just, lol.
Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2008-04-08 11:21:13)
ID?
can't even consider, or hear out the other side? close mindedness FTL.Bertster7 wrote:
ID?
Last edited by RoosterCantrell (2008-04-08 11:31:58)
What's to hear out (I've read an immense number of papers on different theories of ID - some of them are absolutely hilarious)?RoosterCantrell wrote:
can't even consider, or hear out the other side? close mindedness FTL.Bertster7 wrote:
ID?
Retarded pseudo-science nonsense from a bunch of utterly misguided fools who already have a conclusion and seek some sort of scientific validation of it. It's just laughable.
A scientific theory isn't really viable when it is so completely eclipsed by such a well founded and substantiated theory as evolution through natural selection. Even if the science behind it wasn't so laughable.
A spark from an unknown outside source that triggered the jump from chemical to biological evolution is about as far down the ID road as I'm ever going to be going. If you want to consider that the spark came from a God or higher being, then knock yourself out.
People who persist in assertions of nonsensical ID gibberish are well within their rights to believe that. I'm also well within mine to point and laugh - like I do with fat people.
lol, Just compromise. God made the big bang, and then just sat there and let shit happen. Of course people want to beleive that God is the reason everything happens, if anything, just to justify their existence, also it's a way of gaining power. Religious people see knowledge as a threat, therefore they have to keep refreshing themselves so that they can keep their masses clung onto them.A spark from an unknown outside source that triggered the jump from chemical to biological evolution is about as far down the ID road as I'm ever going to be going. If you want to consider that the spark came from a God or higher being, then knock yourself out.
I wish I had the time to go searching for that Family Guy episode where God does a "Blue Flamer" and that is where the big bang came from. I may not even be on Youtube any more, as they tighten down on copywrited material.Mek-Izzle wrote:
lol, Just compromise. God made the big bang, and then just sat there and let shit happen. Of course people want to beleive that God is the reason everything happens, if anything, just to justify their existence, also it's a way of gaining power. Religious people see knowledge as a threat, therefore they have to keep refreshing themselves so that they can keep their masses clung onto them.A spark from an unknown outside source that triggered the jump from chemical to biological evolution is about as far down the ID road as I'm ever going to be going. If you want to consider that the spark came from a God or higher being, then knock yourself out.
They don't even have Reagan smash on YT any more.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I wish I had the time to go searching for that Family Guy episode where God does a "Blue Flamer" and that is where the big bang came from. I may not even be on Youtube any more, as they tighten down on copywrited material.Mek-Izzle wrote:
lol, Just compromise. God made the big bang, and then just sat there and let shit happen. Of course people want to beleive that God is the reason everything happens, if anything, just to justify their existence, also it's a way of gaining power. Religious people see knowledge as a threat, therefore they have to keep refreshing themselves so that they can keep their masses clung onto them.A spark from an unknown outside source that triggered the jump from chemical to biological evolution is about as far down the ID road as I'm ever going to be going. If you want to consider that the spark came from a God or higher being, then knock yourself out.
Yeah, I don't understand these companies at times. They already have a smash hit, and allowing short clips, say no more than 90-120 seconds would only allow people to use like we do, and keep these shows in the public's mind.ghettoperson wrote:
They don't even have Reagan smash on YT any more.Agent_Dung_Bomb wrote:
I wish I had the time to go searching for that Family Guy episode where God does a "Blue Flamer" and that is where the big bang came from. I may not even be on Youtube any more, as they tighten down on copywrited material.Mek-Izzle wrote:
lol, Just compromise. God made the big bang, and then just sat there and let shit happen. Of course people want to beleive that God is the reason everything happens, if anything, just to justify their existence, also it's a way of gaining power. Religious people see knowledge as a threat, therefore they have to keep refreshing themselves so that they can keep their masses clung onto them.
well, I apologize, I think I threw close-mindedness in a bit harsh. I meant it in a topical light hearted way. but now that I re-read my post, I sound like an asshole. Sorry.Bertster7 wrote:
What's to hear out (I've read an immense number of papers on different theories of ID - some of them are absolutely hilarious)?RoosterCantrell wrote:
can't even consider, or hear out the other side? close mindedness FTL.Bertster7 wrote:
ID?
Retarded pseudo-science nonsense from a bunch of utterly misguided fools who already have a conclusion and seek some sort of scientific validation of it. It's just laughable.
A scientific theory isn't really viable when it is so completely eclipsed by such a well founded and substantiated theory as evolution through natural selection. Even if the science behind it wasn't so laughable.
A spark from an unknown outside source that triggered the jump from chemical to biological evolution is about as far down the ID road as I'm ever going to be going. If you want to consider that the spark came from a God or higher being, then knock yourself out.
People who persist in assertions of nonsensical ID gibberish are well within their rights to believe that. I'm also well within mine to point and laugh - like I do with fat people.
But anyway. I don't believe in ID either, I think it's more towards darwin than god, but a little of both, IMO. I just try to hear out any point of view that stands to any reason.
If someone were to tell me that a space ship is hiding in a comet that will pass by soon, I won't believe it, but i'd at least hear them out. It just seems a bit wrong to dismiss ANYthing that isn't completely crazy. Even if some ideas are nuts, at least they are thinking outside the box.
Regarding Ben Stein's appearance on Glenn Beck--
My school actually had an open debate between ID scientists and evolutionary scientists. They did 'let the other guy talk and then blow him out of the water'. And then when he says that evolutionists do not have a answer for how life began. Then he says that the answer is BS, and then he says that is because it would not make sense to a small child. I was not aware that 'easily understood by a small child' became part of the criterion for acceptable science.
This 'life designed by some higher intelligence' crap is a very thinly veiled attempt to make god part of science.
My school actually had an open debate between ID scientists and evolutionary scientists. They did 'let the other guy talk and then blow him out of the water'. And then when he says that evolutionists do not have a answer for how life began. Then he says that the answer is BS, and then he says that is because it would not make sense to a small child. I was not aware that 'easily understood by a small child' became part of the criterion for acceptable science.
This 'life designed by some higher intelligence' crap is a very thinly veiled attempt to make god part of science.