Darwinist
- Started
- Last post
- 592 Responses
- flagellum0
"The ID guys are playing old Socratic Sophist tricks with ;language it seems to me by sayig that "See science is inaccurate here! So therefore it casts ALL of it into doubt!""
----
Not true. ID theorists and scientists are simply following the evidence where it leads. And they are not following evidence about age of the earth issues. That doesn't concern the science of ID. Not sure why that's so difficult for you, Tick.
-----
"I mean it seems to me they don't even grasp the fundamental principles that underly all of scientific enquiry to begin with. Science is all about finding better and better questions. Anything in science that doesn't lead you to another question is bad science. "
------You reeeaaally should actually learn what ID science states. ID is raising the better questions: like, how did digital code find it's way into the cell? and how can darwin's mechanism with all it's limitations produce the change which darwinists say it does? etc...
------
""Unreducably complex""
------
oooohhh, TIck. Please learn about it. lol
- Mimio0
Most scientists have the integrity to change their viewpoints when they're shown they are mistaken or incorrect. It's the "not knowing" that creates all the debate, and allows people to inject doubt for the sake of ulterior motives.
- ********0
And yo uknow what - the ID guys are dishonest going the other way as well hby trying real hard to say publicly - "It's not about religion.."
Which is total BS..I would rathe rthem be honest and say "Look, this is our view of the world and we're going to judge it against this other criteria that science provides and see what we get"..
Now that would be honest and I would respect that, but they can't even be honest about that - Discipler/Flagelating Man or whatever he is now even goes to great lengths to say "It's not about religion - but in the Bible it says..."
Ug. No honesty or integrity anywhere. It's bullshit, and it's lightweight religious thought. I get more deeper and heavier religious thought from a street beggar than from these guys...
- flagellum0
Not true at all, mimio. There is tremendous peer pressure in the scientific community which is not friendly to dissenters. In many ways, scientists are like old religious types who won't listen to new ideas. That being said, the number of ID scientists is growing and growing because of the new and undeniable discoveries.
- flagellum0
Tick, tell me how detecting Specified Complexity in biological systems is religious?
Tell me how observing Irreducibly Complex machines in biochemistry, is religion?
Tell me how observing sequential digital code in the nucleotide chain on the spine of the DNA molecule is religion?
Tell me how observing and pointing out the massive gaps in Darwinian evolution is religion?
Because it sure seems like science to me.
- Mimio0
Discipler, it's not science to suggest that biological origins aren't natural. It's really simple.
- ********0
Discipler, it's not science to suggest that biological origins aren't natural. It's really simple.
Mimio
(Jan 6 06, 07:42)
---------------------
Well it's about as scientific as those guys who carry around volt meters in "haunted houses" to detect spiritual energy. All very scientific you see...they have meters.
- flagellum0
Nonsense, mimio. Science should not be restricted to Methodological Naturalism. It's that simple.
And even if we do restrict it, ID still observes what it observes. Additionally, it's not science to suggest that molecules to man evolution occured.
- Mimio0
The vast majority of the scientific community obviously disagrees with you. They apparently don't find the claims of ID compelling enough to restructure science itself to include superntural events/entities.
- flagellum0
The vast majority of the scientific community is just becoming privy to the claims of ID, mimio. It is new, as an organized science. Did the Big Bang theory recieve immediate recognition? No.
And ID cannot detect who the designer is. Your claim about the supernatural shows that you still don't understand it.
- ********0
And the real funny thing is - science and the scientific method does nothing to rule out spiritual origins or a god - to say "A spiritual entity created the universe" is not against scientific thought.
However, literalist who interpret a single book - the bible - one of thousands the human race as a species has produced as part of it's spiritual expression - find science disagrees with their interpretation of that one particular text, so therefore like everything else in that narrow view of that particular religion they need to attack and co-opt it as they have done for 2,000 odd years.
Well that sort of crumedgeonly behavior has probably kept that religion around - you know, alwyas creating drama attracts people. It's also bullshit, but you know that way you get all the ignorant people and you then point at the smart people and say that they're ignorant. It's a neat system really...
- flagellum0
...and many of the scientific community who have examined ID are closet ID proponents because they fear career repercussions if they dissent from the Darwinian establishment.
- Mimio0
lol, discipler, you're delusional I think. What do you base that statement on?
- Mimio0
http://dictionary.reference.com/…
Notice it says quite specifically "natural phenomena"
- Mimio0
You're not talking about science kiddo, you're talking about a thing called "hokum".
- flagellum0
haha, whatever helps you mimio.
Science has changed it's definition and limitations many many times. Read Stephen Meyer's work. His specialty is in history of science.
You are going to have to throw out Archaeology too, with ID.
- flagellum0
Pointing to an intelligent cause to organic life is no more supernatural than saying that molecules magically self organized to create the complexity we see.
You see the intelligent cause doesn't have to be "supernatural".
- Mimio0
Spin doctors on the ID side:
http://www.nasonline.org/site/Pa…
- flagellum0
Oh, there's also the persecution of Astronomer, Guillermo Gonzalez
http://www.discovery.org/scripts…
See, the Darwin machine does not take lightly it's precious theory being questioned. ;)