Intelligent Design Question

Discussion in 'Biology & Genetics' started by mathman, Nov 24, 2005.

  1. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    That's why they call it a "Theory" and not a "Law" or a "Principle." Hello Spurious, are you there? This is why scientists make a distinction when using the scientific method between a being just a mere theory, and a more multiply scientifically proven Principle or Law under certain given common conditions.

    Spurious: Are you going to defame me again by name-calling? Calling me "Silly" again about this point. This is the reason why we distinguish between these terms: and it is a very meaningful distinguishment.

    Do you want to belittle someone or act like a respectable scientist?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    And? So now we're changing the forum from "Intellligent Design Question" to "Political Pedagogy": What should or should not be taught in school.

    This forum is going up-and-down faster than a yo-yo.

    Locked.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. mountainhare Banned Banned

    Messages:
    3,287
    valich:
    Umm, no. Just no. You still fail to understand that 'theory' and 'law' aren't rungs on the same hierarchy. Spurious and other posters have tried to explain this time and time again, but either through feigned ignorance, or obtuseness, you continue to miss the point.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Valich, I'm beginning to think those guys are absolutely right in picking on you. Its nonsense like you've posted above that betrays true ignorance.

    There's nothing "mere" about a theory and you seem to be victim of the same faulty-thinking as creationists who shout "its just a theory!" at the top of their collective lungs about evolution. That there is some hierarchy where theory is placed below the rank of 'law' is poppycock. Laws are generalizations, principles or patterns in nature, while theories are the explanations of those generalizations. They're related, but one does not become another. At best, String "Theory" should really be called "String Hypothesis," but it simply doesn't roll of the tongue as easily. Moreover, it proponents enjoy the legitimization that the terminology gets them as with Probability Theory or Game Theory.

    But the main assumption that your comment above fails with is that a theory is a step to becoming a law. It most certainly isn't. Laws can exist to which there is not a theory. Theories can exist to which there is not a single law. The law of gravity is an example. We all can easily agree that gravity works. It happens. There are some very consistent things we can say about gravity and how it works. But there is no well accepted "theory of gravity." Some physicists think gravity "waves" are ultimately responsible. Others don't. Newton himself said Hypotheses non fingo, "I frame no hypotheses" with regard to how gravity works. He only observed that it did.

    This is all relative to the thread topic, because of the creationist argument that ID proponents present in the form of "evolution is only a theory," because they have the same misguided and ignorant understanding of science that you appear to have. Your knowledge in this and other threads appears to have its roots in the copy/paste realm and you find it easy to regurgitate the words of those who are actually in some authority, but I see little evidence that you are able to discuss a topic at hand with knowledge you have on retention in your own brain. The comment above supports that hypothesis.

    I would not ordinarily reply so harshly, but your habit of acting as a pompous ass with "locked" when a thread goes in a direction you disagree with is somewhat irritable to me. As is your constant bitching about other members "stalking" you. Add to that the very ignorance that the creationist nutters are guilty of as with above and you get this post.
     
  8. Billy T Use Sugar Cane Alcohol car Fuel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    23,198
    To skinwalker: Amen on your post below.
     
  9. Ophiolite Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,232
    Thanks, Guthrie. I buy New Scientist once or twice a month. I'll get this week's issue and see what he has to say. String theory has always given me the impression of mental masturbation: no doubt pleasant enough to work through, but in the end barren.
     
  10. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    "intelligent" design is true. how can you think that such "complex" things like humans form without some kind of "designer" behind it?

    i used to believe the opposite. i always thought people were stupid to think something this complex must have an intelligent creator.
     
  11. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    then maybe you can enlighten the rest of us poor dumb 'ol boys on the nature of this intelligent designer?
     
  12. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    i swear, if i could ever make you eat these words i would force feed them to you with a red hot poker
     
  13. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Does the complexity of a flatworm warrant a designer?
     
  14. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    it's the eternal existence or life which exists in everything which we humans recognize in ourselves as the self.

    yes. easily. even an atom does. it's not really the "complexity" but also the simplicity which allows its functionality.

    it is ridiculous to assume that a great explosion about 15 billion creates birds singing in the trees and beings able to think and reason. what "reason" would the atoms have to combine in special ways which form incredible things. we are the only reason, we are the will within matter, and we created this world.

    like the scriptures say: we created the universe with our creative power.
     
  15. leopold Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    17,455
    creative power. the intellect? the will? love?
    i believe a three of those are creative powers
    i like the idea but doesn't power require a power source?
    are you saying we just willed ourselves out of the ground?
     
  16. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Well, the interview makes it look like hes gone over the the side of mental masturbation. So, looks to me like string theory is heading overboard faster than the big bang.
     
  17. guthrie paradox generator Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,089
    Ummm, so whats your evidence? What experiments can you do to show this? Since I created this world, can I now fly about without an aircraft or suchlike?

    Decide now- do you want to debate science, or philosophical wibble? If the latter, bugger off to the philosophy forum and have a chat with invert nexus and others.
     
  18. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    Humans have intellect because of their advanced brain. The self does not have a brain (and hence no intellect), but it can create a brain to itself. Intellect and thoughts separated us from our real self (God). Because we are so far away from our real self, we think of it as a separate entity from ourselves.

    Yes, existence is the source of power.

    When life, the existence, enters a human being, the human recognizes it as the self. The universe is the body of the self and everything lives only because it makes it alive by its existence. It is life itself, and life can never end. Only physical things, the bodies of life, end.

    Material things are like clothes or tools for the self, when they get old or unusable, it discards them. Only the empty covers die, not the self, not the existence.

    Because we are all the same self, it hurts to hurt other people. Like Paul says in the Bible, we are parts of the body of Christ.

    Actually, you could say so. We are not humans. We use human bodies (and all other bodies too). We willed the earth into being, then we willed human bodies into being. We are the being.
     
  19. c7ityi_ Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,924
    It is possible for the human body to levitate but I wasn't talking about the human body but about the omnipresent existence which we recognize as the self.
     
  20. spuriousmonkey Banned Banned

    Messages:
    24,066
    Decent enough advice.
     
  21. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Guthrie,

    My my. And where did that come from, Guthrie? You saying that I never deal in science? I often do deal in philosophical affairs. Especially as my chief area of scientific interest is cognition which, alas, is still in its infancy and thus philosophy still has much to add to the science. But. You're comparing me to Yorda? (And. While you're yapping on. Who are the 'others'?)

    Them's fightin' words, buddy boy.

    (And. Why are you even trying to have a conversation with Yorda? Seems like you're the one who might do with a bit of philosophy. Get your head straight.)
     
  22. SkinWalker Archaeology / Anthropology Moderator

    Messages:
    5,874
    Will you people quit quoting Yorda... I had he/she/it on ignore so I wouldn't have to see that nonsense!

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  23. valich Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,501
    God exists and God designed everything. So what is all the fuss about?
     

Share This Page