Originally posted by MatrixProphet
biblical glasses what a great concept of the lundicrous thanks ken ham your a comedy genius
We cannot give an exercise to someone or something that is not qualified! Meaning; discovering an ID and being willing to discuss it without
using a method that wouldn't work! We cannot intelligently give credit where credit is not due. It is important to keep this in mind, if one wants to
well it isnt a coherant hypothesis to begin testing
and with the wedge document becoming public it shows it for what it is
nothing more then a flimsy excuse to get religeon into science by anymeans possible so creationism can be pulled in later
There are plenty out there that are willing to bull-s@#t anyone who is willing to listen to them. If they have charisma and degrees to back
them up, then, it can be a psychological con game waiting to happen!
ken ham? kent hovind(although he doesnt really hold a ph.d)
]But, they sure have done the greatest con game of all! They have convinced you and countless atheists and agnostics that they have the
monopoly on God. Most of you have fallen for it.
no they have convinced me they dont have a clue what theya re talking about in general
they have no monopoly on imagination
Can we say that science is qualified to discuss the subject of ID without their slant?
they discuss it as much as they need, they look
at it say this isnt science its wishful thinking so lets get back to doing real work
Would atheists who are scientifically minded have a broad view of this entity?
i can have a broad view of anything it doesnt make it anymore real then a narrow view of the same thing
i ask the same of all things, give me evidence or please stop making emotional pleas and go find some
Or would they be like religion with a very narrow view that fits their prejudices? Are some of its members capable of doing a con job?
some are, they are people after all
I include Hawkins in this. How on earth would he be qualified to even discuss this subject in an intelligent way with all of his
becasue he understands evolution and the fact complex can come from simple by naturalistic methods and has done for his whole
remeber ID has only been around since creationism was banned from bieng taught in the 80's, and now attemting to gain support from other groups such
as the aliens amde us and some other higher power but not the christain god
his bias are the same as against creationism, its not scientific and science shows it really didnt happen that way
I have listened to some of his speeches and interviews. He may be qualified in his area of knowledge and experience but may be an idiot outside
and he has floppy hair
well ill listen to him on his area of knowledge and expertise and go find find others for others,
Do you honestly, now tell me honestly...do you really view him as brilliant?
he is a fairly good biologist, not a bad author, terrible
he is a person, he has things about him that are good and others that arnt
I think of you as being intelligent. Him? Come on! He is a big part of the con! Can you not see it?
the religeon still hasnt turned up any proof con?
the stop brainwashing kids and give them a proper education in more then just biblical scholarship con?
what con? you refer to it but dont deffine what it is
religeon is a con it requires acceptance without evidence
in some it request payment again without any evidence, and not all that money goes to help people that need it (well unless you really think people
nwanting a better sound sytem in church is more needy then starving people)
Well, he is laughing all the way to the bank with his book; "The God Delusion."
that remins me i really should finihs readin that
book i brought it at the start of the month and ive read 2 other books since
What right does a scientist have to qualify an existence of ID since you said,
it pretends to be science, so a scientist is just the
right person to see if it really does meet the scientific method
science cannot answer most of the questions.
most of what questions?
it looks at what can and cant be tested and observed
HE is mixing what you consider religious views (God and his limited understanding) with his scientific views. They don't mesh with you
you have read the god delusion?
im about 1/2 way through and the only time he mentions evolution is when exploring religeons arguments for why they must be right for us bieng here
you keep using the term ID but not as its meant, ID is the term for a psuedo-scientific methedology to place religeon in science class
I am with you on PHD's. Some are brilliant and some are idiots. That goes for all fields of study. But humans will worship who they will
well i dont perticularily worship anyone
people are people they should be admired and respected for thier achievments
you seem to think becasue i posted a clip from a lecture Dawkins is suddenly a god .....
if i post a clip of bert and ernie from sesame street showing a point im making does that make them my religeous figures to?
much bias shown? isnt that the same thing your accusing Dawkins of? an especially intresting bias jump when you watch the whole lecture and read the
the lecture it was taken from is actually entitled
Richard Dawkins: 'Science Can't Disprove God!'
it was taken from his 'god delusion' book tour, even in the book he states quite clearly science cannot disprove god or anything else thats
supernatural for that matter ghosts fairies unicorns the giant magnetic field eating space duck that ate mercuries when no one was looking
the book its self spends much more time dealing with what religeon says about god then actually adressing god, i dunno im 1/2 way through maybe he
changes tact entierley in the second half ill go finish the book and find out
It is like people saying they look for a religion that fits their lifestyle or beliefs, regardless of whether there is any accuracy or
actually people usually follow the religeon of thier parents or the most prolific in the area they live
so you may be saying that but your the one saying it
The same can be said about followers of science. There are diametrically opposed views from scientists in the same fields...it's like choose
but science relise on evidence and as new evidence turns up minds change
and often both sides turn out to be partially right, so they keep only that which is right and discard the rest
when creationism was proven wrong was the parts of the bible removed that refer to it? or was the belief just changed to fit the new facts for some
and the biblical glasses and ear plugs pulled out for others
Man will have an opinion and because it is your very own opinion it must be right!
why must it?
never change your opinion on anything?
thanks for the demonstration of this with your post, but we are not all stuck in a rut
So humility means knowing our limitations. This needs to be applied to science and anyone who feels they know it all.
its limits that why it wont touch the supernatural
but houldnt the same be applied to any religeous belief? that they should know thier limits and be honest about what they actually know and what they
What a concept; not all answers will come through science!
but its producing more then any faith has
almost everything youve said can be spun around and laid back at religeous belief and religeous people,
Unless there is incontrovertible proof that there is no ID while using all levels of intellect, reasoning in all fields possible, to make a
judgment that there isn't one without exhausting all avenues, then it becomes plain ignorance with a dash of prejudice.
the burden of proof lays with the claimiant, so all avenues of reasoning intellect testing observation should be leveled at proving any form of a god
science doesntcare one way or the other it doesnt dabble in supernatural
so its for the bleivers to get off thier arses and try and prove it not just sit around saying cant prove me wrong so i must be right ..as your doing
Especially when we have the biggest loophole of all: how did everything start, including crystals? Who, or what, started life? Hawkins doesn't
know. Neither does any other atheist.
but religeon claims to and then does nothing about proving it
so which is better honesty or delusion and lazyness?
which is more honest? bieng honest and saying we dont know, or saying i must be right becasue you dont know?
that is why its not an equal 50% becasue you cant prove anything the weight of the argument goes against you until such time as evidence is
but thank you for an excellent display of the same bias that you have just accused science of
and for discrediting from a position that has no authority, again the same thing your accusing of
take a couple of deep breaths have a nice relaxing cup of tea and analyse your post using your field of expertise and see what you think of it, and
compare what your accusing off with your own wording
[edit on 28/12/08 by noobfun]