Intelligent Design Shot Down

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
162

[quote]haney wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:

And if you studied Catholicism and the Bible, you would find that many of their teaching completely contradict the Bible itself. The Catholic religion is based on their traditions, not what the Bible actually teaches.

This is true. They put the teachings of Jesus and the works of the Apostles ahead of a book.

just for arguments sake

Where do they get those teachings of Jesus?
[/quote]

Despite being raised as a Catholic I no longer consider myself to be one and I actually know very little about the religion itself. However, it was always my understanding that the Catholic church focused on the New Testament, which contained the account of Jesus’ life and teachings. (I believe the church also relies on supplemental sources but I don’t know which ones.) The creationism story comes from the Old Testament which came from the Hebrew tradition and contains no mention of Jesus. So yes, the Catholic religion is definitely based on the Bible, but primarily on the New Testament.

I don’t often have good things to say about the Catholic church, but Zap made a good point. The Catholic church believes in using reason and logic to interpret and understand the teachings of Jesus and the Apostles as opposed to blind adherence to the literal words in a book.

163

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Famous quote from “FightinIrish26” -

“Of course I would. Sex is sex. Of course, I’d definitly stick it in her ass when she wasn’t paying attention, just for the hell of it. If she gets mad…laugh.”

These are the people that we are arguing with?

So you pulled up a joking quote from the sex and the male animal thread. Big fucking deal. That has nothing to do with politics whatsoever.

Not to mention, I’m a regular on the political forums…but I rarely see your pussy ass ever venture in here. No wonder, because you’d be ripped apart.

What a douchebag. [/quote]

Douchebag? Are you still in high school?

Oh no, I’m being ripped apart! It hurts! I’m such a pussy because you have never seen me post in a political forum! You are so intimidating! Please don’t hurt me as you are typing on your keyboard!

164

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
haney wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:

And if you studied Catholicism and the Bible, you would find that many of their teaching completely contradict the Bible itself. The Catholic religion is based on their traditions, not what the Bible actually teaches.

This is true. They put the teachings of Jesus and the works of the Apostles ahead of a book.

just for arguments sake

Where do they get those teachings of Jesus?

There are more gospels than just those included in the Bible.

I am no expert in the area but the Catholic Church seems to draw its teachings from a broader area than many of the other Christian churches.

The Catholic Church also does not interpret the old testament literally.

This results in much disagreement between the Catholic and other churches even before they get into politics.[/quote]

No Catholic Church that I know of including the EOC would even consider using the other gospels which you are referring to (known as the gnostic gospels). In fact it is that very Church which formed the Cannon of the Bible we follow today.

The Catholic church has been steeped in tradition that has changed and evolved with the years, including but not limited to dogma practiced by the protestant churches that are around today.

There is only one form of the early church that I know of that has remained very close to its roots, and that is the EOC. I am not an EOC but I think they are a purer form of the early church than the Catholic version.

The church draws its teachings not from just apostles but popes who set knew guidelines from time to time.

The literal part of the OT is a none issue concerning your early statements.

since the Catholic church doesn’t get its “This is true. They put the teachings of Jesus and the works of the Apostles ahead of a book”, and they don’t follow the gnostics like you were proposing where do they get those teachings?

165

no but u are dumbass emu…

as for eisteins later years, it’s very intresting: he had big arguments in correspondance with sevral other leading physicists about ideas about the underlying mechanics of the world being truly random. (the famous " god does not play dice" quote is from here). Because he rejected these (ie: quantum theory), his late atempts where a bit crap really, not in the league of someone like feynman.

In his prime, 1905-1916 he was truly brilliant, the paper on special rel and photons where just so imcomprehencivly inspired, magic from nowhere. but his late stuff is a bit well, not all that.

Also not that his books on other ideas (not phys) where badly received and well are agreed not to be all that. he was a physical genius, that does not mean he must be brilliant in all other ways.

167

ID “theory” = theological wolf in scientific sheep’s clothing.

There is no experimental or evidential way of disproving ID theory, so it can’t possibly be scientific. The best one can do is say, “I can’t think of any other explanation.”

Evolution, as a scientific theory, welcomes the opportunity to be disproven. So far, it has garnered critique, and, over time, has been adapted, expanded, and refined in light of past critiques. It is not complete, especially by it’s own admission.

So which belongs in a science class? Which are, in fact, scientific?

ID is the scientific equivalent to a five-year old’s explanation that magnetism is more likely due to magic or spirits than charged atomic particles to be small to be seen with the naked eye. The true scientist will have to admit that there just might be well-behaved spirits or unknown rules of magic that are mistakenly being observed as a measurable scientific phenomenon over and over again, but the scientist (an ardent D&D afficionado) might say something like, “Yeah, I personally believe that spirits and magic exist… but if I can’t think of a way of disproving the magic/spirit theory, what scientific value in regards to this observable phenomenon, if any, could it possibly hold over pure speculation?”

And she (I know–a female D&D player/physicist??? Crazy.) would have to throw out the magic/spirit theory whenever she began discussing things from a scientific standpoint…

That’s pretty much what all science forces you to do–limit yourself to observable and replicable phenomenon that can be disproven. Anything else is a waste of time and intelligence.

A simple lack of understanding does not suddenly open the door to scientific plausibility.

As such, ID can and will fuck off for the forseeable future–praise God for the scientific method!

168

[quote]Lunchmeataphobia wrote:
no but u are dumbass emu…

as for eisteins later years, it’s very intresting: he had big arguments in correspondance with sevral other leading physicists about ideas about the underlying mechanics of the world being truly random. (the famous " god does not play dice" quote is from here). Because he rejected these (ie: quantum theory), his late atempts where a bit crap really, not in the league of someone like feynman.

In his prime, 1905-1916 he was truly brilliant, the paper on special rel and photons where just so imcomprehencivly inspired, magic from nowhere. but his late stuff is a bit well, not all that.

Also not that his books on other ideas (not phys) where badly received and well are agreed not to be all that. he was a physical genius, that does not mean he must be brilliant in all other ways. [/quote]

u are dumbass? are you sure… me not so sure

169

I only know a very small amount on the whole ID vs Evolution battle so expect to get my question ripped to pieces, but in the pursuit of knowledge I will ask it anyway.

My understanding of the beginnings of ID is that there are organisms that exist that are so complex that if one component of them was non existent it would either not be able to function, or not exist in the first place. Does evolution theory have an answer for this? Please note I am not asking this to attempt to shoot holes in either ID or evolution theory but I genuinely want to understand both sides of the debate.

170

Intelligent design theory is such a cop-out. While it doesn’t have any direct link to religion, it gets grouped in with creationism because they’re both theories for explaining the universe for which we will never, ever be able to get any evidence for or against.

Has anybody heard of the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory? Google it if you haven’t. If you believe in creationism or ID, then just know that people view you the same way you’d view somebody who believed in a flying spaghetti monster.

If the theory fundamentally cannot be tested, observed, or either proved or disproved in any way then it’s no better than a fairy tale, and has no place in our schools

171

[quote]helga wrote:
I only know a very small amount on the whole ID vs Evolution battle so expect to get my question ripped to pieces, but in the pursuit of knowledge I will ask it anyway.

My understanding of the beginnings of ID is that there are organisms that exist that are so complex that if one component of them was non existent it would either not be able to function, or not exist in the first place. Does evolution theory have an answer for this? Please note I am not asking this to attempt to shoot holes in either ID or evolution theory but I genuinely want to understand both sides of the debate.[/quote]

You’ve probably heard ‘the blind watchmaker’ theory, which suggests that if you found a watch alone in the desert you would presume, because of its complexity, that it had a maker. Just as finding earth, alone in a primarly lifeless empty space, you presume that the complex life that exists here had a maker.

Those examples aren’t entirely analagous though because you don’t find just one person, you find billions. And evolution is supported in reality because you also find less evolved forms of humans, monkeys. And you will find examples of organisms further and further back along the evolutionary ladder until you reach a single DNA strand. And one could reasonably say that a DNA strand could arise without a maker, and with enough time could eventually evolve into a human person.

And to support evolutionary theory, as I mentioned before, there exist today, examples of many of the organisms between that original DNA strand and ourselves.

172

[quote]helga wrote:
I only know a very small amount on the whole ID vs Evolution battle so expect to get my question ripped to pieces, but in the pursuit of knowledge I will ask it anyway.

My understanding of the beginnings of ID is that there are organisms that exist that are so complex that if one component of them was non existent it would either not be able to function, or not exist in the first place. Does evolution theory have an answer for this? Please note I am not asking this to attempt to shoot holes in either ID or evolution theory but I genuinely want to understand both sides of the debate.[/quote]

To answer your question it is important to understand that evolution not only adds stuff, it can also take away things if they serve no purpose anymore and are just costly to produce and maintain.

Once that has happened it looks like you could not build such a creature or such a functioning organ by simply adding stuff , which is true, but to conclude that someone must have designed it is premature.

Think of the way romans built bridges and doorways. There is no way to build such a structure by simply putting one stone on another, but it is quite easy to understand how they did it once you know that they used a wooden structure to support the stones, that was later taken away once the stones could support themselves.

173

[quote]FlyingEmuOfDoom wrote:
Albert Einstein was a complete idiot. All of you who have ever listened to him are complete idiots as well. What did Albert ever do that was so smart? All of you guys that believe that there is absolute no intelligent design in our universe are all much smarter that Albert Einstein could ever hope to be.

After all, who did that Albert guy think he was - He believed in intelligent design!!

Interesting how schools love to teach about Albert Einstein and his genious work, but not about the fact that he believed in a intelligent designer to our universe. Why not teach the full side of Albert Einstein? Oh, I’m sorry! That would go against the NO ITELLIGENT DESIGN/EVOLUTION IS THE ONLY WAY minute percentage of the population of this planet.[/quote]

First off, you are wrong. First of all, people teach Einstein because of his scientific work. Is like asking why they don’t teach about the full side of Newton, or Pythagoras, or any other scientist, odds are its because

  1. ITS A SCIENCE CLASS, not Einstein’s life 101. Jeez, let’s study EVERY ASPECT of EVERY influental person that has EVER LIVED. Enjoy the next 60 years of education.

  2. Did i mention Einstein is pretty much only taught to kids in science class?

As for his religious beliefs, way to use some famous figure to justify your views and attack another, it took me 5 minutes to find evidence that you have no idea what you are talking about.

Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia, which includes some quotes:

If anything, he would denounce ID as a mockery of God. God gave us this world to live in, and rational thought to comprehend it. Do you really want to thank God for that gift by simply using him as a scapegoat for any scientific idea that you feel attacks your precious and simplistic view of the world?

Now, if you really want to know what Einstein’s religious views were, check out these links:

http://www.skepticfiles.org/atheist/eindoc.htm

http://www.hal-pc.org/~wtb/einstein’sreligiousviews.html

174

[quote]helga wrote:
I only know a very small amount on the whole ID vs Evolution battle so expect to get my question ripped to pieces, but in the pursuit of knowledge I will ask it anyway.

My understanding of the beginnings of ID is that there are organisms that exist that are so complex that if one component of them was non existent it would either not be able to function, or not exist in the first place. Does evolution theory have an answer for this? Please note I am not asking this to attempt to shoot holes in either ID or evolution theory but I genuinely want to understand both sides of the debate.[/quote]

ID basically states that there are systems/organisms in this world so complex that they could not possible have evolved from simpler systems/organisms, and must be attributed to an intelligent designer (who surprisingly resembles God).

They like to use examples like the aformentioned watchmaker example, the human eye as a complex system, how bees fly (recently proved by science though), and a few more I believe.

As for evolution, read this:

to give you an idea.

Soo…

ID proponents see objects/systems/organisms and look into how complex/intelligent they are by looking at physical aspects (example, the human eye as a very very complex system). Based on these observations they say it had to have been created by a higher intelligence.

Evolution proponents will look at these same systems and ask HOW it came to be. And look for simpler and more complex versions of it.

To me its the difference between seeing what a program does and making a judgement, and actually browsing through the source code and making a judgement. (take a guess as to which group would know more in the long run…)

175

[quote]Ren wrote:
ID basically states that there are systems/organisms in this world so complex that they could not possible have evolved from simpler systems/organisms, and must be attributed to an intelligent designer (who surprisingly resembles God).

[/quote]
First off true evolution does not make any statements on if God did or Didn’t do it.

Is A wiki a credible source?

I would agree that is what novice ID proponents would say.

Can Evolution Proponents, and IDer’s believe the same things about the Natural order of how things came about? your post strikes me as one that is claiming evolution proponents are forced to be against God being a driving force behind it. Which we both know evolution does not answer these questions, it only answer how they came about.

[quote]
To me its the difference between seeing what a program does and making a judgement, and actually browsing through the source code and making a judgement. (take a guess as to which group would know more in the long run…)[/quote]

Good point, but I would still know that there was a coder who wrote the program.

Let me try to summerize what this debate is really over.

ID: Feels that atheistic dogma as trickled into the school systems through evolution in the science class. ID makes no stance on Evo, but believes there is a driving force behind what ever method the world was brought about. The problem ID has is not with the science, but instead with the possible philosphy that comes with the science teacher of the class.

People against ID: Feel that it has no scientific bearing (which they are correct), and that it is a ploy by biblical literalist to preach Dogma in the schools. Some of them are just pure atheist, and the others truly care about the science aspect of it.

The flat out truth is that those against it are correct, but they should also make a note that we have no clue why these things came about, we only know how they came about. Those who are for it would do themselves a favor by seperating themselves from those with an agenda.

Personally I don’t care since most of the population still thinks God did it in one way or another.

176

[quote]haney wrote:

Is A wiki a credible source?

[/quote]

Compared to what? The bible?

Sorry, couldn?t resist. I feel a little bit cheap now.

:slight_smile:

177

[quote]orion wrote:
haney wrote:

Is A wiki a credible source?

Compared to what? The bible?

Sorry, couldn?t resist. I feel a little bit cheap now.

:-)[/quote]

That was low even for a guy with a tele-tube avatar.

178

Vroom,you do stir the pot, and yes think outside the box too, and you seem to bring the best out of people so to speak.Keep on posting pal!