One in the eye for intelligent design

[Carcharodon]

Spoken like a truly "objective" moderator.

 

[bored]

Gil, I appreciate your explanations, but I think you missed my point.

I can keep asking why over and over again after every explanation until we finally get to the point where you say "I don't know" or that there's some explanation that "science hasn't figured out ... yet."

You say speed causes things to heat up faster. I ask why. You say because of friction. I ask why. You say because when two particles rub together at a rapid pace, it creates energy, which creates heat. I ask why. And eventually it'll get to the point where you, just like scientists, can't explain why.

I'm not debating that evolution exists. I believe it does in *some* form. What I'm saying is that everything did NOT come from nothing. Someone had to create it, and someone had to lay down the ground rules for not just how physics would work, but for how physics would work in such a way as to sustain life as we know it. Just as science dictates that friction creates heat, whomever created friction desired that outcome. Otherwise, it would be something else and our science would lend just as much credibility to that.

Okay, the friction analogy, I'm not a physicist myself, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say if you got into it with one of them on something like how friction works, they could hang with you as many times as you asked "why". At least up until the point where it got so annoying how childish a tactic that is that they walked away.

 

[bored]

Spoken like a truly "objective" moderator.

.

 

[Carcharodon]

Okay, the friction analogy, I'm not a physicist myself, but I'm gonna go out on a limb and say if you got into it with one of them on something like how friction works, they could hang with you as many times as you asked "why". At least up until the point where it got so annoying how childish a tactic that is that they walked away.

Yeah...they'd get into string theory and after that it would just be pointless. The problem is that science can never actually answer the question of, "why?"

"Why?" is simultaneously the most pointless, yet pertinent, question a person can ever ask.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Yes this could be the case since quantum " theory " now suggests the possibility of multiple dimensions.

However, I still think the term "before" is obsolete in this instance since a singularity is basically void of time and space. We got our perceptions of time and space from the birth of this universe and maybe the unit to measure or quantify time and space is just particular to this one we exist in.

If the multiple universe theory is right then maybe they all existed at the same time and no differentiation can be made to a "before"

Stephen Hawkings is quoted as saying, on the question of what is before or after our Universe, that it is like asking "what is north of the north pole?"

 

[Carcharodon]

Stephen Hawkings is quoted as saying, on the question of what is before or after our Universe, that it is like asking "what is north of the north pole?"

[YT]oEw5BiCa6EA[/YT]

 

[bored]

Yeah...they'd get into string theory and after that it would just be pointless. The problem is that science can never actually answer the question of, "why?"

"Why?" is simultaneously the most pointless, yet pertinent, question a person can ever ask.

The thing is, the kind of "why" that some people want isn't what science exists to explain. The "how" is what matters in science. Intelligent design does a crap job of explaining either "why" or "how".

 

[Carcharodon]

The thing is, the kind of "why" that some people want isn't what science exists to explain. The "how" is what matters in science. Intelligent design does a crap job of explaining either "why" or "how".

Agreed 100%.

 

[Abaddon]

Cloverfield!

 

[Démon]

Yeah...they'd get into string theory and after that it would just be pointless. The problem is that science can never actually answer the question of, "why?"

And Creationism cannot wholly answer that, either. "God created the universe." "Why?" "*Explanation*" "Why?" and it can just keep going. There are limits to what is known of God, as well. Maybe you know why God created the universe, but why was He motivated to do that? Why does God exist? And it branches out into other questions.
Say what you will about the limits of science, people, but realize also the limits of what you can answer about God.
"Why?" is the question that seems to really send humanity for a loop.

 

[Carcharodon]

And Creationism cannot wholly answer that, either. "God created the universe." "Why?" "*Explanation*" "Why?" and it can just keep going. There are limits to what is known of God, as well. Maybe you know why God created the universe, but why was He motivated to do that? Why does God exist? And it branches out into other questions.
Say what you will about the limits of science, people, but realize also the limits of what you can answer about God.
"Why?" is the question that seems to really send humanity for a loop.

Agreed 100%.

 

[chaseter]

Stephen J. Gould, a brilliant scientist and atheist talks about the realm of religion and science and how both should be seperated in his book 'Rocks of Ages'(he puned the relgious song Rock of Ages...that funny atheist). When an issue comes forth, it should be termed in a manner that it fits in one magesteria(Science or Religion). Science always answers the questions of "how" and religion reserves the questions as to "why". How was the Earth created? That belongs to science. Why was the Earth was created? That belongs to Religion. Science cannot answer every question about religion and religion cannot answer every question about science. Evolution for example is one of the hugely debated subjects that comes between each magisteria and is causing conflict and the questions of how and why are not clear. Each side has their radicalists that try to force their opinion on others. But there are many people that allow each magisteria to co-exist and no conflicts arise due to each subject and framing in its own respective spot.

So bored got it right when saying about 'how' or 'why' and intelligent design does do a crap job of explaining either. That is an example of Religion interfering with Science and it's causing conflict.

 

[Carcharodon]

How many people still think that I.D. should be taught in schools alongside evolution in science class?

Come on, show of hands. Don't be shy.

 

[chaseter]

How many people still think that I.D. should be taught in schools alongside evolution in science class?

Come on, show of hands. Don't be shy.

My Bio prof was an extremely smart man but a bit of a d*ck. But when we went over evolution, he first off didn't skip of the Jesus bashing, but he said something extremely smart:

"I can't prove God doesn't exist, but I can prove evolution does exist."

So in other words, no it shouldn't be taught. But I think the teacher, prof, etc...should always mention what my bio prof did. Be sensitive to the beliefs of others but present the what we know as the truth in a fair and unbiased manner.

 

[Memphis Slim]

Cute.......but you tell me. Why is a "moderator" getting into this conversation and the first thing he does is call people who don't believe in evolution "idiots" and "zealots"?? Tell me how that does not inflame discussions?? Why is a Mod adding gasoline to a very touchy subject anyway? Aren't mods suppose to be above that? Aren't they suppose to keep us from doing stuff like that?

He can have his opinion. Fine. He doesn't believe in a creator. He believes his great great great grandaddy was an ape. Fine. Heck, you might believe it too. But I won't call you an "idiot" for your beliefs. I can disagree without insulting you. Sadly, though, some of you "still" think disagreeing is an insult. Oh well......

He can't help himself. This is not what a mod should be doing.

 

[Gilpesh]

Evolution for example is one of the hugely debated subjects that comes between each magisteria and is causing conflict and the questions of how and why are not clear.

Evolution doesn't fall in between them, it is clearly 'how'. Stupid people are confusing the 'how' with the 'why'.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Evolution doesn't fall in between them, it is clearly 'how'. Stupid people are confusing the 'how' with the 'why'.

That's not entirely true. You could argue that evolution, in part, explains why humans are here on earth. There is a form and function debate that goes on in evolutionary science that attempts to understand why certain animals possess or develop certain traits.

 

[Gilpesh]

That's not entirely true. You could argue that evolution, in part, explains why humans are here on earth. There is a form and function debate that goes on in evolutionary science that attempts to understand why certain animals possess or develop certain traits.

If anything the why you are talking about is how we got to here (sitting at computers arguing for no reason).

 

[Jerry!]

Why is this still an argument? Evolution can be proven. Every scientific theory has to be able to be disproved or proved and Intelligent Design does not allow itself to do that. Thus it ceases to be a scientific theory because it is based on faith, where it doesn't need to rely on logical or material evidence in order to prove it. It should never be taught in school. It isn't science.

 

[chaseter]

Evolution doesn't fall in between them, it is clearly 'how'. Stupid people are confusing the 'how' with the 'why'.

It comes between magisteria because both side think they are right. Read the whole thing. Like I said, Why evolution occurs and how evolution occurs are two different things.

 

[ShadowBoxing]

Why is this still an argument?

As long as someone is willing to argue it. You're on a website that draws mainly from internet savvy youngster who have a desire to debate, back and forth, issues dealing with comics and comic movies. The internet tends to be a place that sparks debate. You're talking to a minority, albeit a vocal one.

 

[Gilpesh]

It comes between magisteria because both side think they are right. Read the whole thing. Like I said, Why evolution occurs and how evolution occurs are two different things.

Why evolution occurs = Mutation/Recombination/Natural Selection

And all those are still a how.

 

[SuBe]

Yes this could be the case since quantum " theory " now suggests the possibility of multiple dimensions.

However, I still think the term "before" is obsolete in this instance since a singularity is basically void of time and space. We got our perceptions of time and space from the birth of this universe and maybe the unit to measure or quantify time and space is just particular to this one we exist in.

If the multiple universe theory is right then maybe they all existed at the same time and no differentiation can be made to a "before"

I subcribe to the theory, which i do not recall what it is called, that the universe is bound by the gravity between the galactic bodies. The Universe is expanding and at some point the when the elastic bands that is gravity gives out like a weak rubber band, the universe itself is going to collapse onto itself. So, once it has collapsed, so will begin a new universe.

 

[HUMAN]

Intelligent design is damn silly. There is no way to apply a scientific method to a "designer". To paraphrase Einstein, any theory that can't be proven false has no use for science.

Can you prove the 'nothing' better than the 'something'?

 

[Memphis Slim]

Why is this still an argument? Evolution can be proven. Every scientific theory has to be able to be disproved or proved and Intelligent Design does not allow itself to do that. Thus it ceases to be a scientific theory because it is based on faith, where it doesn't need to rely on logical or material evidence in order to prove it. It should never be taught in school. It isn't science.

No one is denying "micro-evolution within a species. It's the Macro-evolution that has not been proven. A species jumping to another has not been proven. Ape to man......snake to bird. That has not been proven. No transitional forms have been found to validate this.

Question: Do you have to see the designer of a pocket watch if you found it on the ground, to know that someone made it? Of course not. You know that a mind....an intellect went into the constructing of it. Why? The parts working in harmony. The detail. The molded casing...the crystal face....the clasp. All of this did not come together out of some random chance. The complexity of that watch demands that "common sense" tells us somebody designed it.

Now as complex as a watch may be, how much more so the universe....the eco-system, our bodily functions down to a cellular level. The functions....the harmony.....the precise balance. An infinite intellect is at work. The complexity of all of this screams it. We've all seen what explosions do. Ever seen an explosion leave "order" in its wake? Ever seen perfect harmony after and explosion?? Ever seen everything just stay in it's place after an explosion?? But that's what we are being told to believe. The big bang!!

I think it takes more faith to not believe in a creator than to believe.


Man...how many times have we had this discussion?