Intelligent design

[vidcc]

Is it a religious belief ?

At present there is a movement to get "intelligent design" taught in school science classes alongside evolution "so children can make up their own minds".

Apparently it is not creationism but it goes along the lines that life is too complex to be random so some intelligent "guide" has to have a hand in it.

The champions of the theory say it is not a tactic to get religion into the class, so my question is this.


If it is not a religious theory who is this intelligent being guiding the design of life ?

I know of no atheists that go for this theory, just religious folk so if it isn't God, who is it?

[GepperRankins]

i think they should slip the word allah in the lessons. that'll be fun

[Mad Cat]

Read: http://www.venganza.org/

[vidcc]

Read: http://www.venganza.org/

Class

[whypikonme]

There is nothing intelligent, or scientific, about intelligent design, it's an attempt at bringing religion into schools by the back door.

Whilst l have no time for creationism, there are many people, l believe JP is one of them, who believe God set off the big bang and allowed the universe to evolve according to the laws of physics. This does not interfere with science, not yet anyway, and doesn't oppose the theories of evolution.

[GepperRankins]

Bobby,

I am writing in regards to your satirical webpage advancing the concept of life being created by a Spaghetti Monster. While I can see you are drawing an analog that you think that this theory has as much evidence as intelligent design, I think you may have accidentally hoist yourself by your own petard.

You see, honestly, there is no scientific reason to teach any intelligent design or the theory of evolution. Well, intelligent design does fit the observable facts without violating the second law of thermodynamics, but I realize this is not really an argument proponents of evolution care about, so I will omit it for now. You see, no theory of creation can be proved by the scientific method. Can't be done -- how would you re-create it? Yes, I believe one theory is clearly head and shoulders above the other, but it is still doomed to remain a theory with no way to verify it. (Well, I could argue that intelligent design has to be accepted by any reasonable person, but then I would have to use the Bible, and for that I first would have to make an argument that it is statistically unlikely that the Bible is not inspired by a creator and should be taken as literally true. Its a long argument that builds up over time and I think you would get bored by it. If not let me point you to some good reference books to start with.)

I could go through the arguments and counter-arguments for and against evolution. There are enough of them, believe me! Instead let me short cut it by paraphrasing the author of the The Blind Matchmaker, Richard Dawkins. I think he is generally considered to be one of the strongest living proponents of evolutionary theory today. As 2005 began several scientists were asked what they believe that cannot be proved. What did Dawkins choose? Evolution of course! His only comment was that he chooses to believe in evolution and cannot understand why others would choose to believe in a God who does not proactively stop natural disasters. (There was no mention of the Spaghetti Monster theory, though I urge you to send a link to your web to him by email. It would brighten his day if noting else.) Notice his reasoning? He believes in evolution because the only alternative to evolution in his mind is that was an intelligent designer who Dawkins believes would have attributes that are offensive. I give Dawkins an A+ for basic honesty. I dont' know why he doesn't choose choice three, which is "I don't know how this all came to be."

The late Stephen J. Gould recognized the untenable position of evolutionary theory and attempted to explain it with such amusing theories (the guy who thought of the Spaghetti Monster theory has to love this one) as "punctuated evolution." That theory basically says that there is no evidence for evolution because evolution happens so fast and in such short spurts that there cannot be evidence for it. Seriously, that was his theory. He starts of with faith that evolution is true, admits there is no evidence for it, then instead of reaching the conclusion there is no reason to believe in evolutionary theory he goes off into la-la land. Come on, tell me you don't see how funny this is! Remember that until his recent death no one challenged this man as the leading authority on evolutionary theory in the entire world. It constantly amazes me what even first rate minds can come up with when they don't like the answers they find.

If you are going to satirize the best you can do (again I make an assumption here you don't take a literal interpretation of the Bible to be a great idea) is to satirize a bunch of scientists who fail to accept they just have no tenable theory for how life and the universe came to be. In short, they only have blind faith. In my book that makes evolution a religion. Well, actually a state supported religion forced on children through the medium of the schools. Golly, almost looks like those intelligent design guys just want an equal chance to indoctrinate the kids their way. If they can't have it, then why should the evolution guys have it? Well, I risk digressing here, so let me return to my main point.

Take some time to study both sides of the story -- I took only six months, but it was enough to find out that there is nothing conclusive out there. You can buy the relevant books in a Barnes and Noble, they aren't hard to find.

Keep that sense of humor too. Properly directed you could actually get some good messages out.

John S.

p.s.: I hope you don't mind I blind copied some friends on this reply. Take my work for it, they will be interested.



is he rodding?

[GepperRankins]

There is nothing intelligent, or scientific, about intelligent design, it's an attempt at bringing religion into schools by the back door.

Whilst l have no time for creationism, there are many people, l believe JP is one of them, who believe God set off the big bang and allowed the universe to evolve according to the laws of physics. This does not interfere with science, not yet anyway, and doesn't oppose the theories of evolution.
what makes you think JP believes that?

[Everose]

I think it is my grandma's hand, Vid. She always did have a way of somehow knowing what I was up to. :D

whypikonme on me has it pegged, imo about the back door.

[whypikonme]

what makes you think JP believes that?

He has said as much in previous posts. Near enough anyway.

[Busyman]

I personally believe a person that does not believe in intelligent design is a fool.

However, I don't believe it should be taught in school 'cause it lends nothing to science.

You either believe it or you don't.

I have believed it and had my reasons for this belief before I ever subscribed to any religion....or before someone named it "intelligent design".

Science class should not be devoted to "what intelligent being created/started all life."

[whypikonme]

I personally believe a person that does not believe in intelligent design is a fool.

However, I don't believe it should be taught in school 'cause it lends nothing to science.

What a strange thing to say. If someone doesn't believe in intelligent design, in other words a god, they're a fool, and in the next sentence it lends nothing to science. Didn't you mean to say that anyone who DOES believe in intelligent design is a fool?

[GepperRankins]

I personally believe a person that does not believe in intelligent design is a fool.


:lol:

[GepperRankins]

I personally believe a person that does not believe in intelligent design is a fool.

However, I don't believe it should be taught in school 'cause it lends nothing to science.

What a strange thing to say. If someone doesn't believe in intelligent design, in other words a god, they're a fool, and in the next sentence it lends nothing to science. Didn't you mean to say that anyone who DOES believe in intelligent design is a fool?
i remember he agreed with me when i said, out of infinite time and space some rock is bound to be able to create and support life by conicidences.


that was after they coined christian fundamentalism as "intelligent design" and science

[manker]

I personally believe a person that does not believe in intelligent design is a fool.


:lol:Says Busy who has trouble with the forum search function.


I have no wish to call religious folk fools. However, it seems to me that a well used point which pretty much counters the intelligent design theory is this:

If we were created by an intelligent creator, who were the ancient creators of this intelligent creator, and who created the creator of the creator that created the intelligent creator that created us.

You see, our intelligent creators have to be created themselves, if the theory is to be followed thro' logically.

You can't say 'We were created by an intelligent creator but it wasn't created - that entity just happened"

I mean to say, you can say it but to us foolish non-believers, it just sounds plain illogical.

[whypikonme]

I mean to say, you can say it but to us foolish non-believers, it just sounds plain illogical.

Foolish even.

[Barbarossa]

I personally believe a person that does not believe in intelligent design is a fool.


I don't think it's very intelligent really, this "Designer" chappie tho'.. It designed a whole universe, lovely jubbly, massive complicated place... however we can only live in less than 0.000000000000001% of it.

Good one. What's the rest for.. decoration?

I believe that the "Intelligent Designer" is a fool. And I'll tell it when I see it too! :P

[manker]

I mean to say, you can say it but to us foolish non-believers, it just sounds plain illogical.

Foolish even.I don't think so.

One can conclude that there are things in the universe that we haven't began to comprehend. It can be reasonably argued that the creator of the creator of the creator ... ad infinitum paradox could be one of those things.

However, to reasonably argue this one has to have faith in a higher power. I don't have this faith so to me it seems illogical rather than foolish.

I wouldn't call someome who takes this position foolish. I would, however, say to them that to me making an already complex situation even more complicated by saying that we were designed by an intelligent, reasoned force which also had to come into being in some way, seems illogical.

[whypikonme]

One can conclude that there are things in the universe that we haven't began to comprehend. It can be reasonably argued that the creator of the creator of the creator ... ad infinitum paradox could be one of those things.

Or, according to the circular time paradox, he may not have been born yet.

[Busyman]

Says Busy who has trouble with the forum search function.

Once or twice when it was down, yes.

I have no wish to call religious folk fools. However, it seems to me that a well used point which pretty much counters the intelligent design theory is this:

If we were created by an intelligent creator, who were the ancient creators of this intelligent creator, and who created the creator of the creator that created the intelligent creator that created us.

You see, our intelligent creators have to be created themselves, if the theory is to be followed thro' logically.

You can't say 'We were created by an intelligent creator but it wasn't created - that entity just happened"

I mean to say, you can say it but to us foolish non-believers, it just sounds plain illogical.
To not believe in intelligent design is to believe that everything just is. The universe began from nothing on it's very own. I think that's foolish.

I believe a "creator" didn't have to be created for this creator was already or was created was created.....

Rocks..No. Creator...Yes.

This has nothing to do with religion.

[lynx]

Read: http://www.venganza.org/This is outrageous. A slur on the name of the Great Floating Spaghetti Creature (may his bolognese be spicy).

I suspect this is the work of those who think all life begins in a ketchup bottle (though I suspect a great deal of life starts round it's rim).

[Busyman]

I personally believe a person that does not believe in intelligent design is a fool.

However, I don't believe it should be taught in school 'cause it lends nothing to science.

What a strange thing to say. If someone doesn't believe in intelligent design, in other words a god, they're a fool, and in the next sentence it lends nothing to science. Didn't you mean to say that anyone who DOES believe in intelligent design is a fool?
No.

[Busyman]

I personally believe a person that does not believe in intelligent design is a fool.


I don't think it's very intelligent really, this "Designer" chappie tho'.. It designed a whole universe, lovely jubbly, massive complicated place... however we can only live in less than 0.000000000000001% of it.

Good one. What's the rest for.. decoration?

I believe that the "Intelligent Designer" is a fool. And I'll tell it when I see it too! :P
How do you know 0.000000000000001% is habitable?
Ya don't.

[Barbarossa]

I don't think it's very intelligent really, this "Designer" chappie tho'.. It designed a whole universe, lovely jubbly, massive complicated place... however we can only live in less than 0.000000000000001% of it.

Good one. What's the rest for.. decoration?

I believe that the "Intelligent Designer" is a fool. And I'll tell it when I see it too! :P
How do you know 0.000000000000001% is habitable?
Ya don't.

You're right!
That was a generous estimate... :P

[GepperRankins]

I don't think it's very intelligent really, this "Designer" chappie tho'.. It designed a whole universe, lovely jubbly, massive complicated place... however we can only live in less than 0.000000000000001% of it.

Good one. What's the rest for.. decoration?

I believe that the "Intelligent Designer" is a fool. And I'll tell it when I see it too! :P
How do you know 0.000000000000001% is habitable?
Ya don't.
wow, you owned him then. if i was barbarella i'd never show my face again

[Barbarossa]

How do you know 0.000000000000001% is habitable?
Ya don't.
wow, you owned him then. if i was barbarella i'd never show my face again

Neither would I... :)

[Busyman]

How do you know 0.000000000000001% is habitable?
Ya don't.

You're right!
That was a generous estimate... :P
It was a guess based on whateverthefuck.

[GepperRankins]

You're right!
That was a generous estimate... :P
It was a guess based on whateverthefuck.
are you trying to get that in the dictionary or something?

[Barbarossa]

To not believe in intelligent design is to believe that everything just is. The universe began from nothing on it's very own. I think that's foolish.

I believe a "creator" didn't have to be created for this creator was already or was created was created.....

Rocks..No. Creator...Yes.

This has nothing to do with religion.

You're rejecting a theory, saying it's foolish, but then you're just commuting the same foolishness to the next level up, by stating that the Creator just came from nothing on it's very own. (At least I think that's what you're saying :unsure: )

Do you not see what you're saying? :huh:

[manker]

I have no wish to call religious folk fools. However, it seems to me that a well used point which pretty much counters the intelligent design theory is this:

If we were created by an intelligent creator, who were the ancient creators of this intelligent creator, and who created the creator of the creator that created the intelligent creator that created us.

You see, our intelligent creators have to be created themselves, if the theory is to be followed thro' logically.

You can't say 'We were created by an intelligent creator but it wasn't created - that entity just happened"

I mean to say, you can say it but to us foolish non-believers, it just sounds plain illogical.
To not believe in intelligent design is to believe that everything just is. The universe began from nothing on it's very own. I think that's foolish.You'll be aware that there are many people who certainly aren't foolish who believe just that. This is why I use the word illogical to describe what you are.

The thing is, to just lazily muse; 'meh, god did it' simply won't do. There is a huge amount of evidence to suggest that explainable forces created the universe as we know it. The big bang (or a series of big bangs) is accepted by many religious folk who try to work their faith around this.

Btw, you said earlier that you believe in intelligent design - you do know that this involves a hell of a lot more than god setting off the big bang, right?

I believe a "creator" didn't have to be created for this creator was already or was created was created.....

Rocks..No. Creator...Yes.

This has nothing to do with religion.Now come on, that first sentence is just drivel, isn't it.

You don't believe a creator has to be created yet you go on to say that he could have been created ergo you think this illogical paradox of a creator being created could have happened.

Nice one.

[Busyman]

To not believe in intelligent design is to believe that everything just is. The universe began from nothing on it's very own. I think that's foolish.

I believe a "creator" didn't have to be created for this creator was already or was created was created.....

Rocks..No. Creator...Yes.

This has nothing to do with religion.

You're rejecting a theory, saying it's foolish, but then you're just commuting the same foolishness to the next level up, by stating that the Creator just came from nothing on it's very own. (At least I think that's what you're saying :unsure: )

Do you not see what you're saying? :huh:
What theory have I rejected?

...and yes.

[Barbarossa]

What theory have I rejected?


:blink:



To not believe in intelligent design is to believe that everything just is. The universe began from nothing on it's very own. I think that's foolish.

[Busyman]

To not believe in intelligent design is to believe that everything just is. The universe began from nothing on it's very own. I think that's foolish.
You'll be aware that there are many people who certainly aren't foolish who believe just that. This is why I use the word illogical to describe what you are.

The thing is, to just lazily muse; 'meh, god did it' simply won't do. There is a huge amount of evidence to suggest that explainable forces created the universe as we know it. The big bang (or a series of big bangs) is accepted by many religious folk who try to work their faith around this.
Belief in organized religion is illogical. However, what huge amount of evidence do you refer to? It is comforting to believe the latest science regarding the beginning of the universe. You do realize that all of this evidence can be bullshit too don't you?

Btw, you said earlier that you believe in intelligent design - you do know that this involves a hell of a lot more than god setting off the big bang, right?Sure and if there was a Big Bang.
I believe a "creator" didn't have to be created for this creator was already or was created was created.....

Rocks..No. Creator...Yes.

This has nothing to do with religion.
Now come on, that first sentence is just drivel, isn't it.

You don't believe a creator has to be created yet you go on to say that he could have been created ergo you think this illogical paradox of a creator being created could have happened.

Nice one.
Thanks. That sentence was meant sound that way for I doubt I'd understand this intelligent being.

I just believe this being exists.

[Busyman]

:blink:



To not believe in intelligent design is to believe that everything just is. The universe began from nothing on it's very own. I think that's foolish.

Oh that's a theory? :huh:

One that has no logical back-up.

Can you create something?

[Barbarossa]

Thanks. That sentence was meant sound that way for I doubt I'd understand this intelligent being.

For once we agree... :P

[manker]

Belief in organized religion is illogical. However, what huge amount of evidence do you refer to? It is comforting to believe the latest science regarding the beginning of the universe. You do realize that all of this evidence can be bullshit too don't you?
What has organised religion got to do with anything. The huge amount of evidence is there for all to see, according to the laws of physics, galaxies are further apart now and ... I'm not going to summarise it all.

It's not bullshit because the laws of physics aren't bullshit. If light takes longer to travel between two points now than it did previously, then it's because the two points are now further apart. Light hasn't speeded up. By seeing how galaxies are getting further away from us, we know that the universe is expanding.

You're ostrichising.

Sure and if there was a Big Bang.:lol:
Thanks. That sentence was meant sound that way for I doubt I'd understand this intelligent being.

I just believe this being exists.So basically you understand nothing but you're willing to put it all down to a 'creator'.

That's not only illogical - it's also a very lazy way of thinking. You can't handle the theories behind the big bang so instead you close off your mind and put it all down to a creator.

Great stuff. At least we know your way of thinking and to be quite frank - you're welcome to it.

[Barbarossa]

Oh that's a theory? :huh:


Well, kind of. There are theories about the creation of the Universe being without cause.



One that has no logical back-up.


Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean it isn't logical.

Why is it more "logical" for you to believe in an uncaused Creator, rather than an uncaused Universe?



Can you create something?


My abilities and existence are consistent with the physical laws of this universe. Why?

[vidcc]

I can't see any other reason for trying to get this into schools other than to teach God by the back-door.

I would argue though that the complexity of life supports evolution precisely because it is so complex it has to be random and not the other way round.

I.D. may not be a "religious" belief but it is a belief in God. To clarify this statement, one may believe in God without being a member of a religion and without subscribing to the word of the bible etc.

Odd though that I.D. is being championed by Christians in Kansas.

[whypikonme]

Oh that's a theory? :huh:

One that has no logical back-up.

Can you create something?

Tell me something Busy, is your belief in intelligent design a theory?

Or is it the truth?

[JPaul]

I can't see any other reason for trying to get this into schools other than to teach God by the back-door.

I would argue though that the complexity of life supports evolution precisely because it is so complex it has to be random and not the other way round.

I.D. may not be a "religious" belief but it is a belief in God. To clarify this statement, one may believe in God without being a member of a religion and without subscribing to the word of the bible etc.

Odd though that I.D. is being championed by Christians in Kansas.
Why must Intelligent Design be a belief in God.

The designer may not have been omnipotent, omniscient or omnipresent. Just very, very advanced (did I say very)

Why do you assume that the creator of the universe had to be (a) God. Perhaps the creator of the universe has died. They certainly aren't (a) God then

Take mankers example, the creator was herself created. That creator was himself created, until you get to the One who wasn't created.

Oh and if one takes it that the Universe was not created, then it must either always have been or popped into existence. To follow you chaps use of "logic", the popping into existance from nowhere is not logical. Therefore the universe must always have been here (or there). It must also always be here (where would all the energy / matter go (it would only change form)).

See here's your problem chaps, you are trying to understand a universe of space-time / mass-energy using a basically Newtonian model, which doesn't even come close to working. Certainly not for the very big, very small, very fast or very slow. It's an approximation for a narrow spectrum of experience.

Perhaps the creator of the universe hasn't been born yet, who said time travels at a constant speed, in a straight line. We already know that the rate of it's passage is relative, so let's stop assuming that we understand it's nature.

[manker]

Oh and if one takes it that the Universe was not created, then it must either always have been or popped into existence. To follow you chaps use of "logic", the popping into existance from nowhere is not logical. Therefore the universe must always have been here (or there). It must also always be here (where would all the energy / matter go (it would only change form)).

See here's your problem chaps, you are trying to understand a universe of space-time / mass-energy using a basically Newtonian model, which doesn't even come close to working. Certainly not for the very big, very small, very fast or very slow. It's an approximation for a narrow spectrum of experience.The what came before the big bang stuff is really interesting, none of it can follow the Newtonian model and none of it can be backed up properly - unlike the big bang theory.

Saying that it's illogical to say it popped into existence isn't completely accurate because I'm fully accepting of the school of thought that says there are things we don't understand. I'm confident of what happened after the big bang (altho' I don't/can't fully understand it due to lack of scientific training) but I'm not confident of what happened before.

There's nothing illogical about that.

[Busyman]

What has organised religion got to do with anything. The huge amount of evidence is there for all to see, according to the laws of physics, galaxies are further apart now and ... I'm not going to summarise it all.

It's not bullshit because the laws of physics aren't bullshit. If light takes longer to travel between two points now than it did previously, then it's because the two points are now further apart. Light hasn't speeded up. By seeing how galaxies are getting further away from us, we know that the universe is expanding.

You're ostrichising.
Then apparently the laws of physics have explained the beginning of universe.
That sounds like fact.

Very good I understand now. I wish scientists would stop calling it theory though.

Sure and if there was a Big Bang.
Thanks. That sentence was meant sound that way for I doubt I'd understand this intelligent being.

I just believe this being exists.
So basically you understand nothing but you're willing to put it all down to a 'creator'.

That's not only illogical - it's also a very lazy way of thinking. You can't handle the theories behind the big bang so instead you close off your mind and put it all down to a creator.

Great stuff. At least we know your way of thinking and to be quite frank - you're welcome to it.
Cool. Lazy thinking is...."well it just happened".

You're explaination of my way of thinking is idiotic. Who the fuck said theories can't be handled? I believe theories can lead to further scientific study. However, they are still theories and people draw conclusions which are not so.

The Big Bang theory may be bullshit. The Bang could have been started by an intelligent being that may not fit into your statistical analysis nor your petri dish.

Relating to the topic however, this should not be taught in school because belief in intelligent design has squat to do with something like expansion of the universe.

How could a curriculum be made?
Can an apparatus be used to test anything based on intelligent design?

[whypikonme]

Oh and if one takes it that the Universe was not created, then it must either always have been or popped into existence. To follow you chaps use of "logic", the popping into existance from nowhere is not logical.

Not according to Superstring Theory, whereby there was already something there before the Big Bang.

[Barbarossa]

Oh and if one takes it that the Universe was not created, then it must either always have been or popped into existence. To follow you chaps use of "logic", the popping into existance from nowhere is not logical. Therefore the universe must always have been here (or there). It must also always be here (where would all the energy / matter go (it would only change form)).

See here's your problem chaps, you are trying to understand a universe of space-time / mass-energy using a basically Newtonian model, which doesn't even come close to working. Certainly not for the very big, very small, very fast or very slow. It's an approximation for a narrow spectrum of experience.The what came before the big bang stuff is really interesting, none of it can follow the Newtonian model and none of it can be backed up properly - unlike the big bang theory.

Saying that it's illogical to say it popped into existence isn't completely accurate because I'm fully accepting of the school of thought that says there are things we don't understand. I'm confident of what happened after the big bang (altho' I don't/can't fully understand it due to lack of scientific training) but I'm not confident of what happened before.

There's nothing illogical about that.

There's no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.. because Time is a property of this Universe. :blink:

The trouble is we don't have enough terms of reference to explain how the universe came to exist. However, attributing it to some other "intelligence" to me seems like a kop-out.

As you've said before, it's lazy thinking, and it's the sort of thing that people used to invent to explain the sun and moon, storms, volcanoes, etc.

Throughout history and pre-history, people have always attributed things they don't understand to a Higher Being. It seems to be a symptom of the human condition. :unsure:

@JPaul - Why is it "illogical" for the Universe to just simply come into existence? Perhaps "logic" is also a property of this Universe also...

Bottom line - We don't understand how the Universe came to be. Probably never will either... I'm just glad it did... and I'm glad we are here to wonder about it... :)

[manker]

So basically you understand nothing but you're willing to put it all down to a 'creator'.

That's not only illogical - it's also a very lazy way of thinking. You can't handle the theories behind the big bang so instead you close off your mind and put it all down to a creator.

Great stuff. At least we know your way of thinking and to be quite frank - you're welcome to it.


Cool. Lazy thinking is...."well it just happened".

You're explaination of my way of thinking is idiotic. Who the fuck said theories can't be handled? I believe theories can lead to further scientific study. However, they are still theories and people draw conclusions which are not so.

The Big Bang theory may be bullshit. The Bang could have been started by an intelligent being that may not fit into your statistical analysis nor your petri dish.Yes, lazy thinking is putting your feet up and saying, "meh, it just happened". Rather than trying to understand.

I don't see how my explanation of your way of thinking is idiotic. In fact, I think it's spot on.

You said earlier that you believe in intelligent design, you then expounded (well, you agreed with me when I did your thinking for you) and said that it involves a lot more than god setting off the big bang and leaving stuff to happen. Now you're moving away and trying to focus on the big bang being started by an intelligent being.

You don't know what you believe :D

Relating to the topic however, this should be taught in school because belief in intelligent design has squat to do with something like expansion of the universe.

How could a curriculum be made?
Can an apparatus be used to test anything based on intelligent design?I don't care.

You don't really have an opinion on the origin of the universe, the above is you distancing yourself from what you've written previously.

Everything you've posted so far has demonstrated your ignorance.

[JPaul]

manker,

I was actually having a cheap pop at people use of "logic". Using their apparent definition, to suggest that an entire universe came into being where nothing existed before would indeed be "illogical".

However I think we both agree that it did not appear from nothing, it was a result of something else. I believe donuts may have been involved .... and string

Good to see you accept the school of though that there are things we don't understand. I had been a bit concerned at your apparent closeness to omniscience (see qualifying superlatives as previously discussed).

Oh and if the big bang is what started time as well as everything else, then the question of what was "before" it doesn't really mean anything. However I just made that bit up for a larf .... or did I.

[vidcc]

Why must Intelligent Design be a belief in God.



Why do you assume that the creator of the universe had to be (a) God. Perhaps the creator of the universe has died. They certainly aren't (a) God then


I did ask if not god then who is it, however the champions (in this case) are devout Christians. Creationism (god created the earth) is not allowed to be taught in public school. These Christians are opposed to evolution being taught as it isn't consistent with their belief that god created the earth. So substitute the word "god" with "intelligent being" hey presto it's not religious and may be taught. (still only requires faith instead of scientific evidence though). ;)


You can come up with many differing ideas about I.D. once the foundation is in place, but those are not the ones that these Christians wish taught. And it is their theories I started the thread about, not any other theory we can come up with here.

You can put a ford badge on your skoda....it's still a skoda.

[whypikonme]

There's no such thing as "before" the Big Bang.. because Time is a property of this Universe. :blink:


Not true. OUR time may have started at the big bang, that doesn't mean time itself does. IF the big bang happened it had a cause, the symptons of that cause must have taken place before the bang. You're mixing up the known universe with "everything".

[sArA]

I thought that the 'beings' on Magrathea built the earth as a giant super computer for a bunch of mice....







I'll get me coat....

[JPaul]

Why must Intelligent Design be a belief in God.



Why do you assume that the creator of the universe had to be (a) God. Perhaps the creator of the universe has died. They certainly aren't (a) God then


I did ask if not god then who is it, however the champions (in this case) are devout Christians. Creationism (god created the earth) is not allowed to be taught in public school. These Christians are opposed to evolution being taught as it isn't consistent with their belief that god created the earth. So substitute the word "god" with "intelligent being" hey presto it's not religious and may be taught. (still only requires faith instead of scientific evidence though). ;)


You can come up with many differing ideas about I.D. once the foundation is in place, but those are not the ones that these Christians wish taught. And it is their theories I started the thread about, not any other theory we can come up with here.

You can put a ford badge on your skoda....it's still a skoda.


It appears you can only see a creator of the universe as being a God, others see it differently. I have explained how that might work.

If the creator if the universe is not a God (omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent) then how is studying her a religious matter. That is different from worshipping.

It is perfectly reasonable, outwith a religious framework, to suggest that a sentient being "designed" and created the universe as we know it. All that is doing is suggesting that their are being in the universe who are more advanced than us, then extend that possibility to a high degree.

The evidence for this ID is presumably assumptions based on observations. One group says the universe is complex, therefore it must be totally random. Another says that it is complex and orderly therefore there must have been a designer. Neither requires the existance, or otherwise, of a God.

[JPaul]

I thought that the 'beings' on Magrathea built the earth as a giant super computer for a bunch of mice....


Pan dimensional hyper beings, I think you'll find.

[Rat Faced]

I think Intelligent Design is flawed because of one major reason...

Its bloody BADLY designed..

If he was practising his designs on the other animals 1st or something, how come we dont have the eyes of eagles, speed of cheetahs etc etc etc..

Lets face it; we see crap, hear crap and are slow as hell.

Our heads and genitalia are exposed, both being contra-survival.

Just about everything in our "Natural" diet, has been shown to be bad for us... so what the hell was he doing while he designed the digestive system?

We are prone, not only to virii/bacteria that live on us... but can catch stuff from other creatures too...


"Intelligent Design"?? Sack the bloody designer...

Those that point to "Intelligence"; well i respond by pointing out War, Genocide, Racism, Bigotry, Greed... Its not Intelligent to be self destructive.

Dolphins also have large brains... all they do is eat, play and f*ck... who's the most intelligent then?

[whypikonme]

I think Intelligent Design is flawed because of one major reason...

Its bloody BADLY designed..

He didn't do a bad job of the camel.

[vidcc]

It appears you can only see a creator of the universe as being a God, others see it differently. I have explained how that might work.

If the creator if the universe is not a God (omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent) then how is studying her a religious matter. That is different from worshipping.

It is perfectly reasonable, outwith a religious framework, to suggest that a sentient being "designed" and created the universe as we know it. All that is doing is suggesting that their are being in the universe who are more advanced than us, then possibility extend that possibility to a high degree.

The evidence for this ID is presumably assumptions based on observations. One group says the universe is complex, therefore it must be totally random. Another says that it is complex and orderly therefore there must have been a designer. Neither requires the existance, or otherwise, of a God.

Then that goes with the already asked "who created the creator" for these Christians. (does god have elves?)
Take to mind that the people this is about state without reservation that God is the creator.... They wish to have Evolution removed from schools but as they realise this cannot happen they spout I.D..... It is making god fit.

You can point to your own theory but that is not the theory of the people I am talking about.

[Mad Cat]

I remember in some newspaper, there was a little comic of a scientist and a religious figurehead in two seperate cells.
I think the scientist side said:
"My method is to look at the facts and create theories."
The religious side:
"My method is to create theories and then find facts to support them."

Semed right to me. I probably wrote it out wrong, if anyone knows of / can find the original or can correct me, please. The gist is there though.

[lynx]

I think Intelligent Design is flawed because of one major reason...

Its bloody BADLY designed..

He didn't do a bad job of the camel.Oh Yeah?

Then how come it always has the hump?

[Busyman]

Cool. Lazy thinking is...."well it just happened".

You're explaination of my way of thinking is idiotic. Who the fuck said theories can't be handled? I believe theories can lead to further scientific study. However, they are still theories and people draw conclusions which are not so.

The Big Bang theory may be bullshit. The Bang could have been started by an intelligent being that may not fit into your statistical analysis nor your petri dish.Yes, lazy thinking is putting your feet up and saying, "meh, it just happened". Rather than trying to understand.
Agreed.


I don't see how my explanation of your way of thinking is idiotic. In fact, I think it's spot on.

You said earlier that you believe in intelligent design, you then expounded (well, you agreed with me when I did your thinking for you) and said that it involves a lot more than god setting off the big bang and leaving stuff to happen. Now you're moving away and trying to focus on the big bang being started by an intelligent being. You don't know what you believe :D
You are shit at reading. When did I change? When did I agree with you? I sure didn't agree with the crux of your argument.


Relating to the topic however, this should not be taught in school because belief in intelligent design has squat to do with something like expansion of the universe.

How could a curriculum be made?
Can an apparatus be used to test anything based on intelligent design?I don't care.

You don't really have an opinion on the origin of the universe, the above is you distancing yourself from what you've written previously.

Everything you've posted so far has demonstrated your ignorance.
To the contrary....

See you make up this 2 sided argument about science and I'm supposed to be on a different side than yourself....like folks that believe in a higher being are oblivious to the scientific process.

I believe an intelligent being created the universe. It doesn't mean I don't mean I don't believe in science. This was Captain Obvious throughout my posts but you just demonstrated your ignorance in reading comprehension.

[manker]

You are shit at reading. When did I change? When did I agree with you? I sure didn't agree with the crux of your argument.
See you make up this 2 sided argument about science and I'm supposed to be on a different side than yourselfFirst you say you don't agree with me and I'm shit at reading, then you say I've made up this two sided argument so you're not on a different side to me and then you go on to say ... I'm shit at reading.

I did say in an earlier post that I'm good at dechiphering gibberish. Looking at this, I may have to retract that.


My posts stand. You haven't a clue.

[Busyman]

See you make up this 2 sided argument about science and I'm supposed to be on a different side than yourselfFirst you say you don't agree with me and I'm shit at reading, then you say I've made up this two sided argument so you're not on a different side to me and then you go on to say ... I'm shit at reading.

I did say in an earlier post that I'm good at dechiphering gibberish. Looking at this, I may have to retract that.


My posts stand. You haven't a clue.
Really?
READ!!!

It's quite simple.
You are saying in your posts that because I believe in ID that I must be against science.

You are quite wrong.

I have made no statements that I don't believe in science.

My belief in the scientific method and ID are totally separate. (partly why I believe it shouldn't be in schools....I only said that over and fucking over :ermm: )

If you had your head out of your ass you'd have seen it to be Captain Obvious from my first post to the current one. :dry:

[manker]

Why don't you ever address what I write.

First you said that you don't agree with me, then you said you do. Then you said I can't read.

Ironic, no.

[Busyman]

Why don't you ever address what I write.

First you said that you don't agree with me, then you said you do. Then you said I can't read.

Ironic, no.
Agree with what? WHAT?!!!

[manker]

You're the one who wrote that you didn't agree with me, then you said that you did agree with me. Then you said I couldn't read.

Pray tell to what were you referring. Then you can answer your own question.

Why do I have to make you look like a dickhead everytime we converse. I don't even do it on purpose half of the time.

[Busyman]

You're the one who wrote that you didn't agree with me, then you said that you did agree with me. Then you said I couldn't read.

Pray tell to what were you referring. Then you can answer your own question.

Why do I have to make you look like a dickhead everytime we converse. I don't even do it on purpose half of the time.
Maybe if you say it enough it will actually be true.

The fact is this current talk of yours is subterfuge.

I agreed with you in post 56 and that was a particular statement you made, not the crux of your argument.

Example of something you made up........

You said earlier that you believe in intelligent design, you then expounded (well, you agreed with me when I did your thinking for you) and said that it involves a lot more than god setting off the big bang and leaving stuff to happen. Now you're moving away and trying to focus on the big bang being started by an intelligent being.

You are making shit up to cover yourself and now you're covered in shit. :shit:

[manker]

I agreed with you in post 56 and that was a particular statement you made, not the crux of your argument.So why did you ask me in post 60 what I meant. No need to answer that. You demonstrate it in a most oblique way within the next quote.


The fact is this current talk of yours is subterfuge.

You are making shit up to cover yourself and now you're covered in shit.Wait. I said exactly the same things to you in posts 44 and 61. Why would you repeat it back to me ... .

I also said in post 61 that half the time I don't mean to make you look like a dickhead. Well, I did that time :happy:

[manker]

You didn't have that example in your post when I hit reply.

I didn't make that up.

See if you can find where I got it from, there's a good lad.

[Busyman]

You didn't have that example in your post when I hit reply.

I didn't make that up.

See if you can find where I got it from, there's a good lad.
I'll oblige...lad.

You said earlier that you believe in intelligent designno shit, you then expoundedyeah ok that happens(well, you agreed with meNOPEwhen I did your thinking for you) and said that it involves a lot more than god setting off the big bang and leaving stuff to happenWRONG AGAIN. Now you're moving away and trying to focus on the big bang being started by an intelligent beingbzzzz WRONG.

Thanks for playing.

[manker]

I'll oblige...lad.

You said earlier that you believe in intelligent designno shit, you then expoundedyeah ok that happens(well, you agreed with meNOPEwhen I did your thinking for you) and said that it involves a lot more than god setting off the big bang and leaving stuff to happenWRONG AGAIN. Now you're moving away and trying to focus on the big bang being started by an intelligent beingbzzzz WRONG.

Thanks for playing.You got it wrong. Nevermind. I'll help out.

I said: Btw, you said earlier that you believe in intelligent design - you do know that this involves a hell of a lot more than god setting off the big bang, right?

You replied: "Sure and if there was a Big Bang."

Even allowing for the terrible English, you replied 'Sure' - indicating that you agree with my statement.

That's telling me that you think what I wrote is correct. That's telling me that you agree with me when I did your thinking for you.

That's telling me that you believe in intelligent design, not just god setting off the big bang.

Later on, in post 41, you tried to focus on god setting off the big bang.


That is EXACTLY what I wrote in this quote: "You said earlier that you believe in intelligent design, you then expounded (well, you agreed with me when I did your thinking for you) and said that it involves a lot more than god setting off the big bang and leaving stuff to happen. Now you're moving away and trying to focus on the big bang being started by an intelligent being."

Flip-flop? Maybe I'm too harsh. Perhaps you're just not very good at articulating what you mean.

[Busyman]

I'll oblige...lad.


Thanks for playing.You got it wrong. Nevermind. I'll help out.

I said: Btw, you said earlier that you believe in intelligent design - you do know that this involves a hell of a lot more than god setting off the big bang, right?

You replied: "Sure and if there was a Big Bang."

Even allowing for the terrible English, you replied 'Sure' - indicating that you agree with my statement.

That's telling me that you think what I wrote is correct. That's telling me that you agree with me when I did your thinking for you.

That's telling me that you believe in intelligent design, not just god setting off the big bang.

Later on, in post 41, you tried to focus on god setting off the big bang.


That is EXACTLY what I wrote in this quote: "You said earlier that you believe in intelligent design, you then expounded (well, you agreed with me when I did your thinking for you) and said that it involves a lot more than god setting off the big bang and leaving stuff to happen. Now you're moving away and trying to focus on the big bang being started by an intelligent being."

Flip-flop? Maybe I'm too harsh. Perhaps you're just not very good at articulating what you mean.
If there was a Big Bang
If there was a Big Bang
If there was a Big Bang
If there was a Big Bang

I also said "agreed" once. You've proven squat.

'Cause I said this...

The Big Bang theory may be bullshit. The Bang could have been started by an intelligent being that may not fit into your statistical analysis nor your petri dish.

.....does not bolster your argument either. :blink:

Nor does it disagree with you or whateverthefuck you are talking about with me so-called changing up.

I have maintained the same stance throughout the thread.

So again WTF? :blink:

[manker]

You got it wrong. Nevermind. I'll help out.

I said: Btw, you said earlier that you believe in intelligent design - you do know that this involves a hell of a lot more than god setting off the big bang, right?

You replied: "Sure and if there was a Big Bang."

Even allowing for the terrible English, you replied 'Sure' - indicating that you agree with my statement.

That's telling me that you think what I wrote is correct. That's telling me that you agree with me when I did your thinking for you.

That's telling me that you believe in intelligent design, not just god setting off the big bang.

Later on, in post 41, you tried to focus on god setting off the big bang.


That is EXACTLY what I wrote in this quote: "You said earlier that you believe in intelligent design, you then expounded (well, you agreed with me when I did your thinking for you) and said that it involves a lot more than god setting off the big bang and leaving stuff to happen. Now you're moving away and trying to focus on the big bang being started by an intelligent being."

Flip-flop? Maybe I'm too harsh. Perhaps you're just not very good at articulating what you mean.
If there was a Big Bang
If there was a Big Bang
If there was a Big Bang
If there was a Big Bang

I also said "agreed" once. You've proven squat.I've proven you wrong, quelle surprise.

You said I made up what I wrote, I just pointed out that I didn't.

Nighty night.

[Busyman]

If there was a Big Bang
If there was a Big Bang
If there was a Big Bang
If there was a Big Bang

I also said "agreed" once. You've proven squat.I've proven you wrong, quelle surprise.

You said I made up what I wrote, I just pointed out that I didn't.

Nighty night.
Right...while leaving shit out and saying I focused on something by saying may and could.

I then proceeded to disagree somewhere..... :unsure:

Good night indeed.

[manker]

:lol:

I posted at 01:20 AM (my time) and quoted your whole post, you edited at 01:23am and put more stuff in then accused me of leaving shit out.

Oh Busy. You really are the living end http://www.sighost.us/members/danb/ghey.gif

===

The stuff you added really isn't to do with what I was trying to point out. You quoted me as having made stuff up, so I demonstrated that I didn't make it up.

I was acting on your agreement - when you said 'Sure'.


Here's a thought, if you disagree; don't say 'Sure'. Instead, say something like ... 'I disagree'.

What do ya think? It could catch on, I reckon.

[vidcc]

you are losing sleep over this? :blink:

[manker]

you are losing sleep over this? :blink:Yes.

If you are referring to my 16 month old Son who is currently sitting on my knee.

[Busyman]

:lol:

I posted at 01:20 AM (my time) and quoted your whole post, you edited at 01:23am and put more stuff in then accused me of leaving shit out.

Oh Busy. You really are the living end http://www.sighost.us/members/danb/ghey.gif

===

The stuff you added really isn't to do with what I was trying to point out. You quoted me as having made stuff up, so I demonstrated that I didn't make it up.

I was acting on your agreement - when you said 'Sure'.


Here's a thought, if you disagree; don't say 'Sure'. Instead, say something like ... 'I disagree'.

What do ya think? It could catch on, I reckon.
Good lord, edited what though? Grammaticall errooors? :lol: :lol: :lol:

If I flip-flopped, where's that?
If you acted on the agreement, where was the disagreement?

Go to sleep man. I'm actually supposed to be up.

Making up stories about your son doesn't do you any justice. :dry:

[vidcc]

you are losing sleep over this? :blink:Yes.

If you are referring to my 16 month old Son who is currently sitting on my knee.
I believe you...no really I do :whistling :lol:



I don't recall my last full nights sleep either.....

[manker]

:lol:

I posted at 01:20 AM (my time) and quoted your whole post, you edited at 01:23am and put more stuff in then accused me of leaving shit out.

Oh Busy. You really are the living end http://www.sighost.us/members/danb/ghey.gif

===

The stuff you added really isn't to do with what I was trying to point out. You quoted me as having made stuff up, so I demonstrated that I didn't make it up.

I was acting on your agreement - when you said 'Sure'.


Here's a thought, if you disagree; don't say 'Sure'. Instead, say something like ... 'I disagree'.

What do ya think? It could catch on, I reckon.
Good lord, edited what though? Grammaticall errooors? :lol: :lol: :lol:

If I flip-flopped, where's that?
If you acted on the agreement, where was the disagreement?

Go to sleep man. I'm actually supposed to be up.

Making up stories about your son doesn't do you any justice. :dry:I quoted your whole post and replied to it, you added everything else afterwards. It wasn't just grammatical errors you changed, of that there is no doubt.

Flip-flop? - That was my way of asking if you wanted to change your mind on whether I made that shit up or whether I was actually referring to what you wrote.

I acted on your agreement to my assertion that you agree with a whole lot more that god setting off the big bang if you subscribe to I.D. I disagree with I.D. and since you said you agree with it -- I disagree with you.

There's the disagreement.

My son is sitting on the floor now as I'm typing, drinking juice. Surely you can't argue that. That would be mental.

Tho' tbh, you can't dispute the rest. What you can say is that you didn't mean to agree with my assertion that you subscribe to a whole lot more that god setting off the big bang.

In which case my disclaimer of wondering whether you just aren't much good at articulating what you really mean comes into play.



I really have closed all of the pwnage window (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwnage+window)s.

[manker]

Yes.

If you are referring to my 16 month old Son who is currently sitting on my knee.
I believe you...no really I do :whistling :lol:



I don't recall my last full nights sleep either.....We've only got the one tho' - he's actually pretty good. I think you've got a whole jamboree of them, haven't you?

Also, it's not normally me that gets up :blushing:

[vidcc]

I believe you...no really I do :whistling :lol:



I don't recall my last full nights sleep either.....We've only got the one tho' - he's actually pretty good. I think you've got a whole jamboree of them, haven't you?

Also, it's not normally me that gets up :blushing:

One very close to 18yrs, one 6yrs... these two sleep well. The 2 year old was fine until the 4 month old came along (she wasn't 4 months then). These two now have a pact to take it in turns sleeping while individually keeping us awake.

Still it means we don't miss anything :wacko:

[Busyman]

Good lord, edited what though? Grammaticall errooors? :lol: :lol: :lol:

If I flip-flopped, where's that?
If you acted on the agreement, where was the disagreement?

Go to sleep man. I'm actually supposed to be up.

Making up stories about your son doesn't do you any justice. :dry:I quoted your whole post and replied to it, you added everything else afterwards. It wasn't just grammatical errors you changed, of that there is no doubt.

Flip-flop? - That was my way of asking if you wanted to change your mind on whether I made that shit up or whether I was actually referring to what you wrote.

I acted on your agreement to my assertion that you agree with a whole lot more that god setting off the big bang if you subscribe to I.D. I disagree with I.D. and since you said you agree with it -- I disagree with you.

There's the disagreement.
Look carefully at it again (this disagreement) then come back...(of course tommorow, I'm sure your son won't wake you up again :dry: ). Mmmk?



My son is sitting on the floor now as I'm typing, drinking juice. Surely you can't argue that. That would be mental.Take the hook out of your mouth.


Tho' tbh, you can't dispute the rest. What you can say is that you didn't mean to agree with my assertion that you subscribe to a whole lot more that god setting off the big bang.See there's the thing...I don't subscribe to the Big Bang Theory, never said I did. I believe if there was a Big Bang, an intelligent being does more than just set it off but that's going into theology.

The Big Bang Is A Fucking Theory. :1eye:
Do I believe it's possible? Sure. Theories are just that. Many folks take it as fact. It is not.

There are too many scientific studies that are shit for me to make certain conclusions.
Scientists can't get some of the the menial things right on home earth. Something (I'm assuming) as expansive as the universe is already assumed to have come from the Bang. In high school I remember other things like quasars showing proof of certain stages of the Big Bang.....yet that's only if the Big Bang were true. It's nice and gives them something to do and it also used to give me an interesting read.
A juvenile joke to my teacher was that the universe is surrounded a spherical magnet that draws bodies of matter to it which in turn make it bigger. Can't believe I remembered that geek shit. :unsure:


In which case my disclaimer of wondering whether you just aren't much good at articulating what you really mean comes into play.Maybe so or you make up disagreements that aren't there. :unsure:


I really have closed all of the pwnage window (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pwnage+window)s.
It's a good confidence builder for ya before you go out into the world and find that people throw eggs at you.

Either way I'm just too crushed to go on. :(

[GepperRankins]

i don't believe you believe in "intelligent design" busyman. seriously.

i'm sure you've said you don't believe it before.


i can't believe religious folk look at the scientific comunity and laugh childishly at the idea man eveloved from primates and we all came from single cell organisms. while they believe an entity in mans image created it all from nothing. they deny science when it contradicts them, and exagerate it when it supports them.

[Cheese]

Read: http://www.venganza.org/

:lol:

I want this t-shirt: http://www.cafepress.com/venganza.26147369

[Biggles]

Creationism was facing extinction due to political climate change in the classroom. It has evolved and adapted to the cope with the new climate.

QED :shifty:

[JPaul]

i can't believe religious folk look at the scientific comunity and laugh childishly at the idea man eveloved from primates and we all came from single cell organisms. while they believe an entity in mans image created it all from nothing. they deny science when it contradicts them, and exagerate it when it supports them.
I don't do that, neither do I believe "an entity in mans image created it all from nothing"

I can't believe when atheists tell me what I believe and then argue against it. Seems rather pointless to me.

[GepperRankins]

i can't believe religious folk look at the scientific comunity and laugh childishly at the idea man eveloved from primates and we all came from single cell organisms. while they believe an entity in mans image created it all from nothing. they deny science when it contradicts them, and exagerate it when it supports them.
I don't do that, neither do I believe "an entity in mans image created it all from nothing"

I can't believe when atheists tell me what I believe and then argue against it. Seems rather pointless to me.
:lol: :lol:


:snooty:

[Everose]

i can't believe religious folk look at the scientific comunity and laugh childishly at the idea man eveloved from primates and we all came from single cell organisms. while they believe an entity in mans image created it all from nothing. they deny science when it contradicts them, and exagerate it when it supports them.
I don't do that, neither do I believe "an entity in mans image created it all from nothing"

I can't believe when atheists tell me what I believe and then argue against it. Seems rather pointless to me.

:lol: I understand your disbelief

[Busyman]

I don't do that, neither do I believe "an entity in mans image created it all from nothing"

I can't believe when atheists tell me what I believe and then argue against it. Seems rather pointless to me.

:lol: I understand your disbelief
I don't believe your understanding of his disbelief.

[neon]

There is nothing intelligent, or scientific, about intelligent design, it's an attempt at bringing religion into schools by the back door.

Whilst l have no time for creationism, there are many people, l believe JP is one of them, who believe God set off the big bang and allowed the universe to evolve according to the laws of physics. This does not interfere with science, not yet anyway, and doesn't oppose the theories of evolution.

Yeah Conservative christianity And they make us believe other religion is wrong. They getting the youth because they can't think/rebel for themselves.. bah fuck them

[Busyman]

There is nothing intelligent, or scientific, about intelligent design, it's an attempt at bringing religion into schools by the back door.

Whilst l have no time for creationism, there are many people, l believe JP is one of them, who believe God set off the big bang and allowed the universe to evolve according to the laws of physics. This does not interfere with science, not yet anyway, and doesn't oppose the theories of evolution.

Yeah Conservative christianity And they make us believe other religion is wrong. They getting the youth because they can't think/rebel for themselves.. bah fuck them
Yeah uh huh..I agree...:unsure:

[JPaul]

There is nothing intelligent, or scientific, about intelligent design, it's an attempt at bringing religion into schools by the back door.

Whilst l have no time for creationism, there are many people, l believe JP is one of them, who believe God set off the big bang and allowed the universe to evolve according to the laws of physics. This does not interfere with science, not yet anyway, and doesn't oppose the theories of evolution.

Yeah Conservative christianity
You posted "Conservative" with a capital and "christianity" without one. Implying that it's something to do with the political party, or somesuch.

Did you perhaps mean "conservative Christianity", if so could you perhaps explain what you mean by the phrase. As this may help to clarify your post.

[GepperRankins]

hardline bigoted views, intolerent of other religions and even science?

[JPaul]

hardline bigoted views, intolerent of other religions and even science?
Isn't that pretty much most of the fundamentalists and is hardly specific to Christianity.

Indeed I would venture there are fundamentalists who are even more extreme in their intolerance than your average conservative Christian.

[GepperRankins]

the most powerful ones, the ones who are pushing this intelligent design theory into science lessons are the christian ones

[JPaul]

As opposed to the ones who teach only one way of thinking and will tolerate nothing else. Who say everything else is an offence to their belief and is punishable by death.

When the conservative Christians declare jihad (or it's equivelant) I will be more concerned about their activities. Or when the freedom to disagree with them is removed.

[vidcc]

As opposed to the ones who teach only one way of thinking and will tolerate nothing else. Who say everything else is an offence to their belief and is punishable by death.

When the conservative Christians declare jihad (or it's equivelant) I will be more concerned about their activities. Or when the freedom to disagree with them is removed.
I agree with your general statement here but a quick read up on people like Eric Robert Rudolph and Christian Identity are comparable examples of a "jihad". It does happen.

I will accept that these are not mainstream "conservative Christians" if we all agree (and I think we do) that the Muslims "jihadists" are not mainstream conservative Muslims.

[Busyman]

All someone has to do is attack the folks that are pushing intelligent design from a scientific standpoint and the argument's over.

At the very least an ID thumper would have to agree that ID theory supports no means of measurement.

I really can't see a scientific classroom discussion on it.

[GepperRankins]

As opposed to the ones who teach only one way of thinking and will tolerate nothing else. Who say everything else is an offence to their belief and is punishable by death.

When the conservative Christians declare jihad (or it's equivelant) I will be more concerned about their activities. Or when the freedom to disagree with them is removed.
so a few muslim extremists somewhere in the world justifies pushing christian fundamentalism on kids does it?



i've just been reading up on islamic beliefs and apparently they believe (it's in the koran) that there was a big bang, and allah just sorted everything out afterwards, in the following 6 days.

the six days may not literally mean six days as day is written as "youm". in other parts of the koran a youm is upto 50'000 years.

[JPaul]

As opposed to the ones who teach only one way of thinking and will tolerate nothing else. Who say everything else is an offence to their belief and is punishable by death.

When the conservative Christians declare jihad (or it's equivelant) I will be more concerned about their activities. Or when the freedom to disagree with them is removed.
so a few muslim extremists somewhere in the world justifies pushing christian fundamentalism on kids does it?

No, but then I didn't say that. This is a recurring theme with you, The.

Responding to things which people didn't actually say. Or putting forward arguments against beliefs which people aren't actually expressing.

You are responding to your own prejudices, as opposed to discussing the points other people are making. Don't worry about it tho', it is the rule rather than the exception.

Let me give you an example, not all Christians believe the same things. There is no need for them to, other than some very specific parts. All atheists however believe exactly the same thing, which is that God does not exist. It is therefore, for this particular thing, much easier for me to see where you are coming from than it is for you to see where I am coming from.

You therefore make assumptions, e.g. "Christians do not believe the Big Bang happened" (as a random example, which you may or may not believe) which is no more than a sweeping and largely incorrect generalization. Many Christians believe just that and in the theory of evolution and in the internal combustion engine and that electricity is not some form of witchery.

Like I said, don't worry about it, bias is often based on incorrect assumptions, rather than actual observations.

[GepperRankins]

i think i have a problem coming across clearly, sorry that's my fault.


at no point have i said all christians believe in intelligent design. rather that the fundamental christians that believe the bible to be a 100% accurate historical document. they believe in intelligent design. i was brought up a catholic, i know all about what christians believe.


about the big bang. i never said "christians do not believe the big bang happened", i said the koran said it did happen. it's the islamic story of creation. i just went about and did some googling to see if "intelligent design" fits in with other religions theories, namely islam. i thought it was kind of interesting that apparently it describes the big bang theory.


maybe you should stop making assumptions

[JPaul]

i was brought up a catholic, i know all about what christians believe.

Like I said, you assume that all Christians believe the version you were taught. You do not know "all about what christians believe", you don't even know what all catholics believe.

about the big bang. i never said "christians do not believe the big bang happened",

Please read what I said, which was "(as a random example, which you may or may not believe)" you are responding to something which I did not say.

maybe you should stop making assumptions

I clearly wasn't, see above. Where you illustrate both of my points very well. You assume that because you understand one small way of being a Christian that all Christians believe the same. You then answer something which wasn't actually said.

Don't worry about it, it's common practice. Not just here, life in general

[GepperRankins]

i was brought up a catholic, i know all about what christians believe.

Like I said, you assume that all Christians believe the version you were taught. You do not know "all about what christians believe", you don't even know what all catholics believe.

about the big bang. i never said "christians do not believe the big bang happened",

Please read what I said, which was "(as a random example, which you may or may not believe)" you are responding to something which I did not say.

maybe you should stop making assumptions

I clearly wasn't, see above. Where you illustrate both of my points very well. You assume that because you understand one small way of being a Christian that all Christians believe the same. You then answer something which wasn't actually said.

Don't worry about it, it's common practice. Not just here, life in general




i never even hinted that all christians believe the same, or believe what i was taught. all i've been saying is that it's the christian fundamentalists (not all of them, just in case you read that wrong again) are trying to force their views to be taught as science, and that's not on.

you're just being silly about this, i don't even know why i'm arguing about your misunderstanding :shutup:

[JPaul]

" i was brought up a catholic, i know all about what christians believe."

How does the fact that you were brought up a Catholic make you "know all about what christians believe". Either you think they all believe the same thing as you, or you have gone on to ask every Christian about what they believe. As the former is highly unlikely then one must assume you believe the latter.

Or you can just accept that it was a ridiculous claim to make.

If I misunderstand it is because I am reading what you type, a courtesy I sometimes feel you do not affford others.

[GepperRankins]

maybe i mean i know there are variations. maybe i mean i know some believe some believe in evolution and some believe in creation, some believe in both.

going to church and doing 4 hours of RE a week, i learnt things. i know there are many different beliefs, you must be stupid or just not believe i went to school to think that


it wasn't a rediculous claim to make

[JPaul]

maybe i mean i know there are variations. maybe i mean i know some believe some believe in evolution and some believe in creation, some believe in both.

going to church and doing 4 hours of RE a week, i learnt things. i know there are many different beliefs, you must be stupid or just not believe i went to school to think that


it wasn't a rediculous claim to make
Maybe this, maybe that, but what you said was

" i was brought up a catholic, i know all about what christians believe."

Which is what people will respond to. Not what you may have meant, but did not type.

You were also brought up as being English, probably even studied it's history, culture and language. I would suggest you also do not know what all English people believe.

It really was a ridiculous claim to make.

[Busyman]

No, but then I didn't say that. This is a recurring theme with you, The.

Responding to things which people didn't actually say. Or putting forward arguments against beliefs which people aren't actually expressing.

You are responding to your own prejudices, as opposed to discussing the points other people are making. Don't worry about it tho', it is the rule rather than the exception.

Let me give you an example, not all Christians believe the same things. There is no need for them to, other than some very specific parts. All atheists however believe exactly the same thing, which is that God does not exist. It is therefore, for this particular thing, much easier for me to see where you are coming from than it is for you to see where I am coming from.

You therefore make assumptions, e.g. "Christians do not believe the Big Bang happened" (as a random example, which you may or may not believe) which is no more than a sweeping and largely incorrect generalization. Many Christians believe just that and in the theory of evolution and in the internal combustion engine and that electricity is not some form of witchery.

Like I said, don't worry about it, bias is often based on incorrect assumptions, rather than actual observations.
Wow...what a post. :ohmy:
As some say, spot on.

[whypikonme]

l once read a debate on what exactly was a Christian. The debate centred around a set number of concepts that it was proposed one would have to believe if one were to call oneself a Christian.

l know they included the divinity of Jesus, the resurrection, and others. At one stage it was proposed that the belief extended to the teachings of the Old Testament because Jesus had accepted it as fact. The point the person was making was you cannot call yourself a Christian unless you believe word for word the teachings of the bible, including the literal seven day creation, etc..

[Rat Faced]

You can call yourself whatever you want to, whatever you believe in.. 'tis a free country :snooty:

How others perceive you is somewhat different.

I would call anyone that believes Christ was the "Messiah", 'a christian', irrespective of what other beliefs he/she/it has..

[whypikonme]

What if someone were to believe that Jesus was a mortal man, who didn't die on the cross, and didn't come back from the dead, and wasn't the result of a virgin birth? l know you'll say he can still call himself a Christian, but would he BE one?

[JPaul]

Jeasus was a mortal man.

[Biggles]

I tend to agree with JP on this subject (notwithstanding my ironic observation earlier).

ID states nothing more than that there may have been some thought behind the mechanics of the physical universe. The big bang, evolution etc., could, therefore, be consequences of that involvement at the quantum physics level (or perhaps at some level even below this).

ID has nothing to say about revealed religion, a subject that rightly belongs in the hands of those who profess each specific religion.

What more one can say about ID in a class-room setting, though, is questionable. It is extremely unlikely that ordinary schooling is going to break into quantum physics or super string theory let alone start analysing the maths inherent in such theories to see if the pattern is random or whether it displays something else.

It would be wholly dishonest to say ID proves (my) God exists, ergo lets ditch the rest of the science class and study Genesis 1 instead. Indeed if there are those that harbour such aspirations then they should be slapped back in their box forthwith (if not fifthwith). :)