why not just say it was designed and go back to the caves?... re the big bang, it wldn't surprise me if it gets supplanted soon enough by one of the alternative scientific theories available, that effectively deal away with the initial singularity... same as how we dealt away with newton's gravity singularity when distances approach 0... quite a few good candidates out there fyi... eternal inflation, quintessence, ekpyrotic, cyclic universe and just for fun: H6D ... google them between 2 prayers mate... i think Nik meant to say insipidious, ie insipid AND insidious in nonlinear english, but he is too much of a purist for such neologisms... faith doesn't require a creator... faith doesn't equate believing in a creator... wisen up pal! your problem if you can only live by simplistic radical christian creeds...
TraderNik wrote: You are a total moron. I never said YOU asked me to prove evolution impossible. It is typical of ID critics to demand that ID proponents prove evolution impossible. I have asked hundreds of ID critics what they would count as evidence for ID and most of them want an example of something evolution couldn't produce. Give them what they ask for and they accuse you of being a creationsist. Heads they win, tails you lose.
TraderNik wrote: Liar! I've never asked anyone if they can disprove ID. On the other hand, you claim there is no evidence for ID even though you are clueless as to what evidence for ID would look like. What a doofus!
Teleologist wrote: 2cents asked: How about the atheistic evolutionist Richard Dawkins? In his book The Blind Watchmaker he says âBiology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose.â
Actually I mentioned what I thought evidence for ID would look like - goats with 14 eyes coming down from the heavens and angels and fire and brimstone. No? You don't like that? You think it's facetious? I am dead serious. So if that isn't the only possible thing that could constitute evidence for ID, why don't you tell us what would constitute evidence. Please remember, if you propound a theory, you cannot use your opponent's disinclination to provide examples of what would be evidence of that theory as proof that the theory is valid. As an example, I have a theory that the Moon was made by Space Aliens. You don't like my theory? Then why don't you tell me what evidence for my theory would look like. After all, if you can't even say what evidence of the theory would look like, how can you question it?????? What's that? It's an absurd question, since you are not the one that propounded this crackpot theory in the first place? I don't care!! Your criticism of my theory is invalid if you cannot tell me what evidence of my theory would look like. What's that? You cannot say what evidence of my theory would look like? What about an Alien artifact? But you see, Zeleologist/pilier.... I could claim that that is not the only evidence that could prove my theory!!! You see? You could say 'There are no Alien artifacts on the moon'. I would say... Oh No? What about the Sea of Tranquility? IN MY OPINION that is evidence!!! There are no goats with 17 eyes coming down from heaven but that is not the only evidence that ID could be true, isn't that correct?? See? It is obvious to you that nature exhibits design. But that is nothing more than your opinion!!! There is and can never be any proof for it. It is obvious to me that the Sea of Tranquility is an Alien artifact. There is no way for us to prove or disprove it. If you say it was a meteor hit, I say it was a spaceship landing site. It is not our responsibility to tell you what evidence for your crackpot theories would look like. Nor are criticisms of your supposed theories invalid if the critic does not have the same delusions as you. It is your responsibility to live up to your word and provide the proof you claimed you had for ID. You will never do it - you will continue to evade the main point by demanding that your critics jump through dialectical hoops. You will also post utter garbage like this In short you will do anything other than admit that your belief is purely faith-based and that, contrary to your claims, it is not scientific or supported by data in any way, and that ID is not a research project, but a propaganda campaign mounted by radical Christians to impose their faith-based world view on a majority which has no interest in it. Okay? Okay! I'm glad we got that straightened out.
yeah, how about him? everyone's entitled to an opinion... that could be his view, or just a rhetorical tease... seems to do the job pretty well for some! but see, dawkins by and of himself is not evolution... how about jared diamond, or a couple thousand other dedicated lifetime researchers and scientists over the ages?
Some interesting comments written last night. Some non-sense as well. Wouldn't be ET if we didn't have some trash talking. I cannot provide scientific evidence of ID, or that a creator, God if you will, even exists. I only have my own personal experiences of spiritual enlightenment, all of which I'm sure you'd roll your eyes at. I'm just trying to connect the dots and my dots say ID is plausible. I believe science and faith do not have to be mutually exclusive. That said, I have to agree that they should be separate in our system of education because of the corruption and political bias that exists within that system. But students should have a choice to learn both. I will continue to look for the truth and am not afraid to find that I may be completely wrong. I've been wrong before. I don't expect to find the truth from organized religion, the government, or our pathetic educators. I will continue to look through personal experience and observation of the world around me. My only reason for engaging in this thread is to try to learn more about something I consider to be important. I hope that is your reason as well.
Question: Would you allow for people to send their kids to religious schools by supported the implementation of a school-voucher system, which would redirect property tax dollars away from the public school systems and into faith-based schools? Schools that teach lessons in morality, ethics, "Intelligent Design" as a theory? No? So, you'd relegate this choice only to the wealthy? Here's where I have problems with people like you. (at least one of the problems anyway ...) The vast majority of this country label themselves as "religious", mostly christian. Most of these are not "radical christians", nor are they 6000 year old earth, noah's ark, biblical fundamentalists. What YOU ARE is a radical minority who wishes to impose their atheists views on the majority which has no interest in it. Take a poll about removing "god" from the pledge allegiance, or from US currency, and then try to convince people you are not a radical minority. I can hear your come back now, "Well, the sheeple, idiots and blinded by the Jerry Farewell's of the world, need to be educated to Know that GOD IS DEAD".... Newton was biblical scholar, and a devout Christian, as ARE and HAVE been many scientists. http://www.csg.net/eschatology/Newton I just spit on you fucking people ... "Love thy enemy", my arse.
TraderNik wrote: Never said it was. You said there was no evidence of ID. That is a stronger claim than merely saying you have not found any evidence of ID. And then you make the even stronger claim that there can be no evidence of ID. How could you possible know this? Are you omniscient? So I ask myself: Is this claim coming from a person that has a reasonable idea of what evidence of ID would look like, has looked for it and so far hasn't found it? So to help me determine this I asked the following question: What would you count as evidence of intelligent design? By asking this question, I was able to find out, that for you, evidence of ID is a goat with 14 eyes coming down from the heavens with angels and fire and brimstone. Glad we got that out in the open. So from now on anytime you claim there is no evidence for ID, everyone will know that what you really mean is that no evidence has been discovered of 14 eyed goats coming down from the heavens with angels and fire and brimstone. I also found out that you equate your inability to find evidence of ID with there not being any evidence of ID. Which translates to: I haven't found any 14 eyed goats coming down from the heavens so there isn't any evidence of ID. TraderNik wrote: If archaeologists went to the moon and discoverd a Mount Rushmore-like structure they would infer it to be an alien artifact. They don't infer the Sea of Tranquility to be an alien artifact. TraderNik wrote: Sure, you could say that and readers on this forum could decide if they think your opinion is reasonable. Likewise, readers here can decide if the design inference in biology is equivalent to inferring the Sea of Tranquility was designed or if it's equivalent to inferring a Mount Rushmore-like structure was designed. You will do anything other than admit that your belief is based purely on materialist philosophy and that you are part of a propaganda campaign mounted by evangelical atheists to impose their faith-based world view on a majority which has no interest in it.