| Welcome to Campfire Soapbox. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Dumbing Down Of America, 2 | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,642 Views) | |
| TexasShadow | Jun 5 2006, 08:05 PM Post #391 |
![]()
Jane
|
okay, I quit.
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 6 2006, 02:21 AM Post #392 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Awwww! Those little logical puzzles do eat away at the plausibility of ID, don't they? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 6 2006, 08:46 AM Post #393 |
![]()
Jane
|
not even one little bit.
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| DocInBird | Jun 6 2006, 08:57 AM Post #394 |
|
Member
|
Jane, are you saying that some form of intelligence caused the "big bang"? This intelligence then created DNA and amoeba? These amoeba then evolved into fish, which evolved into mammals, which evolved into humans. If there was such an intelligent being, why do the steps in between? Why not just create humans to begin with? We know that this did not happen. |
|
--doc Just Doc and Orson (German Shepherd) wandering around North America. | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 6 2006, 09:50 AM Post #395 |
![]()
Jane
|
yes to the first, and I don't know to the second. I'm just stuck with the fact that matter and energy didn't just pop into existence on their own. Somewhere, there's a creator. After that, everything else is speculation. P.S. Good to hear from you again. Hope your "vacation" was a good one.
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 6 2006, 11:18 AM Post #396 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
"I'm just stuck with the fact that matter and energy didn't just pop into existence on their own." Why do you consider this a fact? In fact, who's talking facts now? Shouldn't that be a hypothesis?
|
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 6 2006, 11:24 AM Post #397 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
1. I already answered #1, but evidently not to your satisfaction. IDOID tries to postulate the intangible from the intangible. ID goes from the tangible to the intangible. I view the introducing of IDOID to this discussion as circular & a red herring. 2. Nah huh - "Designer is [not] man made!" (you could say this about anything) Prove the designer is "man made." Again, circular, with no reasonable end. 3. Crhis, IMHO, You only accept what is in your framework, and we've already been through this. In my mind evolution doesn't account for numerous things - in your mind it does. We have nothing further to discuss here it seems. Your framework, Chris, has been to set up a very particular kind of hurdle (I know, you think this is the universal "scientific method"), and present questions which no one will be able to answer to your satisfaction. Therefore, your opinion to not even allow the mentioning of ID in a science classroom, will be justified in your eyes. My opinion is (stated again & again) there is no valid reason (as Jane put forth) for not mentioning other theories (of which ID is the biggest) in the scientific class. Not doing so is absurd IMHO! One can even say there are doubts as to the scientific testibility - yada yada yada. Introducing things in this way does nothing but expand the reasoning capabilities of the student. (It is belittling the human intellectual capabilitiy to say this will only confuse them.) Then things can move into the discussion of more researched theories such as evolution. Is this really so repulsive!!?? So what else productive can be said here!? I really am in no position to argue within the framework you seem to desire, and also have little wish to do so. We could go at these kinds of circular questions forever, but I see no productive value in doing that. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | Jun 6 2006, 11:34 AM Post #398 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Still laughing about this one! |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 6 2006, 11:40 AM Post #399 |
![]()
Jane
|
not for me, it isn't. for some, it's apparently okay to just imagine the universe existing forever, no beginning to it...just always was, etc. but I think that's a cop-out concept... just wanting to avoid the ultimate question because the answer is disturbing.... calls for more questions... because if there is a Designer, then who/what is he and why did he do it and what does it mean to me? |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 6 2006, 11:42 AM Post #400 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Teryt 1 "IDOID tries to postulate the intangible from the intangible." That does not address the challenge. THe challenge is this: If you accept an ID based on improbable complexity, then on principle you must follow th same logic and accept an even more improbable and more complex IDOID. 2 "Nah huh - "Designer is [not] man made!"" That child-like response does not address the challenge. It merely denies it. Do you understand the Weak Antropic Principle and the countering notion of multiple universes and the existance of life else where? All this follows natural law and counter the specialness of a designer. 3 "In my mind evolution doesn't account for numerous things - in your mind it does." We are not talking about what's in your mind. Or mine. Such a response begs the question. Can you, or can you not, name an instance of ID that is not accounted for by evolution? "Your framework, Chris....." So, unable justify ID as science, you once again revert to personal argument, attacking the messenger instead of the ideas. I won't follow you there. "My opinion is (stated again & again) there is no valid reason (as Jane put forth) for not mentioning other theories (of which ID is the biggest) in the scientific class." We know your opinion. You are being asked to explain it, not simply repeat it. What you need to explain, and have failed to do, is how is ID science. "So what else productive can be said here!? " Instead of circularly repeating your opinion, you could try to address the challenges to it, and show ID to be science. That is the only thing that would justify teaching it in science classrooms. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 6 2006, 11:48 AM Post #401 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Apparently for some it's OK to imagine a Designer even though plausible natural explanations are available. The designer is a cop out answer. Those questions exist without one. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 6 2006, 11:53 AM Post #402 |
![]()
Jane
|
there is no scientific explanation for how something comes from nothing. there is no way to even test it. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 6 2006, 11:56 AM Post #403 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
"there is no plausible answer to how something comes from nothing", or "there is no scientific explanation for how something comes from nothing. there is no way to even test it." --which ever. Then, by your reasoning, God, er, Designer is implausible as well. Little logical puzzles. The laws of nature agree with you. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | Jun 6 2006, 12:12 PM Post #404 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Let's remind where we started in this thread: Evolution's Bottom Line
|
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | Jun 6 2006, 12:37 PM Post #405 |
![]()
Jane
|
no. God is the only plausible answer.
|
|
| |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |









1:28 PM Jul 11