Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
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:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
Dumbing Down Of America, 2
Topic Started: May 12 2006, 11:46 AM (5,638 Views)
abradf2519
Member
cmoehle
Jun 9 2006, 10:45 AM
Alan "Where ever abiogenisis is taught."

I don't think it is. Nor panspermia. Nor Doc's Navajo myths. So it must be asked why ID should be an exception.

If they are not teaching abiogenesis, its the first time I have heard of this. They taught it to me when I went to school and called it "Evolution".

Panspermia and Doc's Navajo myths (I wonder if he likes the term myth?) are included under ID. Remember I said the designer is not named? ID is inclusive of all creation stories until evidence of who the designer is, is discovered.

You seem to think that Panspermia and Doc's Navajo myths are different than ID. I don't understand how you can think this.

Quote:
 
"It should be metioned that some concider evolution a process that was put in place by the designer."

Interesting. So you accept evolution, just claim a Designer designed it. I think that's what Jane is saying. Teryt and his friend seem to disagree as they seem to want to discredit it.


Another thing you do that I don't understand. If I talk about ID with my ID hat on, and then later make a statement about creation with my religion hat on, you put the two statements together and tell me I am contadicting myself. I am not.

<ID hat>Evolution could be evidence of tool marks made by the designer. </ID hat> I have to use this supposition because of the evidence of evolution in nature.

<Religion hat>I think that evolution is an invalid theory all together. God created the heavens and the earth in 6 24 hour days. </Religion hat> I can discount the evidence of evolution and its suppositions because of my religious beliefs.

Quote:
 
"Of course! ID may not even be a theory scientifically speaking. It might be a hypothisis at this point. What ever ID is concidered, should be taught."

So if the scientific community doesn't consider it science it's OK when teaching ID to say that design and Designer are not considered science but religion?

I believe the scientific community is being unfair and political. Demski and others are doing the work necessary to put together the theory of ID. If the scientific community refuses to recognise it because they ignorantly consider it religion, then they are wrong.

Are the people who think the Yamaguni Monument is man made being religious?
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
All I have is an actual textbook sitting here with nothing about abiogenesis in it. Do you have something you can show us?

Neither panspermia nor Doc's Navajo creation myth imply intelligent design. Panspermia simply posits spores of some sort from elsewhere in the Universe arriving on earth as the start of life. No design there. Just happened.



"Another thing you do that I don't understand. If I talk about ID with my ID hat on, and then later make a statement about creation with my religion hat on, you put the two statements together and tell me I am contadicting myself. I am not."

You are. It's double-speak. If I say, it is, then turn and say, it is not, I contradict myself, no hat is big enough to hide that.


"I can discount the evidence of evolution and its suppositions because of my religious beliefs."

I'd love to hear this one. Or do you mean you yourself do not personally believe it?


"I believe the scientific community is being unfair and political."

In what way? Explain your claims

They reject ID because ID is not science but religion.

"Demski and others are doing the work necessary to put together the theory of ID."

Agree. Just not a scientific theory.

"If the scientific community refuses to recognise it because they ignorantly consider it religion, then they are wrong. "

Name calling is the weakest form of argument. Not very compelling. Why don't you show us how ID is science instead.


"Are the people who think the Yamaguni Monument is man made being religious?"

Don't know anyone who thinks anythng of YM so I can't tell you. It would depend on how they arrive at their conclusion. Is their method based on scientific inquiry, or personal belief?
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
Jun 9 2006, 04:45 PM
Interesting. So you accept evolution, just claim a Designer designed it. I think that's what Jane is saying. Teryt and his friend seem to disagree as they seem to want to discredit it.

To clarify - I would say that it's the seeming exclusivity that the theory of evolution seems to enjoy that I'm in opposition to. My friend & I don't discount the whole theory, as parts of it seem quite solid. (as stated before, it's the big leap of evolution between species that we mainly object to, and the exclusive focus on the science of materialism)

Again, I think both schools should be pursued: the theory of intelligent design & the theory of unintelligent design. Then let the chips fall where they may.

I wanted to ask this question again, because it may have been missed: When we talk about Creationism, does this also mean the young earth theory (earth is only 6,000 years old)?
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
Chris:

Check out this link: Yanaguni Monument

Most, if not all who SEE the monument, think it is man made. This is a personal belief on their part IMHO. No science involved.

Geologists here in the US think it is natural.

As I said before, this perfectly illustrates the problem with ID. The earth, like the Yanaguni Monument look like they were designed. The scientists however cannot accept this because this is primarily based on personal belief.

But ignoring the evidence of the YM being man made is wrong, and I feel the same way about ID.
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abradf2519
Member
teryt
Jun 9 2006, 02:14 PM
I wanted to ask this question again, because it may have been missed: When we talk about Creationism, does this also mean the young earth theory (earth is only 6,000 years old)?

<religion hat>
Depends on which creationist you talk to. Some think the world is old, and some think it is young. Each use different understandings of the first chapter of Genesis.

I personally have not made up my mind yet which I believe. The bible is pretty specific about 6 actual 24 hour days. Huge problems with uranium dating systems support this theory.

There is compeling evidence though, that the world is very old. From rock strata to ice core samples, plus the time required for some star's light to get to the earth make the young earth theory pretty hard to swallow.
</religion hat>
Alan
Milan, New York, USA
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Teryt "... I would say that it's the seeming exclusivity that the theory of evolution seems to enjoy that I'm in opposition to.... the exclusive focus on the science of materialism"

That is what defines science. Sorry. Should I oppose religion because it's spiritual. Criminy, that's what it is definition.

Change the definition of science to include ID, then neither is science any more.


"Again, I think both schools should be pursued: the theory of intelligent design & the theory of unintelligent design. Then let the chips fall where they may."

Please pursue both, it's your personal preference.

But we're talking teaching biology in biology class, not personal beliefs.


"When we talk about Creationism, does this also mean the young earth theory (earth is only 6,000 years old)?"

Ask the Creationist. Strike that, Alan answered 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
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Alan "Yanaguni Monument....Most, if not all who SEE the monument, think it is man made. This is a personal belief on their part IMHO. No science involved."

Then it is not science, is it, but personal relief, and largely religious I suspect.

If you value analogies, use this as an understanding why ID is not science but religion. As you say "The scientists however cannot accept this because this is primarily based on personal belief." Well, there you have it. By definition, it is not science. Therefore it should not be taught in biology classes.


"But ignoring the evidence of the YM being man made is wrong, and I feel the same way about ID."

Sure. If there were any evidence.

Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Very funny! OK, let me be more specific: When you use the word "Creationism," do you think young earth, or do you just think it pertains to a Creator?

Shouldn't science be the support of truth, whether it's material or not?
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
"Shouldn't science be the support of truth, whether it's material or not?"

Scientists do. But science is about the natural world. It leaves the supernatural to folk like you and Alan and Jane.

Now, please, support your truth. You've spent page after page attacking science and evolution but not providing an iota of evidence for ID that hasn't been explained by evolution specifically or science generally.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
I'm behind the cyber-delay here! (Don't we have anything better to do than all be on here at the same time!?)

Alan, that sounds like another discussion - or did we already do the "Gap Theory" on here?
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Is Gap Theory a Theory of ID? Does it support ID? No, wait, I remember that, the God of Gaps argument. But that argues, once again, against evolution, not for ID.

Come on, I know you can do better than that. Present some scientific evidence, I'll then admit I'm wrong and say ID is materialistically scientific and should be taught in the biology class.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
cmoehle
Jun 9 2006, 09:20 PM
Is Gap Theory a Theory of ID? Does it support ID? No, wait, I remember that, the God of Gaps argument. But that argues, once again, against evolution, not for ID.

Come on, I know you can do better than that. Present some scientific evidence, I'll then admit I'm wrong and say ID is materialistically scientific and should be taught in the biology class.

Chris - the Gap Theory thing was actually an insider question directed at Alan, so I wasn't trying to dodge anything.

Chris - You!? Admit you were wrong!? Perish the thought! :hug:
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Did I accuse you, you, of dodging questions?

I'm wondering why you didn't, answer, anyhow.

The Gap Q is a Creationist insider question.

So, what about ID? What is the argument, what the evidence? Stop beating around the bush.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cmoehle
Member Avatar
Chris - San Antonio TX
Just to be up front, what I'm engaging in is showing just how little ID has to say, for itself. Granted, there's tons of arguments against evolutionary theory, misrepresented, and science, misunderstood, but where's ID, what's ID?

Beyond I believe in a Designer Christian God?

Come on, guys, tell us about ID and it's claims and evidence.

If you can.

If there is anything.



On edit, don't think I won't admit I'm wrong, already have, but let me say it clear, I'm wrong about WAP. You figure out where and how.
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order.
--Barry Goldwater
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
teryt
Member Avatar
Missing in Action Member
Wireless Action Protecall?
My Boast is Christ :pray:
Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then)
Recovering Perfectionist
Christian Hedonist

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic »
Add Reply