| 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 (5,664 Views) | |
| teryt | May 19 2006, 08:19 PM Post #61 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Boy has this been around a long time! Of course there is no good or remotely verifiable answer. So by grouping this question in with the others, what does that attempt to demonstrate? |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 19 2006, 08:35 PM Post #62 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Not speaking for Eric, but I believe you grasped his point quite well: "Of course there is no good or remotely verifiable answer." Question, does ID theory address product or process? |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 20 2006, 10:35 AM Post #63 |
![]()
Member
|
Hey! I didn't come up with this whole ID idea! It's just another demonstration of why ID is not science. It would be like pushing evolution while admitting there "is no good or remotely verifiable answer" about evolution. But, I'll ask you the same thing I keep asking Alan. How would you go about falsifying ID? What would convince you ID was wrong? |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 20 2006, 10:41 AM Post #64 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
If I died & didn't meet my maker. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 20 2006, 10:43 AM Post #65 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
So let's say some extraterrestrial shows up with all the answers, and says they started it all. |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 20 2006, 10:58 AM Post #66 |
![]()
Member
|
That doesn't answer any questions, but only pushes it back a step or two. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 20 2006, 11:00 AM Post #67 |
![]()
Member
|
Ok. So, I can put you down in the "ID isn't science, but only religion" list? |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 20 2006, 11:58 AM Post #68 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
Well I think there's a problem here, i.e., saying ID is "only religion," and trying to categorize it 100% this way, in order to just dismiss it. Let's find some middle ground here between the extremes! |
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 20 2006, 12:14 PM Post #69 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
I agree. ID has been hijacked by Creationists, who, were they to really to take it seriously, would reject it as anti-Creationist, anti-Bible, even anti-Christian--in the same sense evolution is. It truly is a trojan horse. ID, as a middle ground, is a philosophical view on life. It is, at best, following Dembski, a mathematical theory of information, even though he, Dembski, miscontrues Claude Shannon's theories on information. It is, at worst, a deliberate attempt to deceive and pzlay populat games, ala Behe and his Panda and black box argument go. In general, as a middle ground, it is an interesting conjecture as we gaze out on the stars and contemplate the universe. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| tomdrobin | May 21 2006, 10:44 PM Post #70 |
|
Member
|
If you died and there was no life after death. How would you become aware of this if you were already dead? The only proof would be if it was true, and then it would be too late to notify your friends and relatives. Another premise with no proof. One thing is for sure. You came from dirt and you will return to dirt. That is pretty obvious and well documented. Then to get around that the con is, "well it's not the physical body, but the spirit". Of course this spirit can't be seen or heard. So a little more blind faith is needed, meanwhile pass the collection plate. |
![]() |
|
| TexasShadow | May 21 2006, 11:17 PM Post #71 |
![]()
Jane
|
seems to me that ID is as valid as it is not valid.... one of those perceptions we humans are split over. Some see ID, others see chaos/random chance. Neither, at this point can be proven over the other. And while science claims to limit itself to that which can be proven, it doesn't because science is also the search for knowledge. Science pursues knowledge by testing different theories and looking for cause by studying effect. We really don't need to add ID to the curriculum... what we need are science teachers brave enough (or educated enough) to present science to students as the study of things we know and things we don't know... yet. Teachers need to tell students that there are two sides to the creation argument... ID and chaos, but neither is proven yet. Creationists are just tired of science presenting itself as having proven accidental creation of life, when it hasn't yet. |
|
| |
![]() |
|
| cmoehle | May 22 2006, 05:07 AM Post #72 |
|
Chris - San Antonio TX
|
Jane "Some see ID, others see chaos/random chance." Who is trying to prove chaos/random chance? That is not part of evolutionary theory. Natural selection is not random. "And while science claims to limit itself to that which can be proven, it doesn't because science is also the search for knowledge. Science pursues knowledge by testing different theories and looking for cause by studying effect." Who is saying science claims to limit itself to that which can be proven? That is not part of science. Science limits itself to the study of what's natural. "Creationists are just tired of science presenting itself as having proven accidental creation of life, when it hasn't yet." Who is saying science has proven this? Not scientists, as Eric pointed out abiogenesis is not testable, and I doubt panspermia is either. They are offered as possible explanations, not proven facts. I agree, teachers need to approach this with those things in mind, but so does everyone involved in the debate. Science simply does not make the claims Creationists say it does. |
|
Politics is the art of achieving the maximum amount of freedom for individuals that is consistent with the maintenance of social order. --Barry Goldwater | |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 22 2006, 08:01 AM Post #73 |
![]()
Member
|
It's not up to science to demonstrate ID is anything other than religion. Would you be equally as willing to find some middle ground with Satanists or Thugee? If you wish to play in the scientific sandbox, you have to play by sciences' rules. ID, as yet, has shown itself not science by those rules. Come up with some solid definitions (like those I keep asking Alan for - what defines an irreducibly complex system, for example), publish some work in the journals and define ID in terms of a real theory with the ability to be falsified. Until then, it's just creationism in a new guise. |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| ngc1514 | May 22 2006, 09:12 AM Post #74 |
![]()
Member
|
The straw men are coming out of the woodwork on this one! Show me ANYWHERE "science presents itself as having proven accidental creation of life, when it hasn't yet." Show me ANYWHERE "And while science claims to limit itself to that which can be proven..." Show me ANYWHERE science embraces "chaos/random chance. " How do you "present science to students as the study of things.. we don't know?" You don't know if I have an invisible purple unicorn in my basement. How you gonna teach that to students? As soon as you put "prove" and "science" in the same sentence you have shown you have no understanding of what science actually is. Proof exists in the realm of mathematics and logic, but not science. The basic premise behind scientific theory is that it can NEVER be proven, only disproven. B-LAAAM... there goes another strawman! Blasted things are crawling all over the place! BLAAAAM! |
Eric
| |
![]() |
|
| teryt | May 22 2006, 09:21 AM Post #75 |
![]()
Missing in Action Member
|
OK, I'll let you self criticize your own statement. What type of logical fallacy is it? (I'm hearing Jeopordy music playing.)
|
My Boast is Christ ![]() Soon to have MBA (I'll perhaps be smart then) Recovering Perfectionist Christian Hedonist | |
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Soapbox · Next Topic » |











1:28 PM Jul 11