Intelligent design

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 9:52 PM GMT
    The seashell was no more intelligently designed than the rolled edges of a rock by the sea. The mere ends reached by the circumstance and laws that govern the universe. Whose rules set forth guided their shape and creation.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 10:55 PM GMT
    Intelligent design implied that intelligence exists, which proves that intelligent design does not exist.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 10:56 PM GMT
    Mikeinslc said Whose rules set forth guided their shape and creation.
    Paul's and mine!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 11:00 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    Mikeinslc said Whose rules set forth guided their shape and creation.
    Paul's and mine!
    Nah, had to be just yours. I was too busy getting laid. icon_razz.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 11:02 PM GMT
    paulflexes said
    TropicalMark said
    Mikeinslc said Whose rules set forth guided their shape and creation.
    Paul's and mine!
    Nah, had to be just yours. I was too busy getting laid. icon_razz.gif
    How the hell do ya think the ends got all curled up? LMAO
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 25, 2011 11:11 PM GMT
    TropicalMark said
    paulflexes said
    TropicalMark said
    Mikeinslc said Whose rules set forth guided their shape and creation.
    Paul's and mine!
    Nah, had to be just yours. I was too busy getting laid. icon_razz.gif
    How the hell do ya think the ends got all curled up? LMAO
    Oops. Sorry. I'll be more careful with the Nair next time.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 1:57 AM GMT
    Mikeinslc saidThe seashell was no more intelligently designed than the rolled edges of a rock by the sea. The mere ends reached by the circumstance and laws that govern the universe. Whose rules set forth guided their shape and creation.


    So that settles that.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 3:45 AM GMT
    Well, that and this do:

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05/coyne05_index.html
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 4:12 AM GMT
    Caesarea4 saidWell, that and this do:

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05/coyne05_index.html


    Coyne has the same problem that everyone on each side of the question/debate/controversy/conversation has: They all confuse each others' terms, each ascribe beliefs and tenets to the the other that are inaccurate or misrepresented, and then use the whole muddled mess in order to talk past each other.

    Each side is just as "guilty" as the other.
  • danisnotstr8

    Posts: 2579

    Aug 26, 2011 4:16 AM GMT
    Mikeinslc saidThe seashell was no more intelligently designed than the rolled edges of a rock by the sea. The mere ends reached by the circumstance and laws that govern the universe. Whose rules set forth guided their shape and creation.


    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but this post is certain proof that design, regardless of its origins, can lead to stupidity.


  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 4:20 AM GMT
    danisnotstr8 said
    Mikeinslc saidThe seashell was no more intelligently designed than the rolled edges of a rock by the sea. The mere ends reached by the circumstance and laws that govern the universe. Whose rules set forth guided their shape and creation.


    I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but this post is certain proof that design, regardless of its origins, can lead to stupidity.




    Well, yeah - there was the Edsel, after all.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 4:21 AM GMT
    Not to be politically incorrect here, but...

    (and no offense to the OP - just borrowing this meme from another thread) :

    IhsPDG.jpg

    who really gives a rat's fuck about this particular topic?

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 4:26 AM GMT
    alphatrigger saidNot to be politically incorrect here, but...

    (and no offensevto the OP - just borrowing this meme from another thread) :

    IhsPDG.jpg

    who really gives a rat's fuck about this particular topic?



    It rears its ugly head again - the media has jumped on it now that election season is heating up.

    Huntsman didn't help things with his statements about evolution and global warming.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 4:44 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ said
    alphatrigger saidNot to be politically incorrect here, but...

    (and no offensevto the OP - just borrowing this meme from another thread) :

    IhsPDG.jpg

    who really gives a rat's fuck about this particular topic?



    It rears its ugly head again - the media has jumped on it now that election season is heating up.

    Huntsman didn't help things with his statements about evolution and global warming.


    I think its good things are getting stirred up. Huntsman is my personal favorite of the GOP candidates. Anyone who thinks that the Earth is 6000 years old and that the first woman came from the rib of a man should not be running this country...
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 5:32 AM GMT
    swmrh911 said
    JackNWNJ said
    alphatrigger saidNot to be politically incorrect here, but...

    (and no offensevto the OP - just borrowing this meme from another thread) :

    IhsPDG.jpg

    who really gives a rat's fuck about this particular topic?



    It rears its ugly head again - the media has jumped on it now that election season is heating up.

    Huntsman didn't help things with his statements about evolution and global warming.


    I think its good things are getting stirred up. Huntsman is my personal favorite of the GOP candidates. Anyone who thinks that the Earth is 6000 years old and that the first woman came from the rib of a man should not be running this country...


    Yes, clever - but:

    This is partially what I'm talking about.

    There are indeed Christians (and Jews, I guess) who believe that the Earth is 6000 yo, based on the biblical texts.

    However, the 4004 BC date was arrived at by Ussher, who used the genealogies of the bible to determine the date of creation. In a sense, you can say Ussher's work was "scientific" and based on Reason, because he dug up the data, and came up with the date.

    But - it turns out that the genealogies of the bible are incomplete. They were not intended to be complete - the genealogy of ancient times was an important legal and historical document, used often in legal disputes over titles, deeds, and inheritances. So they were not intended to be a complete record of someone's lineage.

    On that basis alone, it is apparent that the bible in no way indicates the age of the physical Earth.

    So believing in a young earth is not a requirement for one to be following the faith correctly (despite what some preachers and traditions may insist).

    So when you counter a Christian with "OMG how can you believe a 6000 year old earth???" and then conclude that the bible must be bullshit, you have based your conclusion on something that is an error in the first place.

    The bible may very well be bullshit, but don't succumb to Gnu-Atheist ignorance of concluding that it's bullshit based on erroneous assumptions about what it actually says.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 5:42 AM GMT
    Also, Huntsman is a bonehead. He just barked out, "I believe in evolution! I accept the findings of climate scientists!"

    It does not sound to me that he has actually considered either issue substantially; I believe he is just taking a sort of "Hail Mary" (pun intended) shot at the nomination.

    Anyone who simply "believes" and "accepts" is no different from someone who thinks that rocks and trees have souls.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 5:59 AM GMT
    Huntsman had some good chops, but he is too much of an outlier too early in the game. If I were him, I'd bow out and give my endorsement to Dr. Ron Paul; ideologically they do not seem too terribly dissimilar.
  • Lincsbear

    Posts: 2605

    Aug 26, 2011 6:11 AM GMT
    Why can`t they just have faith in their religion/god?Their belief sounds weak to me.Religion doesn`t need to be reasonable or even rational.It`s appealing to something beyond human imagination or thought.
    Playing games with religion for political purposes is dishonest (at best) and dangerous at worst.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 6:23 AM GMT
    Lincsbear saidWhy can`t they just have faith in their religion/god?Their belief sounds weak to me.Religion doesn`t need to be reasonable or even rational.It`s appealing to something beyond human imagination or thought.
    Playing games with religion for political purposes is dishonest (at best) and dangerous at worst.


    It sounds weak to you. That's fine, but hardly an empirical observation. Religion doesn't need to be Reasonable or rational true - but it can be.

    I don't know that it's "playing games." People have religious beliefs that are important to them.

    Dishonest? Sometimes. Dangerous? Oh please, don't be a pussy.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 6:24 AM GMT
    alphatrigger saidHuntsman had some good chops, but he is too much of an outlier too early in the game. If I were him, I'd bow out and give my endorsement to Dr. Ron Paul; ideologically they do not seem too terribly dissimilar.


    I don't think he'll have a choice.

    "Outlier" needs to be on the banned word list next time it comes out.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 8:03 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ said
    Caesarea4 saidWell, that and this do:

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05/coyne05_index.html

    Coyne has the same problem that everyone on each side of the question/debate/controversy/conversation has: They all confuse each others' terms, each ascribe beliefs and tenets to the the other that are inaccurate or misrepresented, and then use the whole muddled mess in order to talk past each other.

    Each side is just as "guilty" as the other.

    Can you expound on this with an example or two from Coyne's article?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 9:28 AM GMT
    doesn't matter what you believe, science should be taught in class not religion.
  • CAtoFL

    Posts: 834

    Aug 26, 2011 11:34 AM GMT
    JackNWNJ said
    "Outlier" needs to be on the banned word list next time it comes out.



    Sorry, but the whole world doesn't revolve around political debates on RJ.

    We need the word for math and statistics.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Aug 26, 2011 3:41 PM GMT
    Caesarea4 said
    JackNWNJ said
    Caesarea4 saidWell, that and this do:

    http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/coyne05/coyne05_index.html

    Coyne has the same problem that everyone on each side of the question/debate/controversy/conversation has: They all confuse each others' terms, each ascribe beliefs and tenets to the the other that are inaccurate or misrepresented, and then use the whole muddled mess in order to talk past each other.

    Each side is just as "guilty" as the other.

    Can you expound on this with an example or two from Coyne's article?


    He specifically mentions the 6,000 year old earth issue.

    There are also problems with Judge Overton's decision from a point of view of pure science. But Coyne, like most evolutionists, hailed that decision as a vindication. They miss the irony that they allowed a legal scholar (a philosopher) to define their project for them.

    I am not directly criticizing Overton's reasoning. He can only work within the confines of his discipline.

    The entire episode outlines the limits of science, philosophy, religion, law, etc. None of these can describe human knowledge and experience with 100% accuracy. All fields of study are subjective.