Quite irrelevant to the debate, however I saw it on Discovery Channel, and I'm quite far away from it, but I've studiet it and have ever used it in the war with the supersticious christians.thedoc wrote:Just curious when did you discover this case and how close are you to it?
Intelligent Design: a Catechism
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
HexHammer wrote:Quite irrelevant to the debate, however I saw it on Discovery Channel, and I'm quite far away from it, but I've studiet it and have ever used it in the war with the supersticious christians.thedoc wrote:Just curious when did you discover this case and how close are you to it?
Is that episode on the internet, and if so, do you have a link? I would like to watch it.
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
No, it's a fully documentary. Google it and/or find it on youtube.thedoc wrote:Is that episode on the internet, and if so, do you have a link? I would like to watch it.
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
HexHammer wrote:Lies, the best argument for ID's validity was "irriduceable complexity", all the other silly arguments was also ofc debunked.thedoc wrote:This case only settled the legal question of ID being considered as a religious teaching by the courts. It did not deal with the proposition of whether any of it was true, since it relied on the existence of God and is therefore not science.HexHammer wrote:The article is filled with nothing but circular logic, and proves excatly nothing.
ID was utterly debunked in a major lawsuit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller ... l_District
Get your facts straight.
I agree that ID is valid, it just isn't scientifically valid. In other words, it isn't science.
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
In what way is it valid?Ginkgo wrote:I agree that ID is valid, it just isn't scientifically valid. In other words, it isn't science.
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
There are many arguments that can be valid , but are not considered scientifically valid. For example, ID could be ontologically valid.HexHammer wrote:In what way is it valid?Ginkgo wrote:I agree that ID is valid, it just isn't scientifically valid. In other words, it isn't science.
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
Then fairytales are ontologically valid too.Ginkgo wrote:There are many arguments that can be valid , but are not considered scientifically valid. For example, ID could be ontologically valid.HexHammer wrote:In what way is it valid?Ginkgo wrote:I agree that ID is valid, it just isn't scientifically valid. In other words, it isn't science.
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
Could be. But that would be the subject of a lot of discussion. I am not really a fan of metaphysical ontology. I think science is more productive.
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
Sorry for dredging up an old thread, but I was re-reading it since it was referenced in a recent thread, and this post is very instructive. It tells me that HH is not here for an intellectual discussion but an emotional win over any Christians that might be engaged. So much for objectivity, since he describes it as a war.HexHammer wrote: Quite irrelevant to the debate, however I saw it on Discovery Channel, and I'm quite far away from it, but I've studiet it and have ever used it in the war with the supersticious christians.
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
We know that our universe functions by universal laws. I have never read an explanation by atheists how they came into existence. They can argue about accidents being responsible for creation but universal laws cannot arise by accident. They require a conscious source. The ways in which universal laws relate produces what appears to us as ID. The process of the eternally integrating universal laws produces what we call ID. But real ID is the process itself rather than the result. I feel lucky to be living at a time when the complimentary relationship between pure science and the essence of religion is being accepted by a minority as essential for developing human “understanding.” We are entering uncharted territory and the more we begin to understand, I believe the more the words of Simone Weil will just become common sense.
"To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
No we don't. What we know is that matter behaves in a particular way when we look at it. Some of that behaviour has been described very accurately by mathematical models, and the assumption is that those models would work anywhere.Nick_A wrote:We know that our universe functions by universal laws.
Off the top of my head: Galileo. Kepler. Newton. Coulomb. Volta. Ampere. Faraday. Maxwell. Hertz. Planck. Einstein. Bohr. Schrodinger. Heisenberg. Feynman. Bell. Gell-Man. Higgs and all the others I've forgotten.Nick_A wrote:I have never read an explanation by atheists how they came into existence.
There is no intrinsic harm in believing that science is the discovery of god's work, but science proceeds on the assumption either, that god isn't going to mess around with the results, or, more commonly, that there is no god. This is how Stephen Hawking finished A Brief History of TimeNick_A wrote:We are entering uncharted territory and the more we begin to understand, I believe the more the words of Simone Weil will just become common sense."To restore to science as a whole, for mathematics as well as psychology and sociology, the sense of its origin and veritable destiny as a bridge leading toward God---not by diminishing, but by increasing precision in demonstration, verification and supposition---that would indeed be a task worth accomplishing." Simone Weil
Note what he is saying: once science is done and dusted, then we can talk about the whys and wherefores; they are different issues.Stephen Hawking wrote:“... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.”
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
Oh, but you are wrong, as usual you come with your clueless babble. ID has been utterly debunked in a major class action lawsuit, so how can a major lawsuit be less serious than your babble and raving?thedoc wrote:Sorry for dredging up an old thread, but I was re-reading it since it was referenced in a recent thread, and this post is very instructive. It tells me that HH is not here for an intellectual discussion but an emotional win over any Christians that might be engaged. So much for objectivity, since he describes it as a war.HexHammer wrote: Quite irrelevant to the debate, however I saw it on Discovery Channel, and I'm quite far away from it, but I've studiet it and have ever used it in the war with the supersticious christians.
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
Did they ever explain for example how the law of the excluded middle came into existence. It is one thing to explain it and another to explain its origin.Uwot wrote: Nick_A wrote:I have never read an explanation by atheists how they came into existence.
Off the top of my head: Galileo. Kepler. Newton. Coulomb. Volta. Ampere. Faraday. Maxwell. Hertz. Planck. Einstein. Bohr. Schrodinger. Heisenberg. Feynman. Bell. Gell-Man. Higgs and all the others I've forgotten.
The basic theory already exists. Verification is the problem and it is a slow process, Fortunately, as much as the secular world protests, there is enough of a minority with understanding to make progress. If we can make enough progress before humanity destroys itself is not known.Stephen Hawking wrote:“... if we do discover a complete theory, it should in time be understandable in broad principle by everyone, not just a few scientists. Then we shall all, philosophers, scientists, and just ordinary people, be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.”
Andre Weil wrote: "God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exists since we cannot prove it." That's always the problem. How to get the devil, our self deception, out of the details.
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
No, the lawsuit only settled the question of whether ID could be taught in the science classroom. It was determined that ID was a religious concept and there fore was not appropriate for the science classroom, anything else was not settled, and was only included as an accessory to the main argument. Any debunking of ID was not pursued to it's conclusion, only far enough to establish it as a religious idea.HexHammer wrote:Oh, but you are wrong, as usual you come with your clueless babble. ID has been utterly debunked in a major class action lawsuit, so how can a major lawsuit be less serious than your babble and raving?thedoc wrote:Sorry for dredging up an old thread, but I was re-reading it since it was referenced in a recent thread, and this post is very instructive. It tells me that HH is not here for an intellectual discussion but an emotional win over any Christians that might be engaged. So much for objectivity, since he describes it as a war.HexHammer wrote: Quite irrelevant to the debate, however I saw it on Discovery Channel, and I'm quite far away from it, but I've studiet it and have ever used it in the war with the supersticious christians.
Re: Intelligent Design: a Catechism
Wrong, it couldn't be taught in classrooms because it was debunked!thedoc wrote:No, the lawsuit only settled the question of whether ID could be taught in the science classroom. It was determined that ID was a religious concept and there fore was not appropriate for the science classroom, anything else was not settled, and was only included as an accessory to the main argument. Any debunking of ID was not pursued to it's conclusion, only far enough to establish it as a religious idea.
ID's best argument was "irreducible complexity" which was disproven.
..so again mr Doc you don't know what you are talking about.