Creationism vs Intelligent Design?

[☭proletarian☭]

The difference is really very "simple".

ID says that complex biological systems could not have "evolved" because they are "complex" so they must have been "designed and made".

The science of evolution proves how those same complex biological systems evolved. ...

Huh... so showing the mechanism by which systems evolve, falsifies the existence of an intelligent designer...

Oh that's fascinatin'...

How does that work exactly...

Where did he say that... exactly?

PublicInfantalism isn't renowned for its reading comprehension skills.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

That the universe has no beginning and no end is no less true simply because the human mind cannot comprehend it.

Yep, and no less false either.

That is true. But how do you get your mind around a concept that the substance of the universe just appeared at some point in time and at some point of time it will no longer exist? Isn't there a 'why' or a 'how' in there somewhere?

'Why?' is not a valid question.

There is no 'reason' for the existence of the universe. There is only the 'how?' of its workings.

 

[Foxfyre]

Yep, and no less false either.

That is true. But how do you get your mind around a concept that the substance of the universe just appeared at some point in time and at some point of time it will no longer exist? Isn't there a 'why' or a 'how' in there somewhere?

'Why?' is not a valid question.

There is no 'reason' for the existence of the universe. There is only the 'how?' of its workings.

I think if you don't start with 'why', in most things we would never get to a 'how'.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

That is true. But how do you get your mind around a concept that the substance of the universe just appeared at some point in time and at some point of time it will no longer exist? Isn't there a 'why' or a 'how' in there somewhere?

'Why?' is not a valid question.

There is no 'reason' for the existence of the universe. There is only the 'how?' of its workings.

I think if you don't start with 'why', in most things we would never get to a 'how'.

'Why' in the sense of a philosophical sense of purpose or reason is not a valid question when examining the 'how' of the workings of the universe.

 

[Foxfyre]

'Why?' is not a valid question.

There is no 'reason' for the existence of the universe. There is only the 'how?' of its workings.

I think if you don't start with 'why', in most things we would never get to a 'how'.

'Why' in the sense of a philosophical sense of purpose or reason is not a valid question when examining the 'how' of the workings of the universe.

The workings of the universe are generally included in science curriculum. What science do you know that doesn't include some 'whys'?

If people long ago did not wonder 'why' the top of the highest mast was visible first as a ship approached, they might have never arrived at the 'how' that happens resulting in an understanding of a round rather than flat Earth.

Did Newton first ponder 'how' an apple always, without exception, falls to Earth without the question of 'why' that was so?

In the movie Armageddon, parts of the Earth were being savaged by a meteor shower. Would it have been realistic for the characters to have analyzed the damage caused by the meteors and not asked "why" it was happening?

If you really don't have as many 'whys' re the universe as you wonder 'how', I think you might be the world's most uncurious person.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Pilg, facts are not stawmen.

Nice fail, though.

Which is why i left the rest of that post alone.

The part in red is the strawman though.

ID came about because some scientists realized that Darwin can't explain everything. They want to find out the scientific answers to explain the gaps.


Then you have flat-earthers who try to tear down these people who want to do research because they are closed minded flat-earther types.

If we never questioned science then We would still be using newtonian physics.

Bump

 

[☭proletarian☭]

If you're too stupid to understand the difference between a philosophical 'why' in the sense of purpose and 'why' the mast of a ship disappears, then there's no point wasting time on you. I made it very clear what i was referring to you're either not smart enough to discuss the matter or not honest enough to do so honestly.

 

[Foxfyre]

If you're too stupid to understand the difference between a philosophical 'why' in the sense of purpose and 'why' the mast of a ship disappears, then there's no point wasting time on you. I made it very clear what i was referring to you're either not smart enough to discuss the matter or not honest enough to do so honestly.

Yeah. I suppose I am too stupid to discuss a matter with somebody who thinks there is no place for a philosophical 'why' in the sense of purpose. Do have a great day.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I still dont understand the closemindedness of those who dont want to reasearch into the gaps in darwin's theory?

Why dont you want to improve on darwin......like I said we used to think newtonian physics was the end all of physics, then we got more curious about it and re-evaluated and found stuff he missed.

Why be a flat earther and try to shut down new avenues of research?

 

[manifold]

I still dont understand the closemindedness of those who dont want to reasearch into the gaps in darwin's theory?

I think the "those" to whom you refer exist only in your imagination.

On the Ravi strawman scale you only get about a 6.3 out of 10. No offense.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

I still dont understand the closemindedness of those who dont want to reasearch into the gaps in darwin's theory?

Such people exist?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I still dont understand the closemindedness of those who dont want to reasearch into the gaps in darwin's theory?

Such people exist?

I think mani, with this thread and his comments in my thread that inspired this one, is one of those people

and i like mani.

 

[manifold]

I still dont understand the closemindedness of those who dont want to reasearch into the gaps in darwin's theory?

Such people exist?

I think mani, with this thread and his comments in my thread that inspired this one, is one of those people

and i like mani.

If you think that, then you're even more wrong than when you said banning prayer in school is unAmerican.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Such people exist?

I think mani, with this thread and his comments in my thread that inspired this one, is one of those people

and i like mani.

If you think that, then you're even more wrong than when you said banning prayer in school is unAmerican.

Banning prayer anywhere is unamerican. We have the freedom of religion silly.

And i'm glad to be wrong about what I said 2 posts ago.

 

[manifold]

drats! busted on a technicality, right through the five hole!

Of course I know you're smart enough to know that I meant organized prayer in public schools. But I'll give you credit for the goal all the same.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

drats! busted on a technicality, right through the five hole!

Of course I know you're smart enough to know that I meant organized prayer in public schools. But I'll give you credit for the goal all the same.

A goal is a goal....so what if it took a funny bounce on the way in

 

[rdean]

Pilg, facts are not stawmen.

Nice fail, though.

Which is why i left the rest of that post alone.

The part in red is the strawman though.

ID came about because some scientists realized that Darwin can't explain everything. They want to find out the scientific answers to explain the gaps.


Then you have flat-earthers who try to tear down these people who want to do research because they are closed minded flat-earther types.

If we never questioned science then We would still be using newtonian physics.

People become scientists for the express purpose of questioning science.

Gap? Can you name any? Remember, this is 2010 NOT 1982. Knowledge is doubled every year.

We even know the color of some dinosaurs and have found "soft tissue" a hundred million years old. It's a new day. All of the "questions" of the "magical creationists" have been answered. Transitional species, flagellin, the eye. The questions that haven't been answered haven't been asked by the "magical creationists" because they don't know enough science to think up a really good question. It takes a scientist to stump a scientist.

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Knowledge is doubled every year.

[needs citation]

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Pilg, facts are not stawmen.

Nice fail, though.

Which is why i left the rest of that post alone.

The part in red is the strawman though.

ID came about because some scientists realized that Darwin can't explain everything. They want to find out the scientific answers to explain the gaps.


Then you have flat-earthers who try to tear down these people who want to do research because they are closed minded flat-earther types.

If we never questioned science then We would still be using newtonian physics.

People become scientists for the express purpose of questioning science.

Gap? Can you name any? Remember, this is 2010 NOT 1982. Knowledge is doubled every year.

We even know the color of some dinosaurs and have found "soft tissue" a hundred million years old. It's a new day. All of the "questions" of the "magical creationists" have been answered. Transitional species, flagellin, the eye. The questions that haven't been answered haven't been asked by the "magical creationists" because they don't know enough science to think up a really good question. It takes a scientist to stump a scientist.

So how did the DNA double helix evolve again?

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Which is why i left the rest of that post alone.

The part in red is the strawman though.

ID came about because some scientists realized that Darwin can't explain everything. They want to find out the scientific answers to explain the gaps.


Then you have flat-earthers who try to tear down these people who want to do research because they are closed minded flat-earther types.

If we never questioned science then We would still be using newtonian physics.

People become scientists for the express purpose of questioning science.

Gap? Can you name any? Remember, this is 2010 NOT 1982. Knowledge is doubled every year.

We even know the color of some dinosaurs and have found "soft tissue" a hundred million years old. It's a new day. All of the "questions" of the "magical creationists" have been answered. Transitional species, flagellin, the eye. The questions that haven't been answered haven't been asked by the "magical creationists" because they don't know enough science to think up a really good question. It takes a scientist to stump a scientist.

So how did the DNA double helix evolve again?

You're right, your ignorance means I must have designed it that way.


Now worship me, bitch, lest I smite you with my member.