Discrimination On Scientists That Back ID

[Gunny]

Not testable according to your limited understanding of science perhaps. But there are tests and observations that you can make to lead you to different conclusions. Obviously we can't go back in time. Think of it as forensic science. At least you have something to work with. Invoking a supernatural being in your theory is just sillyness. It's not science. The big bang is science. For example we know that the universe expanded because it's still expanding and we can observe that. We can also observe different radiation levels and such. With ID there is absolutely nothing to observe or test so it isn't science. How difficult is that to understand?

LMAO. It doesn't even matter WHAT board I'm on, the anti-religion attack is always the same ..... anyone who disagrees is ignorant. Seems to me the one who isn;t understanding is the one blindly believing what he wants to hear and refusing to acknowledge the flaws in his argument.

The "Big Bang" is no less "silly" than a supernatural being. GMAFB. Out of absolute nothingness, something comes. Excellent reasoning.

The theory itself is NOT hard to understand. The credence you place on whimsy is. The fact that you continually ridicule ID as nonsense while at the same time spouting off something no more or less nonsensical is all the evidence required in this test to prove that you possess little to no objectivity on the topic.

And until you can produce some hard evidence that proves any scientific theory of origin, they are no more nor less scientific than ID and my statement stands.

 

[Annie]

LMAO. It doesn't even matter WHAT board I'm on, the anti-religion attack is always the same ..... anyone who disagrees is ignorant. Seems to me the one who isn;t understanding is the one blindly believing what he wants to hear and refusing to acknowledge the flaws in his argument.

The "Big Bang" is no less "silly" than a supernatural being. GMAFB. Out of absolute nothingness, something comes. Excellent reasoning.

The theory itself is NOT hard to understand. The credence you place on whimsy is. The fact that you continually ridicule ID as nonsense while at the same time spouting off something no more or less nonsensical is all the evidence required in this test to prove that you possess little to no objectivity on the topic.

And until you can produce some hard evidence that proves any scientific theory of origin, they are no more nor less scientific than ID and my statement stands.

No one has a good theory of the 'beginning.' To me, evolution explains 'what came after', but the idea of an intelligent designer, a prime mover, an "It" explains enough for me, through faith. If there was a 'big bang' there is no denying the possibilty of any of the forementioned.

 

[Powerman]

LMAO. It doesn't even matter WHAT board I'm on, the anti-religion attack is always the same ..... anyone who disagrees is ignorant. Seems to me the one who isn;t understanding is the one blindly believing what he wants to hear and refusing to acknowledge the flaws in his argument.

The "Big Bang" is no less "silly" than a supernatural being. GMAFB. Out of absolute nothingness, something comes. Excellent reasoning.

The theory itself is NOT hard to understand. The credence you place on whimsy is. The fact that you continually ridicule ID as nonsense while at the same time spouting off something no more or less nonsensical is all the evidence required in this test to prove that you possess little to no objectivity on the topic.

And until you can produce some hard evidence that proves any scientific theory of origin, they are no more nor less scientific than ID and my statement stands.

I never claimed the big bang to be factual. It is one of several theories and the best we have right now. ID is nonsense. How can you not see that? How can you not understand that ID is not science? Kathy seems to have a good grip on it. Why can't you figure this one out? I've spelled it out for you as clear as day. There is ZERO proof for ID.

 

[Annie]

I never claimed the big bang to be factual. It is one of several theories and the best we have right now. ID is nonsense. How can you not see that? How can you not understand that ID is not science? Kathy seems to have a good grip on it. Why can't you figure this one out? I've spelled it out for you as clear as day. There is ZERO proof for ID.

ID is non-provable, thus has no place in science curriculum imo. However, that does not make it nonsense, just unproveable.

 

[manu1959]

ID is non-provable, thus has no place in science curriculum imo. However, that does not make it nonsense, just unproveable.

the big bang is not provable and neither is the spontaneous scientific creation of man yet they are taught

 

[Annie]

the big bang is not provable and neither is the spontaneous scientific creation of man yet they are taught

Neither in our school, though mentioned, along with ID as being unprovable.

 

[Gunny]

I never claimed the big bang to be factual. It is one of several theories and the best we have right now. ID is nonsense. How can you not see that? How can you not understand that ID is not science? Kathy seems to have a good grip on it. Why can't you figure this one out? I've spelled it out for you as clear as day. There is ZERO proof for ID.

How can YOU not understand that based on parameters YOU set, NO theory of origin is science? I am not arguing that ID specifically is. My argument is that ID is no more nonsensical, nor more or less science than any scientific theory of origin. There is ZERO proof that any scientific theory of origin is anything more than Man's imagination. What you continually label "nonsense" is just as plausible.

And you want to talk nonsense? You claim the "Big Bang" is the best theory we have right now, and you also state that you do not claim it to be factual.

The difference between believing THAT and believing in a Creator is exactly WHAT?

It is more scientific than ID exactly HOW? There is as much evidence to support one as the other.

IMO, a Creator is FAR more plausible an explanation than out of absolute nothing came something. That is not a scientifically sound argument, and it is illogical reasoning.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Maybe you're misunderstanding me. You can believe in a creator and perform scientific tasks. But if you actually think that ID is science then you obviously don't understand the scientific process and thus you are probably not a very good scientist.

Yet alot of scientists disagree with you.

Medicine was at one time not considered a science. Scientists of the day considered those who sought to understand medicine, as "quacks"

why are you so afraid of ID being explored by students?

 

[Powerman]

"It is more scientific than ID exactly HOW? There is as much evidence to support one as the other."

You simply must be called out on this. There is zero evidence for ID. Not one measly shred of evidence. How do you not realize that? And even if the theory is right, there still isn't evidence. So it's not science.

You tell me what evidence there is for ID compared to evolution or big bang. It's all based on the premise that there is an invisible superior being that there is no evidence exists.

 

[Powerman]

Yet alot of scientists disagree with you.

Medicine was at one time not considered a science. Scientists of the day considered those who sought to understand medicine, as "quacks"

why are you so afraid of ID being explored by students?

Please tell me this doesn't escape you. There is no proof for ID. None whatsover.

You can't just say : That shit is pretty complicated so it must have been designed by an invisible supernatural being. That's silly.

 

[Annie]

I never claimed the big bang to be factual. It is one of several theories and the best we have right now. ID is nonsense. How can you not see that? How can you not understand that ID is not science? Kathy seems to have a good grip on it. Why can't you figure this one out? I've spelled it out for you as clear as day. There is ZERO proof for ID.

There is zero "proof" for evolution, yet there is a load of evidence in favor of it. Then again, a lot of holes. Which is what ID proponents point to. On the other hand, ID too may have a lot of holes, but non-provable/testable. As for Big Bang, the universe does seem to be expanding, which may be proof of ID or BB. Enjoy.

 

[Gunny]

"It is more scientific than ID exactly HOW? There is as much evidence to support one as the other."

You simply must be called out on this. There is zero evidence for ID. Not one measly shred of evidence. How do you not realize that? And even if the theory is right, there still isn't evidence. So it's not science.

You tell me what evidence there is for ID compared to evolution or big bang. It's all based on the premise that there is an invisible superior being that there is no evidence exists.

Dude, can you possibly look at this topic through something bigger than a coffee stir?

I simply must be called on WHAT exactly? Feel free to comb the entire forum and find where I have stated there is any evidence to support ID. Let me help .... I haven't.

Obviously the point I am trying to make is zooming right over your grape. My point is that the premise of your arguments are that something (life) was created from absolute nothingness, and that we have descended from slime.

In other words, there is no factual evidence that proves ANY theory of origin. Yet you single out one and call it unscientific.

Now, try for once to think outside your narrow, little box ..... all a Creator would have to be is a form of life far superior to, and beyond the comprehension of man, who has mastery over life and death enough to create it.

You can't buy anything like that because you are blinded by your arrogance and belief in the infallibility and absoluteness of Man's intellect.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

Not testable according to your limited understanding of science perhaps. But there are tests and observations that you can make to lead you to different conclusions. Obviously we can't go back in time. Think of it as forensic science. At least you have something to work with. Invoking a supernatural being in your theory is just sillyness. It's not science. The big bang is science. For example we know that the universe expanded because it's still expanding and we can observe that. We can also observe different radiation levels and such. With ID there is absolutely nothing to observe or test so it isn't science. How difficult is that to understand?

Soooo, lets assume for arguements sake, that there is one God, who created all the universe. Since it is such a hotly debatable topic, and many have chimed in for thousands of years on both sides, including leading scientists, and some of the top minds of all time in math, science, philosophy and psychology, among others, it is not any stretch whatsoever to conclude the possibility of a Creator.

Now, lets assume there is one. You are saying, since it cant be proven, Science should disregard any possibility of it. So, now, in our assumption, God created everything, science is ignoring that possiblity, hence science, in your opinion, would be ignoring the truth. Hmmm, doesnt sound too scientific to me.

 

[Powerman]

"You are saying, since it cant be proven, Science should disregard any possibility of it. "

Yes and there is reasoning behind that. Science should always seek to find more answers. Since we can't prove that there is or is not a God for the sake of science it makes much more since to assume that there isn't one for the purpose of gaining more knowledge. If you just say everything is the way it is because God made it that way then you are essentially giving up.

I'm not saying that there definitely isn't a God but you will get absolutely nowhere in your search for scientific truth if you just assume that things that we don't understand are the works of a supreme being.

I'm not sure if I'm putting this into words for you but if you but it makes sense. When you come to the conclusion that something is unexplainable then you are just giving up.

 

[Powerman]

ID is non-provable, thus has no place in science curriculum imo. However, that does not make it nonsense, just unproveable.

I can deal with this. And that's exactly why it isn't science. Can't prove it. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just means it isn't science.

 

[LuvRPgrl]

I never claimed the big bang to be factual. It is one of several theories and the best we have right now. ID is nonsense. How can you not see that? How can you not understand that ID is not science? Kathy seems to have a good grip on it. Why can't you figure this one out? I've spelled it out for you as clear as day. There is ZERO proof for ID.

To say ID is nonsense, and not science, are two completely different assertations.

Im assuming you believe both. How can you "prove" ID is nonsense.???

Evolution, as a theory on the first origins of life is easily dis provable. Hence, by default, there must be a Creator.

Evolution has so many holes in it, it has evolved into a spaghetti colander.

The fact of the matter is, science, and current scientific laws, CANNOT explain the origins of matter. Its simply impossible to understand them within those confines. You always eventually wind up at a point that is not explainable by those standards, whether you are considering evolution or a Creator, IF you accept current scientific laws as the be all/end all.

To put it simple and short, science does not explain or attempt to, how something can be created out of nothing. So, either something was created out of nothing, or there never was nothing, but that eternity is beyond our comphrehension. But there must have been a time when nothing existed, except time (is time something?) but our existence could not be made from that nothing (which includes there being no creator at that time), so in essence, our limited knowledge leads us to conclude we dont exist.

But how can we come to a conclusion we dont exist, if we dont exist? To come to a conclusion, requires existence. Are we just a dream, a fantasy, a video game?

 

[Powerman]

There is zero "proof" for evolution, yet there is a load of evidence in favor of it. Then again, a lot of holes. Which is what ID proponents point to. On the other hand, ID too may have a lot of holes, but non-provable/testable. As for Big Bang, the universe does seem to be expanding, which may be proof of ID or BB. Enjoy.

How would the universe expanding be proof for ID? It's proof for BB but certainly not ID.

 

[Annie]

I can deal with this. And that's exactly why it isn't science. Can't prove it. There is no evidence whatsoever to support the idea. Doesn't mean it's wrong, just means it isn't science.

A bit less than that, just means that 'in our current context' isn't available to scientific method' which may be a problem with the method or the subject. on the other hand, it does, today, preclude it imo from the science curriculum. Though it definately belongs in ethics/theology curriculum.

 

[Powerman]

"Im assuming you believe both. How can you "prove" ID is nonsense.???"

I don't believe both. But ID is nonsense in the fact that people are trying to pass it off as science. That is definitely nonsense.

 

[Powerman]

"To put it simple and short, science does not explain or attempt to, how something can be created out of nothing. So, either something was created out of nothing, or there never was nothing, but that eternity is beyond our comphrehension. But there must have been a time when nothing existed, except time (is time something?) but our existence could not be made from that nothing (which includes there being no creator at that time), so in essence, our limited knowledge leads us to conclude we dont exist.

But how can we come to a conclusion we dont exist, if we dont exist? To come to a conclusion, requires existence. Are we just a dream, a fantasy, a video game?"


My conclusion is "I don't know"

I don't think that anyone will ever have definitive answers to such cosmic questions of our existence. But that is not proof of a supreme being. That just means that we don't know.