Then why respond in a manner that proves otherwise?Originally posted by: Meuge
Yes.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Meuge
You're on crack.Originally posted by: piasabird
Many scientific theories about the Brain can not be measured.
Why do you insult other people with such a ridiculous remark. Do you seriously believe that your position is so intellectually superior to his that you simply need to make such an absurd appeal?
Originally posted by: Meuge
Yes.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Meuge
You're on crack.Originally posted by: piasabird
Many scientific theories about the Brain can not be measured.
Why do you insult other people with such a ridiculous remark. Do you seriously believe that your position is so intellectually superior to his that you simply need to make such an absurd appeal?
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: shira
Originally posted by: raildogg
I want religion and science to look at things from an objective viewpoint. Both sides have worked against each other rather than working with each other. This is possible. We are not at that stage yet, but we will get there. There are flaws in creationism and evolution.
One day there will be a new study done that combines the best of scientific, religious and spiritual elements.
By definition, science addresses that which is observable and measurable - the physical world. If a thing cannot be observed and meaured, no objective statement about the thing is possible.
God, spirit, religious belief - these do not involve things that can be measured, and therefore are not in the realm of "objective truth."
Thus, attempting to "combine" the two would be a disaster.
Where is the objective truth in the science of pain killing medicine? How do you know that an aspirin works? Where is the objectivity in 'hey I feel better.' Can you duplicate the brain-wave patterns of a Tibetan Monk in deep meditation? What do modern people know about what can be turned on in the brain? Most people are too busy even to wipe their asses clean.
Moonie,
Of course you are familiar with the concept of controlled, double-blinded experiments. While it's certainly true that the perceptions of pain (or pleasure, or other feelings) by individuals can be influenced by their beliefs, control groups and double-blinds can reduce this subjective effect enormously. So science really can make objective determinations about the value of medications that effect feelings or sensation.
This is not to say that all research outcomes lead to a consensus or that science is "better" than religion or spirituality. I was merely responding to posts that stated that a hybrid of science with religion/spirituality would be desirable.
Feel free to point out one place where I defended, much less advocated, ID in this thread. In the meanwhile, don't you have some Christians to crucify?Originally posted by: Todd33
I'm looking hard for my "anti-religious hate". Nope, don't see it. I guess you reply with canned responses, but put little thought in where to use them? You have spent this whole thread defending ID, just in coy way, like someone who is embarrassed to admit something outright. Come out of the closet, it's alright.
You said there's nothing left to discuss, but you persist. So let it be a short thread. Or do you really need to post the same thing four posts in a row to boost your post count?Originally posted by: DealMonkey
What's left to discuss? ID is hardly a scientific theory and doesn't warrant being taught in any science curriculum. End of story. What's left to discuss I ask? Whether we individually believe in some generic higher power that created us? That's all these threads ever come down to. Am I missing something? What's left to say but "Yes, I believe." or "No, I don't believe."
If we can't discuss the (IMHO) relevant side-issues that surround ID, then it's destined to be a short thread.
No, this is not indicative at all of my 'support'. It IS a theory. Do you question that? No, it is not a scientific theory, but it is a theory nonetheless.Originally posted by: CQuinn
You do keep referring to ID as a "Theory", which is on of the core disseminations that ID proponents attempt to use to get intelligent design
placed on the same curriculum as teaching the theories and science of Evolution. In that, your position appear to be one of support.
No, the problem is that you're confusing a theory with a hypothesis.The problem is ID is not valid as a Theory. With a theory you can at least attempt to prove or disprove your idea based on gathering
evidence and performing experiements that either reinforce your earlier hypotheses, or cause you to re-examine your findings
and methodology in an attempt to explain newer information.
First, my name isn't 'Cyclone.' Second, I borrowed the truncated version from the preface of a Dutch dissertation (M. Dubbelman, 2002) because I know exactly what Darwin was saying, as I'm trying to unravel this same stuff in my research, not because of its implications with respect to evolution.Originally posted by: Strk
Cyclone, why don't you use the entire quote in your signature?
Wrong. Existence is either true or it's not. This is, by definition, objective. God exists or he doesn't. You exist or you don't. My claiming that you don't exist doesn't have any bearing on whether you do or do not exist: you will continue existing or not existing regardless of what I say about your existence. Many things that cannot be measured are perfectly objective.Originally posted by: shira
God, spirit, religious belief - these do not involve things that can be measured, and therefore are not in the realm of "objective truth."
As usual, you skip the part of the thread where we discussed this in an effort to wage a personal attack on me. My generic theory has since been titled 'ATPNID', since many people here are apparently struggling with arbitrary naming conventions invented by the media. By making up my own name for the most general form of the theory, I have removed any reasonable possibility of anyone to attack the strawman, yet you have done so anyway. How... tenacious of you.Originally posted by: shira
As usual, you are hopelessly misinformed. I don't know how it's possible for someone who claims to have a science background to be so clueless. You are wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.
Now, go back to sleep.
:beer:Then why respond in a manner that proves otherwise?Yes.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Why do you insult other people with such a ridiculous remark. Do you seriously believe that your position is so intellectually superior to his that you simply need to make such an absurd appeal?
Whose religion? You know them all, do you?Originally posted by: ntdz
To all the religious people out there...Who/what created God? Did he create himself? Did another higher being create him? Did he come from nothing? (if he did, then why couldn't life have come from non life?)
That's a question not even religion answers.
The fact that you say so doesn't change the facts. I act arrogantly because I don't believe that people who are so ignorant and refuse to face reality deserve my respect.Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Meuge
Yes.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Originally posted by: Meuge
You're on crack.Originally posted by: piasabird
Many scientific theories about the Brain can not be measured.
Why do you insult other people with such a ridiculous remark. Do you seriously believe that your position is so intellectually superior to his that you simply need to make such an absurd appeal?
You're wrong, he's right, and you look like an arrogant idiot.
In your little world, no one is as educated or smart as you. We're all ignorant, and deserved to be kicked like the dogs we are.Originally posted by: Meuge
The fact that you say so doesn't change the facts. I act arrogantly because I don't believe that people who are so ignorant and refuse to face reality deserve my respect.
Maybe you could point out where I claim that 'if something isn't proven false, and you believe it, then it must be true.' I'm pretty sure you won't find it, since you just pulled it out of your ass. Then you have the audacity to call me out on using fallacy? You're not nearly as cool, smart, or logical as you'd like everyone here to believe. That, and you don't even KNOW what I believe, yet you would like to make up some cockeyed story and set that out there as a strawman so you can kick it down. Maybe you can tell me - what do I believe?This pseudoscientific discussion is nothing but mental masturbation for CycloWizard and the others who support him. His justification is that if something isn't proven false, and you believe it, then it must be true. This is a clear logical fallacy and this has been pointed out to him not just by me, but by quite a few members of the board. Yet he and a couple of others persist... not in their belief in God, creator, or whatever... but in their denial of accepted fact.
Based on what I've read from you in these forums, you are anything but open-minded. You pick your position, then bastardize the facts to suit your opinion. When someone corners you and proves that you're completely wrong (as I did in the abortion thread), you simply stop responding to said person. Flat-out lying may not be a logical fallacy, but it's hardly the appropriate manner in which to handle ones self in a debate, yet you seem to love this approach.My position isn't intellectually superior because I am smarter than him, or you, or anyone else... it is intellectually superior because it is guided by nothing but logic and documented evidence. One can't be more open-minded then a proper scientist. But being open-minded shouldn't prevent one from exercising skepticism in their beliefs, most especially when those beliefs are challenged by mountains of evidence.
Really? That's only if you read it through the filter of your stupidity.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Meuge: "I act arrogantly because I don't believe that people who are so ignorant and refuse to face reality deserve my respect."
How quaint. You put other people down because you have a belief in a faith. Nice.
Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? That's only if you read it through the filter of your stupidity.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Meuge: "I act arrogantly because I don't believe that people who are so ignorant and refuse to face reality deserve my respect."
How quaint. You put other people down because you have a belief in a faith. Nice.
Look, I respect the right to different beliefs. People are entitled to different beliefs. They are not, however, entitled to different facts. If we tolerate religion replacing reality, then we are just asking to become no different from the radical murdering muslims that we put down.Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? That's only if you read it through the filter of your stupidity.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Meuge: "I act arrogantly because I don't believe that people who are so ignorant and refuse to face reality deserve my respect."
How quaint. You put other people down because you have a belief in a faith. Nice.
What is your problem? Quit putting people down...
I guarentee I have radically different political beliefs from Moonbeam and I don't sit here calling him stupid and ignorant...they are just DIFFERENT BELIEFS. You aren't going to change people (especially with your condescending attitude, it's just going to get people to defend their beliefs even stronger), just accept what they believe and move on.
Being enrolled in a PhD/MD program doesn't make you smarter than everyone. In fact, it doesn't make you smarter than anyone. It certainly doesn't give you license to be condescending to everyone. However, given your complete lack of ability to actually argue points with any truthfulness and logic, I can see why you resort to these fallacious tactics. I can also see why you simply turn tail and run when you're called out for said behavior. :thumbsdown:Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? That's only if you read it through the filter of your stupidity.
Originally posted by: Meuge
Look, I respect the right to different beliefs. People are entitled to different beliefs. They are not, however, entitled to different facts. If we tolerate religion replacing reality, then we are just asking to become no different from the radical murdering muslims that we put down.Originally posted by: ntdz
Originally posted by: Meuge
Really? That's only if you read it through the filter of your stupidity.Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Meuge: "I act arrogantly because I don't believe that people who are so ignorant and refuse to face reality deserve my respect."
How quaint. You put other people down because you have a belief in a faith. Nice.
What is your problem? Quit putting people down...
I guarentee I have radically different political beliefs from Moonbeam and I don't sit here calling him stupid and ignorant...they are just DIFFERENT BELIEFS. You aren't going to change people (especially with your condescending attitude, it's just going to get people to defend their beliefs even stronger), just accept what they believe and move on.
Originally posted by: CycloWizard
Originally posted by: CQuinn
You do keep referring to ID as a "Theory", which is on of the core disseminations that ID proponents attempt to use to get intelligent design placed on the same curriculum as teaching the theories and science of Evolution.
No, this is not indicative at all of my 'support'. It IS a theory. Do you question that? No, it is not a scientific theory, but it is a theory nonetheless.
The problem is ID is not valid as a Theory. With a theory you can at least attempt to prove or disprove your idea based on gathering evidence and performing experiements that either reinforce your earlier hypotheses, or cause you to re-examine your findings and methodology in an attempt to explain newer information.
No, the problem is that you're confusing a theory with a hypothesis.
So you admit that it's a theory, then divert to another topic? OK then. We agree it's a theory. I assume that you'll agree with me when I say it's not a scientific theory, but a theory nonetheless.Originally posted by: CQuinn
I do question it, or rather I question the principles under which it was developed and proposed as a theory.
I know that what ID is 'being used' for has nothing to do with its validity or status as a theory. I already said what I think about what people are trying to use it for waaaaaay back in this thread.It is an established fact that ID is being used by some people who wish it to be a replacement for, or a valid alternative to, the scientific theory of evolution. Do you not question that? As you point out above, it is not a scientific theory, and if placed in an academic curriculum, should then be placed within the field of study that is
most appropriate for the type of theory, and school of thought, in which it is best supported.
No, you are simply ignoring what I've stated time and again in this thread. What is it that you're ignoring? Hint: I even said it in this very post.I'd say the problem is that you are elevating what would be considered a hypothesis (within scientific study),
to the level of a Scientific Theory, without the associated body of work in support.
I know that what ID is 'being used' for has nothing to do with its validity or status as a theory.
we need to define our terms and field of study on the concept of theory in regard to ID.
I don't know if English is your first language or whatever, but just to prevent your ever quoting me again, I'll point out some things for the zillionth time in this thread that you keep asking me:Originally posted by: CQuinn
Any ideal can be put forth as a theory, that does not make it valid.
I know that what ID is 'being used' for has nothing to do with its validity or status as a theory.
You are being disengenous then, if it is not a scientific theory (upon which we can agree), then addressing
its validity or simple status as a theory rests on the arguements and information made available by those
who act as its proponents. Right now there appear to be far more proponents attempting to use it outside
of the context under which we seem to agree, which would place your explanation as the minority viewpoint.
You have not stated what is relevant time and time again in this thread:
...quoting myself:
we need to define our terms and field of study on the concept of theory in regard to ID.
What field of study do you propose we place the theory of Intelligent Design within?
Originally posted by: LunarRay
Moonbeam,
Quote "Why then do you try to foist on us as factual your belief that arrogance is required in the face of ignorance and not expect others to react to you using your own advise. Where is your proof that you don't think this way because you are simply manners challenged and emotionally immature? You react like a petulant child to the words of others and cannot justify the validity of your emotional reactions. You stamp your foot and explain is as 'because'. You are as religious in your assumptions about the appropriateness of your emotional reactions as any other person of faith. You need to turn some of that skepticism on yourself. Sorry if I seem a bit dogged here but I can't let you wonder about lost in your life like those murdering radical Muslims with whom you share such certainty."
When Yul uttered the four words "His god IS god" in the Movie Moses and his acting which depicted the total loss of Pharaoh's arrogance with those four words I became better aware of what Socrates may have meant by "The one thing I know for sure is that I know nothing for sure". He was saying, I think; what I can't be sure of cannot motivate me to become 'arrogant' in a belief or system.
Arrogance is enabled and fed by belief until some event of such magnitude occurs to shatter that belief. Religion is such that it empowers, actually forces the believer to become arrogant. That then motivates the believer to do or act in accord with that belief.
It should not surprise anyone to see folks following the teachings they have adopted. We should expect a kangaroo to act like one they can't very well breath water so why do we expect them to do so.