- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: The Scientific Establishment Is Finally Starting To Take Intelligent Design Seriously
Posted on 5/21/22 at 5:09 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
Posted on 5/21/22 at 5:09 pm to Sid in Lakeshore
quote:
Perhaps you should refer to the Design Basis Documentation to familiarize yourself with the end user requirements.
Perhaps you can do more than just posture and point out the obvious thing I'm supposedly missing....
0
Posted on 5/21/22 at 5:20 pm to Herooftheday
quote:Exactly!!!!
The scripture pointing out that a day is a thousand years and a thousand years as a day was to illustrate that we exist in a blink. Not necessarily that it is a thousand years or that it is anything we are meant to understand or will ever understand.
quote:Negative.
Do you think God is bound by our understanding of time?
I think a "day" of Genesis can represent an entire geologic eon.
quote:Au contraire! It is when we don't question, that we are expressly not smart
We question everything by nature but we aren't all that smart as beings.
quote:Emerson was conflating philosophical thought with physiology. Neither of which was/is in his wheelhouse as an engineer.
"If the human brain were so simple that we could understand it, we would be so simple that we couldn't."
Emerson Pugh
quote:Unfortunately no. If that was true, not a single Black person would have EVER voted for PotatoBrain.
I think every conversation gets down to philosophical discussion
Posted on 5/21/22 at 5:26 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:Nah.
This is an attempt to put pure belief based on nothing on par with facts based on actual data. No thanks.
It's appropriate respect for the nondisprovable .... until it is proven otherwise.
When YOU make the assertion that another thesis is incorrect, the ball (of proof) is in YOUR court.
This post was edited on 5/21/22 at 5:28 pm
Posted on 5/21/22 at 7:35 pm to NC_Tigah
quote:
When YOU make the assertion that another thesis is incorrect, the ball (of proof) is in YOUR court.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Hitchens)
Preferable to the competition of arguments with no scientific or evidentiary basis.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 4:04 am to cwill
quote:You misattribute Hitchens' meaning.
That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. (Hitchens)
Contemplation is not assertion.
However, condemnation of contemplation is an assertion.
That is the difference.
To be clear, we have no evidence as to origins of mass. None. Should we elect to not contemplate the question, we are assured to never have such evidence.
We have no evidence of abiogenesis. None. Zip. Zilch. Nada! Should we elect to avoid contemplating abiogenesis in the absence of evidence, we are assured to never have such evidence. The latter would not represent science or scientific method, but rather willful ignorance.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 8:00 am to NC_Tigah
There’s been no thesis asserted. A thesis has to be backed by some logic, reason, and most importantly data.
Those bringing forth a thesis should back it up. And yet, they cannot.
Meanwhile, another Theory is backed by everything ever put forth in multiple branches of science.
Those bringing forth a thesis should back it up. And yet, they cannot.
Meanwhile, another Theory is backed by everything ever put forth in multiple branches of science.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 8:15 am to Fun Bunch
quote:Of course there has.
There’s been no thesis asserted.
quote:Logic, reason, and data are equivalent in terms of abiogenesis and the origin of singularity matter.
A thesis has to be backed by some logic, reason, and most importantly data.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 1:57 pm to NC_Tigah
I am specifically referring to Evolution, not abiogenesis or Big Bang.
Although Big Bang has a lot of supporting evidence.
Although Big Bang has a lot of supporting evidence.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 2:34 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:But has no answer to "Why?", nor could it ever.
Although Big Bang has a lot of supporting evidence.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 5:02 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:But with respect FB, you specifically responded to a post addressing abiogenesis, and the origin of singularity matter (not even Big Bang, just the consolidated mass immediately preceding it).
I am specifically referring to Evolution, not abiogenesis or Big Bang.
Although Big Bang has a lot of supporting evidence.
Those are all things science contemplates.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 5:03 pm to cwill
quote:
quote: Science and faith don’t have to be mutually exclusive. But they are.
That being said I think you probably mean to say one doesn’t preclude the other, which is totally fine.
The problem occurs when the faithful try to “scientifically” prove their faith…that’s pseudoscience.
It’s also pseudoscience when “scientists” try to “scientifically” prove that God or an Intelligent Designer doesn’t exist.
It’s also criminal when the establishment “scientific community” is ok with others losing their jobs and careers for having a different opinion.
A good reason why it’s taken so long for these hypotheses to reach the public.
Darwin’s Theory is still a theory. Nothing proven.
Also, over 30% of scientific biologists think it’s time to move on from Darwin.
Google Michael Behe. He was ostracized by his own colleagues at Lehigh.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 5:23 pm to ThuperThumpin
quote:
the data thus far does not give indications yay or nay other than pure speculation on a creator.
If one does exist and left clues to its existence it will be scientist that discover it.
I don’t trust “scientists” paid by the federal government to discover anything of fact or truth.
i.e. the global warming charade.
What if the “clues” have already been discovered?
i.e. Jesus Christ
Posted on 5/22/22 at 5:34 pm to SammyTiger
quote:
Intelligent design essentially Gives up on that because we haven’t figured into it yet.
It’s pure faith based.
Everything science does is based on some kind of faith.
Especially when it comes to unproven theories. the Big Bang, multiple universes etc etc…
Scientists have faith that when they return from lunch, none of their experiments have been compromised.
I have faith that I won’t fall into a sink hole when I walk outside today
Posted on 5/22/22 at 7:01 pm to Rohan Gravy
You’re right. We as humans, simply can’t get anywhere without “belief” which is the same Greek word as faith.
And immediately, that statement necessitates that every decision we face requires some kind of value judgement, for which science has no answer.
So it’s really the scientific community (if we must divide the two) who is truly on the defensive.
And immediately, that statement necessitates that every decision we face requires some kind of value judgement, for which science has no answer.
So it’s really the scientific community (if we must divide the two) who is truly on the defensive.
This post was edited on 5/22/22 at 7:40 pm
Posted on 5/22/22 at 8:36 pm to bayoubengals88
Nice counter argument whoever downvoted me.
Would read again.
Would read again.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 8:45 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
So it’s really the scientific community (if we must divide the two) who is truly on the defensive
On the defensive against what?
Posted on 5/22/22 at 8:46 pm to Rohan Gravy
quote:
It’s also pseudoscience when “scientists” try to “scientifically” prove that God or an Intelligent Designer doesn’t exist.
They're by definition non falsifiable. Anything that shows proof that no higher being exists is excused as "well, they just made it that way".
quote:
Darwin’s Theory is still a theory.
So is gravity. Where's your Intelligent Falling argument?
quote:
Michael Behe. He was ostracized by his own colleagues at Lehigh.
After he was exposed as a fraud and a moron in the Kitzmiller trial. Oops for him.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 8:55 pm to bayoubengals88
quote:
So it’s really the scientific community (if we must divide the two) who is truly on the defensive.
Only those adherents to scientism, which describes a lot of people in science fields but not all of them.
Posted on 5/22/22 at 9:01 pm to Fun Bunch
quote:Against exposure of assertions that we know more than we actually do.
On the defensive against what?
Posted on 5/22/22 at 9:05 pm to BamaAtl
quote:Depending on the designer, that is obviously not true. What are UAPs?
Intelligent Designer doesn’t exist.
They're by definition non falsifiable.
Page 17 of 23
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News