You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Defending the Wedge Strategy
- Thread starter Teleologist
- Start date
science doesnt say we descended for apes as a fact but as one likely possibility.
if we were to follow your thinkin' there would be no more enquirin' minds willin' to postulate and investigate since all the answers could be found in god.
if we were to follow your thinkin' there would be no more enquirin' minds willin' to postulate and investigate since all the answers could be found in god.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Since there is no proof of ignorant chance, then we don't know how, or why.
So why do kids grow up, believing dogmatically that that they descended from apes as a result of ignorant chance?
Because science, for the masses has drifted away from its primary purpose.
It has replaced religion for many as a means to explain the unknown, and then people take it wholly on faith, then they want to propagate that faith in order to reinforce their own belief systems...it has become dogma.
We need to return to a more balanced and proper approached to educating children in the school.
Isn't it better to have children educated to have open minds, inquiring minds, not indoctrinated minds?
Bitstream wrote:
What is absurd is your double standard. You claim that ID is untestable and then refuse to provide a test for your "no design" theory.
that's like sayin' the earth spinnin' around the sun cud be due to gravity but also to id since we really dont know exactly what gravity is. absurd.
What is absurd is your double standard. You claim that ID is untestable and then refuse to provide a test for your "no design" theory.
Bitstream wrote:
You are clueless about ID. Why don't you educate yourself about ID before you come on a forum and attempt to debunk it? I suggest you start with the thread "Intelligent design is not creationism".
if we were to follow your thinkin' there would be no more enquirin' minds willin' to postulate and investigate since all the answers could be found in god.
You are clueless about ID. Why don't you educate yourself about ID before you come on a forum and attempt to debunk it? I suggest you start with the thread "Intelligent design is not creationism".
Yes, I do know that. So which law is it that governs random ignorant chance?
No, you can't say "evolutionary law" because that becomes circular. Evolutionary law assumes without verification random ignorant chance, then goes back and uses the the same unverified assumption to prove further assumptions?
Hardly "law" worthy...
Gravity is not a composite of processes, it is one of the primary forces.
The so called "evolution" is actually a combination of different ideas, one of which is the assumption of ignorant chance. Why not assume intelligent design?
Practically speaking, it makes no difference in the processes themselves if we assume ID or non ID, but in order to develop a theory (which has become dogma) something must be assumed.
So why assume non ID over ID?
This is done because of an agenda of atheistic thinking over theistic thinking.
Science should not be about dogma, teaching what belief systems to hold. It should be true regardless if there is ID or non ID behind the processes we observe.
However, science will not take an agnostic approach....which is actually the correct and truly scientific approach...where we don't know, and don't have any way of knowing until we reach to that level of understanding just exactly what is at the source of the changes we observe.
No, you can't say "evolutionary law" because that becomes circular. Evolutionary law assumes without verification random ignorant chance, then goes back and uses the the same unverified assumption to prove further assumptions?
Hardly "law" worthy...
Gravity is not a composite of processes, it is one of the primary forces.
The so called "evolution" is actually a combination of different ideas, one of which is the assumption of ignorant chance. Why not assume intelligent design?
Practically speaking, it makes no difference in the processes themselves if we assume ID or non ID, but in order to develop a theory (which has become dogma) something must be assumed.
So why assume non ID over ID?
This is done because of an agenda of atheistic thinking over theistic thinking.
Science should not be about dogma, teaching what belief systems to hold. It should be true regardless if there is ID or non ID behind the processes we observe.
However, science will not take an agnostic approach....which is actually the correct and truly scientific approach...where we don't know, and don't have any way of knowing until we reach to that level of understanding just exactly what is at the source of the changes we observe.
Quote from Bitstream:
in our world gravity is not random, it works followin' specific laws, u know that.
science doesnt say we descended for apes as a fact but as one likely possibility.
Likely? How on earth do you calculate the odds to a "likely" conclusion? Oh yes, begin with an assumption of non design, then make a case for non design using the first assumption as some fact in evidence. Circular buddy, very circular...
Does science give equal weight to design as chance?
Why not? After all, it really is a 50/50 guess, right?
Oh, and I think if science did suggest that God was behind the changes we see, scientists would be eager to postulate and investigate a way to find a scientific method to meet and to know God...
Likely? How on earth do you calculate the odds to a "likely" conclusion? Oh yes, begin with an assumption of non design, then make a case for non design using the first assumption as some fact in evidence. Circular buddy, very circular...
Does science give equal weight to design as chance?
Why not? After all, it really is a 50/50 guess, right?
Oh, and I think if science did suggest that God was behind the changes we see, scientists would be eager to postulate and investigate a way to find a scientific method to meet and to know God...
Quote from Bitstream:
science doesnt say we descended for apes as a fact but as one likely possibility.
if we were to follow your thinkin' there would be no more enquirin' minds willin' to postulate and investigate since all the answers could be found in god.
it's a possibility because it's the animal that shares more similarities with us, that's enough to make it more likely we descend from apes than from an abstract first engine.
u keep missin' the point: science cannot investigate god, there's no empirical evidence that can be collected to prove it's existence, nevermind its intervertion.
u keep missin' the point: science cannot investigate god, there's no empirical evidence that can be collected to prove it's existence, nevermind its intervertion.
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
science doesnt say we descended for apes as a fact but as one likely possibility.
Likely? How on earth do you calculate the odds to a "likely" conclusion? Oh yes, begin with an assumption of non design, then make a case for non design using the first assumption as some fact in evidence. Circular buddy, very circular...
Does science give equal weight to design as chance?
Why not? After all, it really is a 50/50 guess, right?
Oh, and I think if science did suggest that God was behind the changes we see, scientists would be eager to postulate and investigate a way to find a scientific method to meet and to know God...
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
science doesnt say we descended for apes as a fact but as one likely possibility.
Likely? How on earth do you calculate the odds to a "likely" conclusion? Oh yes, begin with an assumption of non design, then make a case for non design using the first assumption as some fact in evidence. Circular buddy, very circular...
Does science give equal weight to design as chance?
Why not? After all, it really is a 50/50 guess, right?
Oh, and I think if science did suggest that God was behind the changes we see, scientists would be eager to postulate and investigate a way to find a scientific method to meet and to know God...
Just checked the page views for this thread. 95 posts and 950 page views, which is about 30% of the average number of page views/post on other threads. The same results for the other Creationism thread that Z started. The only people viewing this thread are Z/leologist/pilier and the few others who have schooled him here regarding his lack of fluency in probability theory.
This shows that even Christians here are uninterested in hearing Z and his various aliases parrot the same phrase over and over again, even though his beliefs have been proven to be unsound.
ID is a faith-based belief in a Creator God. It purports to be a scientifically provable theory but its supporters are unable to provide any such proof. It belongs in the home and clearly should not be taught in schools.
TraderNik wrote:
Absolutely false! ID is a research project that is investigating to determine if data from the biological world strengthens or weakens the ID inference and if it can be a reliable guide for generating hypotheses that help us better understand biotic reality.
ID is a faith-based belief in a Creator God.
Absolutely false! ID is a research project that is investigating to determine if data from the biological world strengthens or weakens the ID inference and if it can be a reliable guide for generating hypotheses that help us better understand biotic reality.
Quote from Teleologist:
Bitstream wrote:
What is absurd is your double standard. You claim that ID is untestable and then refuse to provide a test for your "no design" theory.
this proves beyond doubt if there was any that u have enormous comprehension issues and huge difficulties in dealin' with logic. i said a million times over that it is not the role of science to prove or either refute id or not id theory. there's no verifiable process of observation that can discern the truth in the matter. your question is naive, ignorant and undeservin' of any further elaboration.