Religion is a hypothesis.

Really? So a theist can't reserve his faith for his religion, and also practice logical and critical thinking to the world and within the rigid limits of science...

Quote from Gabfly1:

Theists. In all their splendor.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

I don't think that's true at all. What proponents of ID would like to see is a balanced approach to the understanding of our creation. What is it that the Darwinists fear? I could make just the same arguement about them as you have for the ID researchers. Evolution is pretty damn complicated without some of the assumptions that are taken as gospel.
These people should be working together, not against each other. Unless someone is afraid of the truth, that is.
An interesting article http://www.icr.org/article/493/

"The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution
Share this Articleby Henry Morris, Ph.D. "

when the bible was written what was the mathematical possibility that a doctor would take a heart out on one man and put it in another?

you think scientists should work with these people? how do you work with people looking for scientific truth when one side believes this:
"if conclusions contradict the word of God, the conclusions are wrong no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."
 
If previous scientific conclusions, like the sun revolving around the earth (early science) are rendered false by current science, then why would any reasonable man not think that any particular scientific truth of today may be rendered false by some future scientific discovery...

Which would lead a reasonable man to never say he knows the truth on the basis of science, but rather that he believes...

Quote from vhehn:

"The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution
Share this Articleby Henry Morris, Ph.D. "

when the bible was written what was the mathematical possibility that a doctor would take a heart out on one man and put it in another?

you think scientists should work with these people? how do you work with people looking for scientific truth when one side believes this:
"if conclusions contradict the word of God, the conclusions are wrong no matter how many scientific facts may appear to back them."
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

Really? So a theist can't reserve his faith for his religion, and also practice logical and critical thinking to the world and within the rigid limits of science...
Oh, so logical, scientific thinking when it's convenient and whimsy when it's not? Sure. A theist can do as he pleases. And if he presents his more fanciful views to others, he can expect them to be scrutinized by the less whimsically inclined.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

Oh, so logical, scientific thinking when it's convenient and whimsy when it's not? Sure. A theist can do as he pleases. And if he presents his more fanciful views to others, he can expect them to be scrutinized by the less whimsically inclined.

best of both worlds, psychosis and sanity if you please when you please :D
 
Quote from vhehn:

the superstitious mind. its a thing of beauty. did it ever occur to you that if any scientist were to come up with some evidence for id he would be world famous? why do you think none ever has?
the id proponents want their ideas accepted as science without the step of peer reviewed evidence. why. because well its looks too complicated to happen naturally. the whole id movement rests on one idea. it looks complicated.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fOtP7HEuDYA
Many Intelligent Design proponents often cite the complexity of the eye as proof that the eye is so complicated that it could not have evolved. Here scientists and educators explain how the eye fits very well into Darwin's evolution model.
Bingo. The entire problem with ID is that it is classic God of the gaps: "This particular thing looks too complicated to understand, ergo God done it." With that mindset, there would be no such thing as scientific progress. Why bother trying to figure anything out, when somebody could always simply dismiss it with "God done it"?

ID isn't a scientific theory, it's a cop-out; it's an excuse for a lazy so-called "biologist" to not try to figure out how life got here.

Most of all, it still doesn't answer the question of the origins of life. Because it still doesn't explain where the I in the ID came from. It's a childish rationale to not think. I've learned to never trust people who tell me not to think. That always works to somebody else's advantage, not mine.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful." -- Seneca
 
Quote from OPTIONAL777:

If previous scientific conclusions, like the sun revolving around the earth (early science) are rendered false by current science, then why would any reasonable man not think that any particular scientific truth of today may be rendered false by some future scientific discovery...

Which would lead a reasonable man to never say he knows the truth on the basis of science, but rather that he believes...
What a marvelously novel approach, to consider new evidence as it actually presents itself with man's slowly increasing grasp of the universe. The key word, of course, being evidence.
 
Quote from kut2k2:

Bingo...

...It's a childish rationale to not think. I've learned to never trust people who tell me not to think. That always works to somebody else's advantage, not mine...
Bingo.
 
Quote from vhehn:

"The Mathematical Impossibility Of Evolution
Share this Articleby Henry Morris, Ph.D. "

when the bible was written what was the mathematical possibility that a doctor would take a heart out on one man and put it in another?

It was 100% possible. Whether the guy lived or not was another story.:eek:
I don't believe all ID types would say, damn the science if it proves me wrong. Me...I'm just seeking the truth and wherever it leads, it leads. And the truth as of today, 12.1.09 is that there isn't a soul on the planet that knows for sure whether God exists or not, except for the crazies, of which there are plenty on both sides of the argument.
 
Back
Top