Do you believe in magic?

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Chancellor ID folks would deny that it's the same story. They're only going as far as to say that there is design.

What a cowardly and disingenuous line of reasoning? "ID supporters don't actually come right out and say they believe in a designer so their hypothesis is sound."

Please. Do you honestly expect anyone here to believe that? There are no ID supporters who aren't also Christians / theists looking to lend scientific legitimacy to bronze age guesswork. It's nonsense. It's certainly nothing that could be considered science.

[rez]

Quote by: Chancellor ID folks would deny that it's the same story. They're only going as far as to say that there is design.

Saying there is design, but not commenting on the designer is just really really funny. Do you see how that is at all?

It would fall outside the realm of science anyway. Belief in one or more deities requires faith, something that has no place in science.

It falls out of science, it falls out of honesty, it falls out of common sense. When you say that one supernatural entity is more real then another supernatural entity you are ultimately using evidence to support your claim. You are ultimately using the scientific method to do so.

And like you said you can't do so. what you end up doing is commiting a double standard. You reject one supernatural entity on the same basis that someone would reject your supernatural entity.

But the ID folks aren't taking it that far. The Creationists do but the ID folks don't. Why can't you accept that there may be a difference between ID and Creationism at least on a philosophical level?

Because when you say something is designed, then you are also saying something designed it.

Design requires a Designer. Unless you can figure out a way to argue that does not require a designer.

You don't need to be a teacher and teachers aren't scientists. Your reply is yet another example of this damned reading into things that pisses me off!

The big bang theory is an explanation. There are many competing and conflicting explanations that have supporting evidence and do not have supporting evidence. People end up using the explanation that provides results and new discoveries has supporting evidence etc....

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Zhavric What a cowardly and disingenuous line of reasoning? "ID supporters don't actually come right out and say they believe in a designer so their hypothesis is sound." Please. Do you honestly expect anyone here to believe that? There are no ID supporters who aren't also Christians / theists looking to lend scientific legitimacy to bronze age guesswork. It's nonsense. It's certainly nothing that could be considered science.

I expect people to READ what I write and take it to mean exactly and only what I write. KNOCK OFF THIS DAMNED READING INTO THINGS NOW!!!!!!!

Now, whether their hypothesis is sound is subject to debate. ID folks believe in DESIGN and would insist that going beyond that point into the realm of identifying a specific designer would be moving beyond the realm of science and into the realm of faith.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: rez Saying there is design, but not commenting on the designer is just really really funny. Do you see how that is at all?

Take it up with the ID folks. They're the ones making the distinction.

It falls out of science, it falls out of honesty, it falls out of common sense. When you say that one supernatural entity is more real then another supernatural entity you are ultimately using evidence to support your claim. You are ultimately using the scientific method to do so.

First of all, honesty and common sense have nothing whatsoever to do with science. Second, anything regarding the supernatural is automatically outside the realm of science.

And like you said you can't do so. what you end up doing is commiting a double standard. You reject one supernatural entity on the same basis that someone would reject your supernatural entity.

I don't know if it's necessarily the same basis.

Because when you say something is designed, then you are also saying something designed it.

Tell that to the ID folks.

Design requires a Designer. Unless you can figure out a way to argue that does not require a designer.

But what the ID folks are saying is that to go beyond design to identifying a specific designer is to go beyond science.

The big bang theory is an explanation.

Explanation, conclusion, same thing.

There are many competing and conflicting explanations that have supporting evidence and do not have supporting evidence. People end up using the explanation that provides results and new discoveries has supporting evidence etc....

So, these elements or whatever they were just somehow existing out there in nothingness all by themselves somehow coming to collide or mix together or whatever and then start expanding - again, all by themselves - has supporting evidence? Please! Prove first what these elements or whatever were, then prove that they just some how "existed" all by themselves out there in nothingness, then prove that they collided or mixed together or whatever it is they did, then prove that this action resulted in them expanding all by themselves until they formed the Universe.

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Chancellor I expect people to READ what I write and take it to mean exactly and only what I write.

Stop whining. You stated ID doesn't imply a creator. It does. Everyone knows it. Theists back it. It's silly to try to maintain ID exists without any implications. "ID indicates design, but we don't believe there's a designer". It's nonsense and it's trollish of you to keep going on with Rez in such a dishonest manner.

Now, whether their hypothesis is sound is subject to debate.

Of ccourse it's not. ID has been consigned to the intellectual garbage can where it belongs. It's only ever mentioned by arm chair theistic debators and the political right wing. It was the right's big push to get Christianity and religion back into public schools and it failed. Let it die, Chancellor.

ID folks believe in DESIGN and would insist that going beyond that point into the realm of identifying a specific designer would be moving beyond the realm of science and into the realm of faith.

Yes. That's exactly what ID supporters want you to do which is half of why ID isn't science. The other reason is that ID supporters have never actually followed scientific rigor. Ever. In science we look at the evidence and draw conclusions from it. In ID, we invent a conclusion and then declare certain phenomenon to be evidence.

I still get a good laugh out of the bananna argument. Please tell me you don't believe in that ignorant stance.

[Chancellor]

Quote by: Zhavric Stop whining. You stated ID doesn't imply a creator. It does. Everyone knows it.

I stated no such thing. I said what I said and meant what I said. The ID folks themselves make the claim that they are only going as far as design and that to go from there to a designer goes outside of science.

Theists back it. It's silly to try to maintain ID exists without any implications. "ID indicates design, but we don't believe there's a designer". It's nonsense and it's trollish of you to keep going on with Rez in such a dishonest manner.

Damn it, knock it off with the implying crap!!!!!!!!!! If you don't like what the ID folks claim, take it up with them.

Of ccourse it's not. ID has been consigned to the intellectual garbage can where it belongs. It's only ever mentioned by arm chair theistic debators and the political right wing. It was the right's big push to get Christianity and religion back into public schools and it failed. Let it die, Chancellor.

You need to be consigned to the intellectual
garbage can where you belong! NOW KNOCK THIS CRAP OFF OF READING INTO MY POSTS THINGS I DIDN'T SAY!!!!!!!!!! I never one said anything even remotely resembling wanting Christianity taught in those damned government indoctrination centers (public schools)!

Yes. That's exactly what ID supporters want you to do which is half of why ID isn't science. The other reason is that ID supporters have never actually followed scientific rigor. Ever. In science we look at the evidence and draw conclusions from it. In ID, we invent a conclusion and then declare certain phenomenon to be evidence.

If you believe that then take it up with them.

I still get a good laugh out of the bananna argument. Please tell me you don't believe in that ignorant stance.

I'm not familiar with that argument.

[rez]

Quote by: Chancellor First of all, honesty and common sense have nothing whatsoever to do with science.

Honesty and common sense have a lot to do with how science is conducted.

Step 1: Observe and generalize
Step 2: Formulate hypothesis
Step 3: Make a testable prediction
Step 4: Experiment or observe
Step 5: Modify the hypothesis as necessary and repeat steps 3 and 4.

Step 1 - 4 are just plain common sense. You use those steps everyday in your life.

Step 5 is where the honesty comes in. The steps are repeated to make sure the hypothesis is accurate.

And of course, if an explanation comes along that does a better job at predicting and explaining, then of course that explanation will be used.

So if it just so happens that the ID followers are able to support their claims one day and it turns out their predictions and observations are better then the Theory of Evolution, then the ID explanation would be the preferable explanation.

So as you can see, it makes absolutely zero sense to think that science operates under an assumption.

Second, anything regarding the supernatural is automatically outside the realm of science.

why?

But what the ID folks are saying is that to go beyond design to identifying a specific designer is to go beyond science.

Absolutely not. ID is a reality claim like any other claim.

The only reason why an ID follower would say that would be because their field of research does not yield any results. I mean, when you say something is designed you need to find the design. If life is designed, then where is the designer?" If life is designed can it occur naturally? Does ID even try to research whether or not life can arise naturally? Does ID even research PERIOD?

All of those questions have no answers because Intelligent Design does not explain nothing nor does it try to explain anything. It is a lame form of creationism dressed up in science because theists are started to realize that nobody takes them seriously anymore. They are starting to realize their version of reality is no different then harry potters version of reality. They know that science trumps religion when explaining reality, so now they are starting to use it with their own magical thinking.

So, these elements or whatever they were just somehow existing out there in nothingness all by themselves somehow coming to collide or mix together or whatever and then start expanding - again, all by themselves - has supporting evidence?

Considering your question makes absolutely no sense. I would have to tell you to reread what the Big Bang Theory states.

Prove first what these elements or whatever were, then prove that they just some how "existed" all by themselves out there in nothingness, then prove that they collided or mixed together or whatever it is they did, then prove that this action resulted in them expanding all by themselves until they formed the Universe.

"or whatever it is they did"? indicates you have no clue what the Big Bang Theory is. How can you disagree with something you don't comprehend?

So please actually refute something the Big Bang Theory states! Please question something the Big Bang Theory states!

[Zhavric]

Quote by: Chancellor I stated no such thing. I said what I said and meant what I said. The ID folks themselves make the claim that they are only going as far as design and that to go from there to a designer goes outside of science.

Right. And we all know this is disingenuous so let's consider that part settled.

I never one said anything even remotely resembling wanting Christianity taught in those damned government indoctrination centers (public schools)!

But that's what ID was invented to do, Chancellor. The fact that you're ignoring this fact is irrelevant; it's still a fact.

In his novel Mind Siege, right wing novelist tim LaHaye expresses exactly the desire you're denying.

In Mind Siege, LaHaye charges, "America's public education is purposely designed to eradicate Jesus from the scene and replace Him with the likes of John Dewey, Sigmund Freud, Wilhelm Wundt, Friedrich Nietzsche, Karl Marx, Charles Darwin, and many more."

Americans United: If Best-Selling End-Times Author Tim LaHaye Has His Way, Church-State Separation Will Be...

Denial on your part doesn't negate the facts, C.

If you believe that then take it up with them.

No, I'm taking it up with you. Moderate Christians who do nothing are in many ways worse the fundamentalists because you allow them to get away with their dogmatic idiocy.

I'm not familiar with that argument.

How convenient?

The banana argument is a variation on the argument from design, saying that some things are the way they are because they were designed especially for our pleasure and comfort.

Note that the banana:

Is shaped for human hand
Has non-slip surface
Has outward indicators of inward content:
Green — too early
Yellow — just right
Black — too late
Has a tab for removal of wrapper
Is perforated on wrapper
Bio-degradable wrapper
Is shaped for human mouth
Has a point at top for ease of entry
Is pleasing to taste buds
Is curved towards the face to make eating process easy

Do you agree this is evidence of design?