An unexpected religious conversation...

10/22/2009 05:11:04 PM · #701

OK, well whatever we are arguing about Louis, we really agree with each other. :)

Crap. That was probably another reverse time causality wave...

I like this excuse. "Why didn't you take the trash out?" "Well, honey, apparently that action is 'abhorent to nature' and a reverse time-travelling causality wave has sabotaged all my efforts to do so." There's no arguing with that!

10/22/2009 05:35:18 PM · #702

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

That always seems to be a part of what religion is all about. Confront the people who don't see it your way and "get" them to see the light.

It's vitually impossible to find a compassionate, empathetic religion that's just genuinely interested in supporting you on your own spiritual journey, whatever that may be.

Originally posted by Nullix:

Unfortunately, that's not the way it should be. As God said when he sent the apostles out to preach the word.

Prove it!.......8>)

What about those that Allah sent out to preach the word?

I have yet to have anyone want to tackle that scenario I proposed with the good and decent man of the "other" religion, whose faith is just as strong and pure as yours.

How do *I* know who's right?

And how can you prove to me *you* are?

Can't you both be right, but different in your approach?

It's seems so wrong that if there are two good and decent, devout and dedicated men of faith, that one MUST be wrong.

Is God really like that?

10/22/2009 05:39:26 PM · #703

I don't know why all the skepticism here. If we routinely bash eachother for the sake of ego we will never get anywhere.

Drachookudos to you for finding the beauty in it all. Personally I dont see how anyone could even disagree with the theory of intelligent design as a whole. We (Mankind) have intelligently designed so much! We live in a day where technology is created so rapidly based on sythesized principles derived from natural laws. We have designed cellular phones, internet routers, etc. We have this conversation here, typing our words out and connecting to eachother on a global scale from inside our homes. I can call a relative 10,000 miles away in just a split second all via cell phone, thanks to particle frequencies. How does a phone number allow me to tap into the frequency of another cell phone so I could communicate verbally across an ocean? My answer to that is ...String Theory!

The reason why the theory is so popular is because it has already shown itself to be a valid one; right in front of our faces. We just haven't proved it and totally figured it out yet. Just 100 years ago if anyone spoke to eachother with cell phones we'd consider it sorcery and black magic. If anything, religion is just fundamentals, ideals and philosophy written WAY before the technological age. An age where we communicate via Wireless Fidelity. Frequencies are called frequencies because particles can be designed to travel in specific wavelengths. Light and radiation manipulated and intelligently designed!

So if we are a microcosm of God, then is consciousness based on string theory as well?

scalvert

10/22/2009 06:20:16 PM · #704

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Personally I dont see how anyone could even disagree with the theory of intelligent design as a whole.

Because it isn't one.

"In June 2007 the Council of Europe's "Committee on Culture, Science and Education" issued a report, The dangers of creationism in education, which states "Creationism in any of its forms, such as 'intelligent design', is not based on facts, does not use any scientific reasoning and its contents are pathetically inadequate for science classes." In describing the dangers posed to education by teaching creationism, it described intelligent design as "anti-science" and involving "blatant scientific fraud" and "intellectual deception" that "blurs the nature, objectives and limits of science" and links it and other forms of creationism to denialism."

Nullix

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/22/2009 06:29:18 PM · #705

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

I'm confused NikonJeb. Back on page 24, you clearly think the universe just is. If there is no purpose behind us being here, why would you care about your fellow man? Why would you care who's right and wrong?

I can't prove a religion if you don't think we have a purpose here. Do you want proof of a decent man? I don't know what standards to use except for some sort of religious standards.

Besides, you can have a decent, devout and dedicated man of any faith. Devotion and dedication doesn't make a faith correct.

I'd imagine proving faith to you would be like wrestling a muddy pig.

10/22/2009 06:30:14 PM · #706

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Personally I dont see how anyone could even disagree with the theory of intelligent design as a whole.

Originally posted by scalvert:

Other than that, what's wrong with it?......8>)

zxaar

10/22/2009 06:37:11 PM · #707

i also had 'An unexpected conversation' with God today.
It was just one sentence exchange, He said - "Shut up you fool".

// joking.

10/22/2009 06:41:10 PM · #708

Well

scalvert,some job they did proving their point huh? Why it seems like they didn't convince anyone at all because its being taught. my brother is still just a substitute teacher and he's already beginning his teaching career by teaching creationism to 8th graders. Seems like this European council is part of a group of fading people, the same group that put Galileo under house arrest 400 years ago because of this fear that his inventions would lead to the end of the world, better yet the end of the world as the people back then knew it when Earth was considered flat.

But thanks to Galileo, we now have Lenses and this cool website too; and if a normal man like Galileo intelligently designed lenses that mimic the human eye, then perhaps God is just a Macrocosm of us. The Intelligent Design theory could be considered hypothetical on that basis alone!

This council you speak of are lobbyists. Basically there has been a movement going on forever to keep mankind ignorant because they'd be harder to rule over if the truth got out(In the Galileo case) But in some cases I do agree with this movement's efforts in the past, for instance on Friday the 13th, when all Templar Knights were killed for selling ancient scientific patents. Patents that in a time where man was still immature, would probably lead to their destruction. (Example, Nuclear physics) Good example. But I feel mankind is evolved enough now to see what lies in Pandora's box.

Message edited by author 2009-10-22 19:05:41.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

10/22/2009 06:42:23 PM · #709

Originally posted by Nullix:

So you're going to go down the snide and sarcastic path again since you cannot support your own faith?

What does my believing that the universe just is have to do with me caring about my fellow man?

That makes about as much sense as arriving at the conclusion that because blue is my favorite color that I don't like rice.

See, that's my point......how can YOU prove you're right?

Unlike you, I don't have this whole segment of the population that I just up and cancel out because they don't buy into some brand of religion.

I believe that there are people of great decency, love, and understanding of many faiths, and of no faith at all.

Apparently, you don't.

Originally posted by Nullix:

I can't prove a religion if you don't think we have a purpose here. Do you want proof of a decent man? I don't know what standards to use except for some sort of religious standards.

You're obfuscating.....again, and as usual.

Oh, so if a man's not religious, he can't be decent?

There's that "My way or the highway" approach so common to religion.

Yet there would be religious men who are good and decent that would be Muslims and Jews, right?

Or is that a misconception because if they aren't Christian, then they aren't decent men?

Somehow, I don't see you answering this question, either.

Originally posted by Nullix:

Besides, you can have a decent, devout and dedicated man of any faith. Devotion and dedication doesn't make a faith correct.

Okay.....so basically, your way is correct, and decent, devout, and dedicated men of any other faith are wrong?

I want you to answer this one once and for all.

I want you to stand up like the righteous man that you are, and say that your way is the right and only way.

Originally posted by Nullix:

I'd imagine proving faith to you would be like wrestling a muddy pig.

I'd imagine that you don't have a snowball's chance of proving faith outside of your views to anyone.

VitaminB

Nikon D800

10/22/2009 07:10:22 PM · #710

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Well scalvert,some job they did proving their point huh? Why it seems like they didn't convince anyone at all because its being taught. my brother is still just a substitute teacher and he's already beginning his teaching career by teaching creationism to 8th graders. Seems like this European council is part of a group of fading people, the same group that put Galileo under house arrest 400 years ago because of this fear that his inventions would lead to the end of the world, better yet the end of the world as the people back then knew it when Earth was considered flat.

But thanks to Galileo, we now have Lenses and this cool website too; and if a normal man like Galileo intelligently designed lenses that mimic the human eye, then perhaps God is just a Macrocosm of us. Basically there has been a movement going on forever to keep mankind ignorant because they'd be harder to rule over if the truth got out(In the Galileo case) But in some cases I do agree with this movement's efforts in the past, for instance on Friday the 13th, when all Templar Knights were killed for selling ancient scientific patents. Patents that in a time where man was still immature, would probably lead to their destruction. (Example, Nuclear physics) Good example. But I feel mankind is evolved enough now to see what lies in Pandora's box.

If your brother is teaching creationism as religion, then good for him. If he is teaching it as science, he needs to have is credentials revoked. Intelligent design is not science. Science is based upon experimentation and testable hypotheses. There hasn't been a single scientific paper based on intelligent design, yet there have been thousands that reference evolution and natural selection.

Proponents of intelligent design are just like the "European Council" you speak of that tried to shut up Galileo. The Discover Institute, which is behind Intelligent Design, is well known for using it as a wedge strategy to try to remove Evolution from schools. Some reading for you about the wedge strategy:
//libcom.org/library/wedge-document-intelligent-design-exposed

10/22/2009 07:18:56 PM · #711

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

But I feel mankind is evolved enough now to see what lies in Pandora's box.

Interesting choice of phrases in the same sentence.

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

10/22/2009 07:25:53 PM · #712

There are some who believe Intelligent Design and Evolution do not exclude each other. I believe that is the case. Evolution and Intelligent Design are part of a principle based relationship of Cause and Effect. Evolution is just an automated effect of a cause and if anything should be taught after; not before Intelligent Design.

Intelligent Design "AND" Evolution

Message edited by author 2009-10-22 19:32:22.

VitaminB

Nikon D800

10/22/2009 07:34:26 PM · #713

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Which is fine if you choose to believe that. That is where religion come in.... religion is about faith and belief, science is about experimentation, inquiry, and testable hypotheses. Because Intelligent Design doesnt involve experimentation, and testable hypothesis, it doesnt belong in a science classroom. If a religion teacher chooses to teach it, thats another thing.

The problem is that the Discovery Institute, the quasi religious-political body is trying to introduce ID as a science, that should be taught in science classrooms to further a political or religious agenda.

And, for the record, I am a science and biology teacher in a catholic school system. I teach evolution in my science classrooms.

Intelligent Design: Belief Posing as Theory

Message edited by author 2009-10-22 19:41:09.

10/22/2009 07:45:10 PM · #714

Originally posted by VitaminB:

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
There are some who believe Intelligent Design and Evolution do not exclude each other. I believe that is the case. Evolution and Intelligent Design are part of a principle based relationship of Cause and Effect. Evolution is just an automated effect of a cause and if anything should be taught after; not before Intelligent Design.

Which is fine if you choose to believe that. That is where religion come in.... religion is about faith and belief, science is about experimentation, inquiry, and testable hypotheses. Because Intelligent Design doesnt involve experimentation, and testable hypothesis, it doesnt belong in a science classroom. If a religion teacher chooses to teach it, thats another thing.

The problem is that the Discovery Institute, the quasi religious-political body is trying to introduce ID as a science, that should be taught in science classrooms to further a political or religious agenda.

And, for the record, I am a science and biology teacher in a catholic school system. I teach evolution in my science classrooms.

I understand your point. But what if it is being taught because experimentation of Intelligent Design is done with technology; as I explained a few posts above with the WiFi analogy to string theory for example. But anyways, public school teachers first inform students that the lesson is optional, and they don't have to participate in it. We're a long way from the days of the Scopes Trial

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 28-70mm f/2.8D IF-ED

10/22/2009 07:56:29 PM · #715

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

We're a long way from the days of the Scopes Trial

I'm trying to see your connection with your case considering there is valid scientific proof for evolution.

Citing the Scopes trial doesn't validate your point of view......it does exactly the opposite.

VitaminB

Nikon D800

10/22/2009 07:59:43 PM · #716

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Do you mean the post where you made this phrase?

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

How does a phone number allow me to tap into the frequency of another cell phone so I could communicate verbally across an ocean? My answer to that is ...String Theory!

Because my answer to that is cell phone towers and satellites.

To make the jump and say that because we can intelligently design technology, means that we ourselves were created through intelligent design is a huge leap.... and it doesnt make ID science... ID is still faith.

And, regardless if public school teachers say a lesson on ID is optional, doesnt mean the information is correct. Im also glad you brought up the scopes trial... this was another attempt to silence science in the name of religion. Not allowing ID in a classroom is trying to prevent a false science from being taught in a science classroom.

scalvert

10/22/2009 08:12:59 PM · #717

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

...experimentation of Intelligent Design is done with technology

There IS no experimentation of Intelligent Design. None. No proposed tests, not a single peer reviewed paper, nothing. The only thing it can possibly prove is that there's a sucker born every minute. The whole thing is a claim, period... literally no different than stating gifts are too expensive for everyone to buy, therefore Santa Claus must exist. A few fun quotes from the ID wiki:

"The inference that an intelligent designer created life on Earth, which advocate William Dembski has said could alternately be an "alien" life force, has been compared to the a priori claim that aliens helped the ancient Egyptians build the pyramids."

"According to a 2005 Harris poll, 10% of adults in the United States viewed human beings as "so complex that they required a powerful force or intelligent being to help create them"

"Intelligent design has also been characterized as a "god of the gaps" argument. A god-of-the-gaps argument is the theological version of an argument from ignorance. A key feature of this type of argument is that it merely answers outstanding questions with explanations (often supernatural) that are unverifiable and ultimately themselves subject to unanswerable questions."

"A key strategy of the intelligent design movement is convincing the general public that there is a debate among scientists about whether life evolved. The intelligent design movement creates this controversy in order to convince the public, politicians and cultural leaders that schools should "Teach the Controversy." But in fact, there is no such controversy in the scientific community; the scientific consensus is that life evolved."

From the Dover school board trial, "IDâ��s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard." Fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy" proposals.

10/22/2009 08:16:20 PM · #718

Originally posted by scalvert:

From the Dover school board trial, "IDâ��s backers have sought to avoid the scientific scrutiny which we have now determined that it cannot withstand by advocating that the controversy, but not ID itself, should be taught in science class. This tactic is at best disingenuous, and at worst a canard." Fear of a similar lawsuit has resulted in other school boards abandoning intelligent design "teach the controversy" proposals.

Dover's not the most highly evolved area of our lovely state, so that in and of itself kind of speaks volumes about the veracity of the ID claims.

If something supporting it was going to get shoehorned through, Dover's enough of a backwards small town for it to happen.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/22/2009 08:23:02 PM · #719

Nevermind

Message edited by author 2009-10-22 20:27:33.

10/22/2009 08:26:12 PM · #720

I agree scientists have their hands full proving ID. But DNA is currently being reverse engineered, Is that not intelligent re-design? If Intelligent Re-design exists, then maybe one day we can all witness DNA actually take form. But yes, up until now, DNA is always present and is never shown to take form by birth.

Human Genome project

Take a crack at this

DrAchoo

You seem to be the only one here who doesn't have a disdain for scientists. Does this all make ID a subject worthy for discussion in schools, as a science, based on the successful and proven reverse engineering of DNA ?

Message edited by author 2009-10-22 21:08:25.

10/22/2009 08:44:32 PM · #721

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Take a crack at this Doc

You do realize you just linked us to the effectively invisible person, don't you?

10/22/2009 09:01:19 PM · #722

Originally posted by NikonJeb:

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:
Take a crack at this Doc

You do realize you just linked us to the effectively invisible person, don't you?

Whoops, fixed it! lol. Didnt know there were so many doctors here.

scalvert

10/22/2009 09:08:46 PM · #723

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

I agree scientists have their hands full proving ID.

Agree with whom? No scientists are involved in IDâ�� it's not science. I equally agree that scientists have their hands full proving leprechauns.

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

But DNA is currently being reverse engineered, Is that not intelligent re-design?

No, it's not. If anything, it's a strong indicator that life is not supernatural. Humans can create diamonds and electricity, too... both occur naturally.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

10/22/2009 10:15:48 PM · #724

Originally posted by RulerZigzag:

Take a crack at this DrAchoo

You seem to be the only one here who doesn't have a disdain for scientists. Does this all make ID a subject worthy for discussion in schools, as a science, based on the successful and proven reverse engineering of DNA ?

Well, you may not like my answer too much... I don't personally advocate the teaching of ID in schools as a science. I agree with the sentiment that it isn't a scientific theory. This doesn't make it untrue, mind you; and I personally believe that the process of life on this planet has been directed by God. I think it's actually much more beneficial for us to teach evolution, but allow for the questioning of aspects of the theory. I believe evolution is a powerful theory, but it isn't the entire story in life arising on this planet. Most science books gloss over abiogenesis with a quick paragraph about the Miller-Urey experiments and that's it. The scientific process could be learned much better by actually seeing the attempts and failures to understand abiogenesis. The student can see that the scientific method develops a hypothesis, tests it, makes adjustments for results, etc., but they will also gain the understanding that we don't know everything and, in fact, there are some pretty basic questions we know very little about at all. A humility of our understand, in my opinion, is more beneficial than just trying to teach ID.