Originally posted by scottishinnzNo, no, the airline pilot can fly. He's blind, of course, but when he puts on his Daredevil outfit he believes his senses are just as good as those of anyone who can see!
Airline pilots who can't fly would be similarly handicapped however. If you cannot use the logical processes of science, and you willfully teach non-mainstream work as the scientific concensus you are always going to be in a tenuous position, and rightly so.
Originally posted by KellyJayI'm no anthropologist. I have no idea what scientists who actually look for design among randomly found objects look for.
You must in your opinion find and talk to the designer or in your
opinion you cannot see design?
Kelly
Now, I'm not bad at guessing whether something was man-made or not, but then again I know that men are out there making things and I know what such things look like, how they're made, etc. And sometimes I could get it wrong. Without my prior knowledge about ionic substances, I might think crystals were man-made, but they are not.
Are you a cultural anthropologist? How come there is no giant movement among that profession for ID? What are the criteria for determining intelligent design? WHERE'S THE SCIENCE?
Originally posted by timebombtedThe main topic as near as I can tell was the rejection of those people
Could you provide a brief summary and critique of its main points?
Would also like to continue discussion with you my my last 2 posts on page9.
who brought up ID as a topic of discussion. I did not see it much more
than that, but than that was why I wanted to talk to someone else who
saw it. Those things that stood out to me may not be the things that
stood out to someone else here.
Kelly
Originally posted by PenguinNo you did not give me billions of examples, you just basically stated
I've just given you billions of examples, how many do you need?!?!?
Actually, AThousandYoung has given you another example and of course, as he says, the definition of a 'machine' is crucial.
I suspect your definition probably includes some aspect of being intelligently designed.
--- Penguin.
your belief on what is true, I can say those are examples for ID too,
my saying it or your saying it, does not make it so. That all you got?
Kelly
Originally posted by AThousandYoungSo in your opinion, you are not qualified to see design?
I'm no anthropologist. I have no idea what scientists who actually look for design among randomly found objects look for.
Now, I'm not bad at guessing whether something was man-made or not, but then again I know that men are out there making things and I know what such things look like, how they're made, etc. And sometimes I could get it wrong. W ...[text shortened]... ssion for ID? What are the criteria for determining intelligent design? WHERE'S THE SCIENCE?
Kelly
Originally posted by sonhouseI suggest you see the movie, than your 2nd hand reports on what it is
I already know the gist of it, ad hominem attacks on whoever is presenting ideas supporting evolution, goes over well with the religious right who don't know an ad hominem from a hole in the ground(thats where their head is)
all about will be either shown in error or shown to be true.
Kelly
Originally posted by timebombtedI do not think you will ever find anyone without bias on a hotly
KJ
In other threads you have shown to have only a small grasp of the evolutionary concept, and certainly seem to be devoid of any current knowledge surrounding the subject.
Do you think you are in a position to critically analyse (without bias) the validity of the claims made in this movie?
Please start a new thread when you have viewed the movie, it would be interesting to see your feedback.
discussed topic, myself or you included. I also do not worry about if
you think I no litttle about evolution, since many times over what that
means if I do not agree with your view I do not understand it.
Kelly
Originally posted by FabianFnasIs that why many scientists hold to the notion of abiogenesis?
That's the way science works. Several theories has gone down the drain because it cannot be tested experiemtally to support the statements. Science is not about believing, it is about testing the theories.
I have just seen the movie!!
I think one thing that was demonstrated was the intolerance for ID within the scientific community. Many well respected scientists who merely mention the word ID seem to have been "expelled" from their respective positions and in many cases their professions.
The gist of the movie was not so much to get us to believe in ID as it was an attempt to show the dogmatic phobia against it. How can a scientist pursue such a theory or even entertain it and still make a living when it seems that if the scientific community so much as gets wind of such activity they find a way to "expell" them from their respective positions? For example, one such scientist, who worked for the Smithsonian Institute wrote an article that was peer reviewed and accepted as good science but was later published and then derided for even mentioning ID. He then lost his position.
I think ID is such a controversial topic because it carries with it so much philisophical, political, and religious baggage with it. Of course nay sayers would say that these scientists lost their positions because they endorsed a theory that is not scientifically proven, however, most did not seem to have endorsed the theory directly, rather, they simply mentioned it or referred to it in some way. I think the kicker for me were the college professors who mentioned ID in the class room and were later fired. However, the respective universities gave an interview and said that the reason they were let go had nothing to do with the ID controversy and, in fact, had no idea that the professor had even mentioned ID in the class room. Unfortunatly for the university, one professor kept some letters that showed the Universities concern that the professor in question mentioned ID in the class room. Really in each interview no substanative reasons were given for firing the professors in question such as teaching unscientific theories in the classroom.
I guess what floored me at the end of the movie was Ben interviewing Richard Dawkins and asking him if he thought God was a possibility. Dawkins seemed more inclined to believe that the possibility of ET's putting us here was a greater likelyhood than a God of any sort. It then got me thinking as to why? Would not the ET then be our God? Why could he not think that God was an ET?
I guess one of the important questions for me that the movie brought out is what is ment by the term evolution? It is different things for different people depending on who you ask. For example, evolution does not really explain or even attempt to explain our origins as where many think it does. If nothing else, perhaps issues such as these who see the film may gain some enlightenment.
Originally posted by KellyJay corrected (gheesh what a brainfart.)
I do not think you will ever find anyone without bias on a hotly
discussed topic, myself or you included. I also do not worry about if
you think I know litttle about evolution, since many times over what
that means if I do not agree with your view I do not understand it.
Kelly
Originally posted by whodeyActually, whodey, if you actually find out about the people involved, none of them had their careers terminated as a result of their beliefs.
I have just seen the movie!!
I think one thing that was demonstrated was the intolerance for ID within the scientific community. Many well respected scientists who merely mention the word ID seem to have been "expelled" from their respective positions and in many cases their professions.
The gist of the movie was not so much to get us to believe in I ...[text shortened]... If nothing else, perhaps issues such as these who see the film may gain some enlightenment.
The Smithsonian guy actually had his position extended, but he didn't show up for 3 years. His paper was not accepted as "good science" by any sort of unbiased peer review process, rather it was railroaded through by an ID supporting journal editor (ask yourself, if ID kills careers, how did this guy become a journal editor?) who was approaching the end of his term (it appeared in the 2nd to last edition of the journal in which he was in charge, having resigned his post 6 months earlier).
The college prof who was fired actually wasn't. She was on a one year contract as I understand it. The contract was not renewed, but she certainly wasn't fired. Students complained about her CONSISTENTLY referring to ID in class, and she was warned off the topic (although paid no heed). However, she finished her teaching load, and completed her contract. She was not required by that institution the following year, but I understand got a position as a Post-Doctoral Fellow studying molecular biology of some type.
I can totally agree with Dawkins' contention, and here is why. Aliens, by definition would be a natural phenomenon, and could have evolved. God is a supernatural phenomenon, and could not have by any logical means that I or anyone else have seen come into being. The ET would not be God, unless you stretch the meaning of that word pretty thin.
This might help in the defense against dodgy journalism.
http://www.expelledexposed.com/index.php/the-truth
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, because all one would be doing would be recreating the circumstances under which life is postulated to have evolved, rather than directly bioengineering the earliest cells themselves.
How would you test for abiogenesis? If set out to create the perfect
setup to get everything to fall out just right, isn't that ID and not
abiogenesis?
Kelly