09 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by FabianFnasintelligent design is based on the observation of the natural world, and conclusions drawn from those observations, what is unscientific about that? and may i remind you spanky, this is the spirituality forum, for discussing things of a spiritual nature.
I say it is.
When religious people want to discuss non-scientific things, like intelligent design or any other religious things, in the Science Forum I have the same objection.
So of course it has bearing.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieWe can once more have a debate of this where you fail to show the science behind. We've done it before, and we can do it again. I'm happy that we do it in the Spiritual Forum, because of it's un-scientific nature.
intelligent design is based on the observation of the natural world, and conclusions drawn from those observations, what is unscientific about that? and may i remind you spanky, this is the spirituality forum, for discussing things of a spiritual nature.
If you want to trash this thread with this off-topic debate, go right ahead. But it would be better to start a new thread about it.
Can you do it without calling names this time? Skip the irony and show respect to the debate? And keep the debate clean? You might learn something this time if you have an open mind. Yet I doubt it.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieIntelligent design is 'sexed up' creationism. The courts ruled in America that creationism couldn't be taught as science, so creationism got re-packaged into intelligent design to try and circumvent the ruling.
intelligent design is based on the observation of the natural world, and conclusions drawn from those observations, what is unscientific about that? and may i remind you spanky, this is the spirituality forum, for discussing things of a spiritual nature.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasnope i am fed up debating with you people what is scientific and what is not, believe what you want for i shall continue to assert that we shall not limit our search for truth to unintelligent agencies, regardless of your protestations and pretence of knowledge. Also if i want to learn of science i am perfectly capable of doing it for myself, thank you very much.
We can once more have a debate of this where you fail to show the science behind. We've done it before, and we can do it again. I'm happy that we do it in the Spiritual Forum, because of it's un-scientific nature.
If you want to trash this thread with this off-topic debate, go right ahead. But it would be better to start a new thread about it.
Can y ...[text shortened]... e debate clean? You might learn something this time if you have an open mind. Yet I doubt it.
09 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knoblook Noobster, what it comes down to is this, you either believe that there is a plausibility that design was involved or you do not, you simply attribute the characteristics to an unintelligent agency. For example you take the feather of an owl which has stealth capabilities, now you either believe that this developed from a piece of excess scale or skin on some reptile so many millions of years ago and gradually became a feather with stealth capabilities or you think, wow, that seems quite improbable, due to its structure, capabilities and inherent qualities, its seems to be designed for its purpose. Now which one seems more probable, a piece of excess scale that became a feather or that the feather was designed? its as simple as that.
Intelligent design is 'sexed up' creationism. The courts ruled in America that creationism couldn't be taught as science, so creationism got re-packaged into intelligent design to try and circumvent the ruling.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by BadwaterAnother pathetically ridiculous statement made with no understanding of what a Christian really is or believes.
All Christians - and I mean [b]all - pick and choose which Biblical laws and commandments that they are going to follow or ignore. No one follows all of them.[/b]
2 Tim. 3: 16,17
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
It's the whole Bible we Christians adhere to. The whole counsel of scripture, not bits and pieces.
So quit spouting off your preconceived, boneheaded biases produced from a mind steeped in fantasy.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieI'm really not quite sure what to say to that Rob.
look Noobster, what it comes down to is this, you either believe that there is a plausibility that design was involved or you do not, you simply attribute the characteristics to an unintelligent agency. For example you take the feather of an owl which has stealth capabilities, now you either believe that this developed from a piece of excess scale o ...[text shortened]... of excess scale that became a feather or that the feather was designed? its as simple as that.
You believe in a designer because of a feather?!
You really are crazy aren't you?!
09 Feb 10
1 edit
Originally posted by robbie carrobieSo once again you avoid to explain why intelligent design is anything more than your religion, and your opinion. Why? Becaues you cannot. And you don't want to fail again. So you rather avoid. I knew it. Well, it's your religion after all.
nope i am fed up debating with you people what is scientific and what is not, believe what you want for i shall continue to assert that we shall not limit our search for truth to unintelligent agencies, regardless of your protestations and pretence of knowledge. Also if i want to learn of science i am perfectly capable of doing it for myself, thank you very much.
[edit] Ah, now I see that you're trying after all, thanks to Proper Knob. I relax and lean back and see you fail once more.
You seem to have the opinion that because something is more probable, then it must be science. Does that mean that if it is less probable, then it must be religious?
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by Proper Knobit was just a single example, that illustrates the thought process, that is all, why you should try to build an argument from this, i do not know.
I'm really not quite sure what to say to that Rob.
You believe in a designer because of a feather?!
You really are crazy aren't you?!
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by FabianFnasdid i state that it was anything other than a plausibility? did I? no then what are you talking about? all you're other rather sensationalistic assertions therefore come to naught, as per usual. i come here to read of the spiritual views and ideas of others, i suggest you do the same.
So once again you avoid to explain why intelligent design is anything more than your religion, and your opinion. Why? Becaues you cannot. And you don't want to fail again. So you rather avoid. I knew it. Well, it's your religion after all.
[edit] Ah, now I see that you're trying after all, thanks to Proper Knob. I relax and lean back and see you fail o ...[text shortened]... en it must be science. Does that mean that if it is less probable, then it must be religious?
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieYou say the intelligent design is not mere than a plausability? No science?
did i state that it was anything other than a plausibility? did I? no then what are you talking about? all you're other rather sensationalistic assertions therefore come to naught, as per usual. i come here to read of the spiritual views and ideas of others, i suggest you do the same.
Okay, then I understand. Your opinion, or perhaps your religion.
09 Feb 10
Originally posted by robbie carrobieCorrect me if i'm wrong, but did you not claim that creationism was backed by science too long ago?! I would suggest that's more than a plausibility.
did i state that it was anything other than a plausibility? did I? no then what are you talking about? all you're other rather sensationalistic assertions therefore come to naught, as per usual. i come here to read of the spiritual views and ideas of others, i suggest you do the same.
I can dig out the quote it you like?
09 Feb 10
2 edits
Originally posted by Proper Knobi have modified my views in the light of a more deeper understanding, for i realised that it could not be categorically proven due to the nature of God and therefore it remains a plausibility. This does not mean that i do not think that creationism is unscientific, quite the contrary, its simply a different evaluation of scientific data, that is all, as i have clearly shown, with one simple example. Not only that it is scripturally substantiated and taught by Christ, therefore as a Christian i am under duress to accept that it is true.
Correct me if i'm wrong, but did you not claim that creationism was backed by science too long ago?! I would suggest that's more than a plausibility.
I can dig out the quote it you like?