Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why intelligent design isn’t.

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 7
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
  • #76
    Re: Re: Why intelligent design isn’t.

    Originally posted by Jon Miller


    there were no scientific advances that proved those things false

    there is just a lot of experimental and observational evidences, and well-made built up theories which are not in agreement with 'young earth' and 'six day' theory

    Jon Miller
    Has to disagree a little. There are very little, saying none. evidence that in any way supports 'young earth' and 'six day' theory. Quite contrary, there are masssive evidences that contradicts that 'young earth' and 'six day' theory should bee taken seriously.
    With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

    Steven Weinberg

    Comment

    • #77
      Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat


      You could start with why the Standard Model fails to explain the mass of fundamental particles, for one.

      Or a specific reason certain quantities are conserved.

      Whether conservation applies (and for which quantities) in a singularity

      The lifetime of the proton.

      I'm sure with only a little digging, there are a few thousand more one could identify.
      actually, we know that the standard model is flat out wrong, and doesn't coincide with experiment and other theories (GR)

      it does a very good job at explaining things at certain energies though

      Jon Miller
      Jon Miller-
      I AM.CANADIAN
      GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

      Comment

      • #78
        Re: Re: Re: Why intelligent design isn’t.

        Originally posted by BlackCat


        Has to disagree a little. There are very little, saying none. evidence that in any way supports 'young earth' and 'six day' theory. Quite contrary, there are masssive evidences that contradicts that 'young earth' and 'six day' theory should bee taken seriously.
        huh?

        do you understand what I said?

        Jon Mill
        Jon Miller-
        I AM.CANADIAN
        GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

        Comment

        • #79
          Nah, I think that I got caught wrong in some of the negations . Can't belive that it may be the influence of a splash or two of red wine from Piemonte (wait a second - yes, I blame those italians from Piemonte !!!! )
          With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

          Steven Weinberg

          Comment

          • #80
            Originally posted by MrFun
            I guess when it comes to the physical world, I rely on scientific evidence. But what science is there that can apply to the spiritual realm?
            How about neuroscience? There is no spiritual realm. It's all just a bunch of neurons firing.
            Civilization II: maps, guides, links, scenarios, patches and utilities (+ Civ2Tech and CivEngineer)

            Comment

            • #81
              Originally posted by Mercator


              How about neuroscience? There is no spiritual realm. It's all just a bunch of neurons firing.
              You haven't explained how this prevent a god to influence the spirit of mankind as it is evidenced in several books.

              * BC ducks and run since this isn't his turf *.
              With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.

              Steven Weinberg

              Comment

              • #82
                Originally posted by Senethro


                The whole concept of god is outlandish if you approach it having never considered it before.



                Now we know that the voices you receive in your head are madness and not divine revelation. Why would anyone pay for the Phantom Menace on DVD and then watch it?


                The belief in God is outlandish to you, but I will respect whatever personal belief you have -- or in this case your personal non-belief?




                As for Phantom Menace, no I'm not BUYING it but it's not too much to pay to rent it though.
                A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                Comment

                • #83
                  Originally posted by Mercator


                  How about neuroscience? There is no spiritual realm. It's all just a bunch of neurons firing.

                  A lot of Republicans are not racist, but a lot of racists are Republican.

                  Comment

                  • #84
                    Originally posted by BlackCat
                    You haven't explained how this prevent a god to influence the spirit of mankind as it is evidenced in several books.
                    No I haven't indeed, because such an argument doesn't exist. It is impossible to prove or disprove God's existence. Anyone trying to say otherwise is full of it.

                    Originally posted by MrFun
                    Interesting...
                    Civilization II: maps, guides, links, scenarios, patches and utilities (+ Civ2Tech and CivEngineer)

                    Comment

                    • #85
                      If biology classes in Dover, PA have to offer criticism of evolution and mention other possibilities, would they be permitted to offer criticism of the "other possibilities?
                      "I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!

                      Comment

                      • #86
                        Originally posted by MichaeltheGreat
                        I'm sure with only a little digging, there are a few thousand more one could identify.
                        It's true that science doesn't answer the why questions. Science only works with units, equations, and processes - no meaning is involved. Nor should it be.

                        Otherwise you'd just go mad.
                        (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                        (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                        (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                        Comment

                        • #87
                          Re: Re: Why intelligent design isn’t.

                          Originally posted by Jon Miller
                          there were no scientific advances that proved those things false

                          there is just a lot of experimental and observational evidences, and well-made built up theories which are not in agreement with 'young earth' and 'six day' theory
                          Young Earth Creationism holds that the earth is around six thousand years old.

                          If radiometric dating indicates otherwise, this would mean that YEC is "disproved." Or falsified, to be more precise.
                          (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                          (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                          (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                          Comment

                          • #88
                            Originally posted by MrFun



                            You just sound like an aborigene who thinks that rain could only have been caused by an omnipotent entity, because it is soooo mysterious.
                            In Soviet Russia, Fake borises YOU.

                            Comment

                            • #89
                              wrong

                              it means that the evidence is in favor of different theories

                              you can't disprove something, in particular with observations

                              for example.. perhaps things have changed in the last 6k years including decay rates..

                              YEC is heavily unfavored, but it is not disproved

                              of course, science does not teach about all the unfavored theories.. only about the favored ones

                              technology has increased a lot by following this methodology

                              Jon Miller
                              (not arguing that is the case.. just saying why, partifcularly for observational science, it isn't proved/disproved)

                              (you can't prove or disprove anything, really, in science)
                              Jon Miller-
                              I AM.CANADIAN
                              GENERATION 35: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation. Social experiment.

                              Comment

                              • #90
                                Originally posted by Jon Miller
                                wrong

                                it means that the evidence is in favor of different theories

                                you can't disprove something, in particular with observations

                                Can't agree with that. In 1957, Yang Chen Ning and Lee Tsung-Dao received the Nobel Prize in physics for overthrowing the "absolute" law of parity conservation.

                                Originally posted by Jon Miller
                                for example.. perhaps things have changed in the last 6k years including decay rates..
                                You realise that would require some drastic changes in fundamental laws of nature, which, somehow, doesn't show up elsewhere.

                                Scientific models don't change data to fit themselves, unlike religious dogma.

                                Originally posted by Jon Miller
                                YEC is heavily unfavored, but it is not disproved
                                Not disproved, just falsified.

                                On second thought, what am I saying? Only theories can be falsified. YEC isn't a theory. It isn't even a hypothesis. It's rubbish.

                                Nevermind.
                                (\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
                                (='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
                                (")_(") "Starting the fire from within."

                                Comment

                                Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 template Next
                                Working...
                                X