[QUOTE=lekatt]
Life is my teacher, the world my classroom.
[/QUOTE]
Boiled down: “My post is my cite.”
You are perfectly welcome to believe what you will. That is naturally your perogative. Religion is based on faith, and faith is based on the belief in that which cannot be proven or quantified. This is all very fine and well for those who are inclined to buy into that sort of thing. You cannot apply that same system of beliefs to science, however. Science is the diametric opposite of faith. It is based purely upon that which can be proven and quantified.
Having said that, when you talk about God and religion you pretty much have carte blanche to say whatever you want about it, because you are not required to back anything up with proof as such concepts do not apply to faith. When you talk about science however, failure to back up your assertions with solid evidence is grounds for anyone to call BS – and they would be well within their rights to do so.
To assert that order implies intelligence, and not back it up with any scientific evidence, then, is grounds for calling BS. Order does not need intelligence to work. The laws of physics, thermodynamics, and a myriad other scientific laws governing the behaviour of our universe take care of that quite handily. These laws weren’t man-made, after all. Man merely devised ways to observe and notarize them. If you were to study physics or thermodynamics or any other scientific discipline, you too would find plenty of order existing within the apparent chaos – without any evidence of working intelligence whatsoever. Unless you believe the hand of God makes it so. Then I guess it’s all up in the air again.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Put another way order is intelligence. Otherwise you could put a firecracker under the Sunday edition of the New York Times, and the paper would blow up into the air and come down as the Gettysbury address.
[/quote]
What the hell does that even mean? I assume you’re referring to the absurd notion that a tornado could go through a pile of machine parts and out would come a jet, which is a completely false analogy for evolution?
Yeah, based on the word random I guess that’s exactly what you’re suggesting. You really don’t understand any theories, do you?
[QUOTE=lekatt]
Put another way order is intelligence. Otherwise you could put a firecracker under the Sunday edition of the New York Times, and the paper would blow up into the air and come down as the Gettysbury address.
About the same odds as the random formation of the universe and planet earth and us people upon it.
[/QUOTE]
Book number four - one on evolution.
Get cracking, mister, and maybe when you get done ignorance will have been fought. Because right now I think the universe is laughing behind your back.
[QUOTE=Voyager]
Book number four - one on evolution.
Get cracking, mister, and maybe when you get done ignorance will have been fought. Because right now I think the universe is laughing behind your back.
[/QUOTE]
I get my knowledge from personal experience and observation. I do read books and learn from others, but if it contradicts my experience I don’t put much in it.
[QUOTE=Czarcasm]
This is why you don’t let the students grade their own tests.
[/QUOTE]
There are schools that let the students grade their own tests, because tests are not important, learning is. Home schooled children score higher on the national tests than public school children.
You see, I know you don’t realize it, but the knowledge taught in schools, is very narrow, barely enough to do some profession or other job. If you want to know anything about life you must study on your own. Read many books.
[QUOTE=photopat]
What the hell does that even mean? I assume you’re referring to the absurd notion that a tornado could go through a pile of machine parts and out would come a jet, which is a completely false analogy for evolution?
Yeah, based on the word random I guess that’s exactly what you’re suggesting. You really don’t understand any theories, do you?
[/QUOTE]
I understand theories as well as you do. Randomness did not create this world, intelligence did.
[QUOTE=Mindfield]
Boiled down: “My post is my cite.”
You are perfectly welcome to believe what you will. That is naturally your perogative. Religion is based on faith, and faith is based on the belief in that which cannot be proven or quantified. This is all very fine and well for those who are inclined to buy into that sort of thing. You cannot apply that same system of beliefs to science, however. Science is the diametric opposite of faith. It is based purely upon that which can be proven and quantified.
Having said that, when you talk about God and religion you pretty much have carte blanche to say whatever you want about it, because you are not required to back anything up with proof as such concepts do not apply to faith. When you talk about science however, failure to back up your assertions with solid evidence is grounds for anyone to call BS – and they would be well within their rights to do so.
To assert that order implies intelligence, and not back it up with any scientific evidence, then, is grounds for calling BS. Order does not need intelligence to work. The laws of physics, thermodynamics, and a myriad other scientific laws governing the behaviour of our universe take care of that quite handily. These laws weren’t man-made, after all. Man merely devised ways to observe and notarize them. If you were to study physics or thermodynamics or any other scientific discipline, you too would find plenty of order existing within the apparent chaos – without any evidence of working intelligence whatsoever. Unless you believe the hand of God makes it so. Then I guess it’s all up in the air again.
[/QUOTE]
I don’t think it necessary to back up things that are self-evident like order is intelligence. How would you do anything without applying thought to it. Could you built a building with random materials, random tools, random workers, who worked randomly. I think not.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I get my knowledge from personal experience and observation. I do read books and learn from others, but if it contradicts my experience I don’t put much in it.
[/QUOTE]
Whence comes the phrase “determined ignorance.” Accept as truth only that which has validity but does not contradict your personal beliefs. All else is false, and evidence to the contrary must be summarily discarded. I suppose, though, that this is as fitting evidence as any for the red tagline in the banner at the top of this page.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I understand theories as well as you do. Randomness did not create this world, intelligence did.
[/QUOTE]
Stop insulting other people’s understanding of the theories. (Not that you have the ability to determine other people’s levels of understanding in the first place.)
What sensible people have been telling you (probably for years) is that evolution is only marginally more random than gravity. To present evolution as randomity requires COMPLETE misunderstanding of it. And presenting “randomity” as a false dillema with intelligent design is nothing but bad comedy.
[QUOTE=Mindfield]
Whence comes the phrase “determined ignorance.” Accept as truth only that which has validity but does not contradict your personal beliefs. All else is false, and evidence to the contrary must be summarily discarded. I suppose, though, that this is as fitting evidence as any for the red tagline in the banner at the top of this page.
[/QUOTE]
Now that I think about it, sounds exactly what science does.
I don’t form beliefs about things unknown to me. Just withhold judgement until I have more information.
[QUOTE=begbert2]
Stop insulting other people’s understanding of the theories. (Not that you have the ability to determine other people’s levels of understanding in the first place.)
What sensible people have been telling you (probably for years) is that evolution is only marginally more random than gravity. To present evolution as randomity requires COMPLETE misunderstanding of it. And presenting “randomity” as a false dillema with intelligent design is nothing but bad comedy.
[/QUOTE]
I can’t determine others understanding as you can’t determine mine.
I don’t try to complicate things with obfuscation for the purpose, and I have no idea what you are talking about.
[QUOTE=Mosier]
Why are you still insisting on the “unknowable” definition for agnostics? Of COURSE the existence of god is knowable. All he has to do is show up, say “here I am” and do things only god can do. He doesn’t even have to prove anything to you, because he can just force you to “know” he exists, against your will. He can even change your will so that you WANT to be forced into knowing he exists. God is certainly not “unknowable”.
What’s not knowable is the non-existence of god, which atheists are happy to admit. Most atheists understand that they don’t “know” anything, and fully accept that their disbelief is not based on evidence, but rather on the lack of it.
So, agnostics acknowledge that god cannot be “known” to not-exist. Atheists acknowledge the same.
Is there any other way left for agnostics to distinguish their position from atheism? All I can think of are the “soft” agnostics, who acknowledge that “something” exists (whatever the fuck that means) with god-like qualities, but are unwilling to describe or identify it. This is more of a rejection of religious establishments than a rejection of theism in general, so these people shouldn’t be considered agnostics anyway.
[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=lekatt]
I don’t think it necessary to back up things that are self-evident like order is intelligence. How would you do anything without applying thought to it. Could you built a building with random materials, random tools, random workers, who worked randomly. I think not.
[/QUOTE]
That first sentence is where your argument loses its credibility for me. I see no evidence that order is intelligence. Let’s have a drink, shall we? A B-52, my favourite shooter.
Pour in the Kalhua. Good.
Now, over the back of a spoon held to the inside edge of the glass, slowly pour the Bailey’s Irish Cream.
Finally, also over the back of the spoon, slowly pour the Grand Mariner (or amaretto, if you swing that way)
There. A nicely layered B-52. Very orderly. Did I make them ordered like that? Well, technically, yes, I set the process in motion. I didn’t determine their densities though, nor how the different densities of each liquid reacted with one another. I just allowed the elementary laws of physics to do their thing as comes naturally. The reason that the liquids formed layers is physics – and thus nature – at work. There’s no intelligence involved. The liquids layered because they are of different densities. That’s just the way they’re made – like oil and water.
Now if y’all will excuse me, I have a shot to slam.
[QUOTE=Mindfield]
That first sentence is where your argument loses its credibility for me. I see no evidence that order is intelligence. Let’s have a drink, shall we? A B-52, my favourite shooter.
Pour in the Kalhua. Good.
Now, over the back of a spoon held to the inside edge of the glass, slowly pour the Bailey’s Irish Cream.
Finally, also over the back of the spoon, slowly pour the Grand Mariner (or amaretto, if you swing that way)
There. A nicely layered B-52. Very orderly. Did I make them ordered like that? Well, technically, yes, I set the process in motion. I didn’t determine their densities though, nor how the different densities of each liquid reacted with one another. I just allowed the elementary laws of physics to do their thing as comes naturally. The reason that the liquids formed layers is physics – and thus nature – at work. There’s no intelligence involved. The liquids layered because they are of different densities. That’s just the way they’re made – like oil and water.
Now if y’all will excuse me, I have a shot to slam.
gulp
Damn, that’s good.
[/QUOTE]
You supply part of the intelligence and God the rest.
[QUOTE=lekatt]
You supply part of the intelligence and God the rest.
[/QUOTE]
So what this comes down to then is that all scientific laws of the universe – every scientific principle thus far observed from the beginning of time itself, and all of those yet to be observed by scientists the world over, is basically the work of God, then?
You are trying to boil science down to religion by saying that science itself is God’s handiwork which, rather conveniently, would excuse you from having to back even your scientific claims up with anything, because in the end it’s all God anyway and thus exempt from scrutiny. Is there a logical fallacy that combines the strawman with appeal to religion?