User Tag List

First 678910 Last

Results 71 to 80 of 162

  1. #71
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Victor View Post
    First we created our gods and our gods created us.

    Now we create technology and technology creates us.

    In both cases the process is unconscious.

    The next step is to make the process of creativity conscious.

    But once creativity becomes conscious, what is the next step?
    creativity coupled with technology create Earth's first intelligent life form?
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  2. #72
    Banned
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    MBTI
    ISTP
    Posts
    977

    Default

    Such threads really tempt me into trolling.

  3. #73
    The Memes Justify the End EcK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    738
    Socionics
    ILE None
    Posts
    7,265

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nihilen View Post
    Such threads really tempt me into trolling.
    ID do enough pseudo intellectual trolling already.

    Try guns, they shine!
    Expression of the post modern paradox : "For the love of god, religions are so full of shit"

    Theory is always superseded by Fact...
    ... In theory.

    “I’d hate to die twice. It’s so boring.”
    Richard Feynman's last recorded words

    "Great is the human who has not lost his childlike heart."
    Mencius (Meng-Tse), 4th century BCE

  4. #74
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander View Post
    There's no incompatibility between divine creation and evolution to the extent that when 'devout' atheist Fred Hoyle contemptuously invented the term Big Bang it was to dismiss it as "Genesis dressed up as science". It happens I was reading the Vatican's view on this this afternoon: God creates intelligible rational universe which then performs functions expected of it (including diveinely-guided evolution) while God is also a permanent Creator responsible for continuously 'keeping existence existing' and anybody who treats the bible like a science book has to believe that the world is a disk (or possibly square) in a bubble surrounded by infinite water. Not even the loopiest creationists go that far!

    There's nothing illogical about that position. I don't happen to hold, it, I prefer something more mystical where 'God' is whatever comes as a greater abstraction than Energy - Potential, Essence perhaps - but not a 'person' and 'creation' in the sense of perception as physical form is an illusion created by senses trapped in that physicality. See Qabbala, Gnosticism, Hinduism, Buddhism for variations on the same theme.

    I keep wondering if this silly debate might be being kept going because scientists rarely like dissent any more than religious believers do and Darwin needs a lot of stretching and twisting to fit everything now known about evolutionary development. Even he admitted that sexual selection often over-rode random selection so that sometimes the survivors are not really very 'fit' at all. Some creatures too become so specialised that (as one person who worked with endangered species once joked) they deserve to become extinct because they try so hard to do so. The Giant Panda is one and some kinds of Koala share its fondess for a diet of one species that itself likes specialised growing conditions, and reluctance to mate.

    Then there is Darwin and the Eyeless Cave Fish. It's easy to see Darwin accounting for development, less so for atrophy. Lamarckian evolution was originally much more a negative theory baed on the loss of unused faculties. In one of those remarks that's had its intention completely turned round (like Schroedinger's Cat). Lamarck himself said that that he did not mean that the blacksmith's son necessarily inherited the blacksmith's muscles.

    Darwin in a form he would probably never recognise has become its own kind of theocracy it is heresy to question or add to.
    sit down and shut the **** up.

    Darwin is not our god. if darwin was wrong anywhere in his book, it doesnt mean a flying fuck because his book is 200 fucking years old! science has the ability to CHANGE WHEN ITS WRONG! imagine that!? we don't even need darwin anymore. fuck we dont even need fossils! we have the DNA, and thats good enough. believe it or not, our view of evolution HAS changed since darwin. It IS falsefiable, and people like michael behe sit around and whine while they could be doing said research in an effort to prove their shit (as ACTUAL scientists would do).


    theistic evolution makes about the least sense of all. if evolution needed God to guide it, then that would mean that he created a universe that was inherently NOT friendly to life! wtf? So god creates this universe thats against life, and only gets life going based on his intervention?

    where in theistic evolution do souls come in? did Australopithecus have a soul? did Neanderthals?

    If you're going to say, "oh no, all im saying is that i believe creationism has merit, not souls or a personal god or whatever." thats my fucking point. if you dont believe in a personal god/souls, whatever, than saying you believe in creationism is basically meaningless! it means you believe in this ad hoc creator with no intellect, no book, no other purpose than to intelligently design?

    if you believe in some Einsteinian 'god' who is basically your word for god, then shut the fuck up. all your doing is confusing the dumb ass religious people who now think you believe in their god. if its not personal, if he cant talk and have a will, then stop fucking calling it god. you believe in plain old energy, get over it.


    --im drunk as fuck, so please excuse how much of an asshole i am this evening

  5. #75
    Freshman Member simulatedworld's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Enneagram
    7w6 sx/so
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    5,554

    Default

    *ahem*

    I think what our dear friend Babylon is trying to say is: what about the 99.9% of species that have existed throughout Earth's history and failed to survive? If every creature is designed specifically by God to evolve and thrive, he's not doing a very good job double-checking his designs, is he?

    "Darwin has become his own theology" is a straw man argument against the dumbest of dumb atheists. My favorite anti-Darwin argument is when theists claim that "Darwin even said he was wrong!" etc., their nonsensical black-and-white worldview showing through clear as day. If Darwin was wrong about any one particular aspect of his studies, clearly all of it was totally worthless!

    It's the same reason they feel compelled to insist that the Bible is the perfect 100% unalterable word of God, despite the fact that it's been translated into hundreds of different languages which can never line up perfectly with the original text.

    The difference here is that science operates in shades of gray; religion shuns them. Science doesn't support evolution just because Darwin said so; it supports evolution because Darwin presented really good empirical evidence for it. Of course he was wrong on various points; that's the whole point of science! Finding ways to modify and improve our understanding by discarding outdated beliefs.

    Religion does exactly the opposite. Religion makes a fundamental assumption about the metaphysical nature of the universe and then backpedals until it can come up with a worldview that justifies natural phenomena via its own arbitrarily chosen principles. There's a difference.
    If you could be anything you want, I bet you'd be disappointed--am I right?

  6. #76
    Senior Member Qre:us's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    4,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by nozflubber View Post
    Question: Is the Big Bang also a delusion? If not, then the notion of creationism has scientific merit, you just need to separate the literary form of creationism presented in the bible and interpret it in a metaphysical way: The Universe we now inhabit wasn't always like this - it had a beginning and it will have an end.
    Not the same comparison. By a loooooooooong shot.

    It's not even a question of how literally we take the position of creationism and/or intelligent design. Or metaphysics or any of that. The issue with these two sides starts even at a more basic level. As it stands presently, the form Creationism and Intelligent Degisn has taken, shows itself as the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty.

    Intelligent Design or Creationism, at present, their foundation is as REACTIONARY to the theory of evolution. One example, ridiculousness of irreducible complexity. Thus, their WHOLE position is trying to 'disprove'/counter aspects of evolution, which would then....(as per their 'logic').... 'prove' theirs. They haven't even *justified* why if NOT evolution, by default, it means evidence for ID....that's flawed 'logic' right there. NOT Science.


    Disprove other, to prove me. Um...first you gotta establish why *me*. PROVE ME.

    The theory of Big Bang does not practice such intellectual dishonesty, nor such flaw in presentation of argument. While disproving of counter theory happens within this debate, there is still a sound justification of *why* Big Bang (and it is not on the premise of 'cuz it's NOT the other').

  7. #77
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qre:us View Post
    Not the same comparison. By a loooooooooong shot.

    It's not even a question of how literally we take the position of creationism and/or intelligent design. Or metaphysics or any of that. The issue with these two sides starts even at a more basic level. As it stands presently, the form Creationism and Intelligent Degisn has taken, shows itself as the lowest form of intellectual dishonesty.

    Intelligent Design or Creationism, at present, their foundation is as REACTIONARY to the theory of evolution. One example, ridiculousness of irreducible complexity. Thus, their WHOLE position is trying to 'disprove'/counter aspects of evolution, which would then....(as per their 'logic').... 'prove' theirs. They haven't even *justified* why if NOT evolution, by default, it means evidence for ID....that's flawed 'logic' right there. NOT Science.


    Disprove other, to prove me. Um...first you gotta establish why *me*. PROVE ME.

    The theory of Big Bang does not practice such intellectual dishonesty, nor such flaw in presentation of argument. While disproving of counter theory happens within this debate, there is still a sound justification of *why* Big Bang (and it is not on the premise of 'cuz it's NOT the other').
    chaos inflationary theory is WAY more technical than ID. It actually has scientists working FOR it (unlike ID, which only tries to attack evo without doing anything to justify ID)

  8. #78
    Member Oleander's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    86

    Default

    Bugger knows what Babylon was trying to say but s/he admitted to being as drunk as a skunk. I fear that the religious [non-]argument has become just as much a convenient way for believers in a scientific orthodoxy that calls itself Darwinist but has little to do with what he actually said, to dismiss all other scientific questioning their orthodoxy. Each side is as intransigent as the other and determined to complicate its preferred belief in like adding ever more epicycles to the Ptolemaic cosmos instead of allowing that other ways of investigating it do not amount to heresy against their preferred belief.

  9. #79
    Babylon Candle Venom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Enneagram
    1w9 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,128

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Oleander View Post
    Bugger knows what Babylon was trying to say but s/he admitted to being as drunk as a skunk. I fear that the religious [non-]argument has become just as much a convenient way for believers in a scientific orthodoxy that calls itself Darwinist but has little to do with what he actually said, to dismiss all other scientific questioning their orthodoxy. Each side is as intransigent as the other and determined to complicate its preferred belief in like adding ever more epicycles to the Ptolemaic cosmos instead of allowing that other ways of investigating it do not amount to heresy against their preferred belief.
    1. as i said, it doesnt matter what darwin said at this point, we have all moved on. evolution does no such thing to dismiss criticism that has scientific merit. case in point is how much HAS CHANGED since darwin's first proposals.

    2. evolution is not a religion, because it IS falsifiable. michael behe COULD prove something such as bacterium flagellum to be irreducibly complex through scientifically acceptable methods. he however, has yet to do so, not because evolution is unfalsifiable, but because he simply has not presented the evidence.

    3. if you are going to argue over why "is it only acceptable to accept criticism that has scientific merit?", then we could be here a while...

    4. religion has no method. this is the main problem with religion. there is no convergence on any "truth" using religious means, because there is no method that has been refined to "find" anything resembling "truth" on a consistent and convergent basis.

  10. #80
    DoubleplusUngoodNonperson
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    Hype
    Posts
    2,078

    Default

    bleh....

    I swear to Logos, I'm gonna go through my huge ass Aristotle book and point out how you can have creationism backed by philosophical/scientific thought and not blind religious zealotry.

    Sometimes, you just gotta break it down Barney style, I guess.

Similar Threads

  1. Evolution vs. Creationism
    By Frosty in forum Science, Technology, and Future Tech
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 04-18-2015, 03:44 PM
  2. Intelligent Design
    By Little_Sticks in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 47
    Last Post: 09-26-2012, 01:52 PM
  3. [MBTItm] Worth vs. Intelligence
    By Jonny in forum The NT Rationale (ENTP, INTP, ENTJ, INTJ)
    Replies: 57
    Last Post: 02-06-2010, 08:30 PM
  4. Darwinism vs. Intelligent Design - good take on this issue
    By Sniffles in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 124
    Last Post: 12-15-2009, 07:20 AM
  5. Ken Miller on Intelligent Design
    By darlets in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 09-08-2007, 05:13 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO