1. This Board Rocks has been moved to a new domain: CarolinaPanthersForum.com

    All member accounts remain the same.

    Most of the content is here, as well. Except that the Preps Forum has been split off to its own board at: http://www.prepsforum.com

    Welcome to the new Carolina Panthers Forum!

    Dismiss Notice

Creationist Wolf in Cheap Clothing

Discussion in 'Religion & Spirituality Forum' started by El Bastardo, Aug 6, 2005.

Page 14 of 31
  1. Sep 13, 2005 at 4:45 PM #131
    HardHarry

    HardHarry Rebel with a 401(k)

    Posts:
    8,909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Location:
    Indie Kid
    Work in progress.

    You're still being completely dismissive of the essential nature of falsifiability (sp?) to Science. It does not exist in ID. Therefore ID != Science. /thread
     
    Last edited: Sep 13, 2005
  2. Sep 13, 2005 at 4:46 PM #132
    Superfluous_Nut

    Superfluous_Nut pastor of muppets

    Posts:
    34,028
    Likes Received:
    564
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    yes, once you get enough of the rest of the equations sorted out, you can look for a constant. but take a series of equations that you can't solve and throw in a variable that changes with each equation and you'll never get anywhere.
     
  3. Sep 13, 2005 at 4:47 PM #133
    Superfluous_Nut

    Superfluous_Nut pastor of muppets

    Posts:
    34,028
    Likes Received:
    564
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    for example?
     
  4. Sep 13, 2005 at 4:48 PM #134
    slydevl

    slydevl Asshole for the People!

    Age:
    52
    Posts:
    29,009
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2002
    Location:
    Madagascar
    punctuated equilibrium
     
  5. Sep 13, 2005 at 4:49 PM #135
    vpkozel

    vpkozel Professional Calvinballer

    Age:
    57
    Posts:
    35,060
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Sure it does. Prove that there was no intellegence was involved and ID fails. Of course, maybe we could use some of the leftover assumptions you have no problem with science making.

    And if they are works in progress how can you rely so heavily on them to explain problems in your other theories?
     
  6. Sep 13, 2005 at 4:49 PM #136
    Superfluous_Nut

    Superfluous_Nut pastor of muppets

    Posts:
    34,028
    Likes Received:
    564
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    the evidence in that regard seems to be "it's too intricate to believe that some intelligence didn't create it". that's not really evidemce, that's inference.
     
  7. Sep 13, 2005 at 4:51 PM #137
    vpkozel

    vpkozel Professional Calvinballer

    Age:
    57
    Posts:
    35,060
    Likes Received:
    1
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    I would argue that God is an unknown constant then.
     
  8. Sep 13, 2005 at 4:52 PM #138
    HardHarry

    HardHarry Rebel with a 401(k)

    Posts:
    8,909
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jun 5, 2003
    Location:
    Indie Kid
    You have to have a test to disprove it. There isn't one vp. By definition, there cannot be. God IS Faith. That's the whole basis of Christianity - acceptance of something you cannot prove (and therefore disprove).
     
  9. Sep 13, 2005 at 4:53 PM #139
    Superfluous_Nut

    Superfluous_Nut pastor of muppets

    Posts:
    34,028
    Likes Received:
    564
    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Location:
    los angeles
    if god gets as much play as dark matter gets in a science class, i'd have no problem.
     
  10. Sep 13, 2005 at 4:53 PM #140
    hasbeen99

    hasbeen99 Fighting the stereotype

    Age:
    52
    Posts:
    21,242
    Likes Received:
    0
    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2003
    Location:
    Clovis, CA
    Or deduction, granted. But not all forms of evidence can be shown in a baggie labeled "exhibit A", can it?
     
Page 14 of 31

Share This Page