In part it is the same methodology

IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO

1,095 registered users | 1 active user | 1 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #237,010

by bepatient

12/4/05 1:31:50 PM

In part it is the same methodology

Looking at the combined behaviors of things and inferring a larger pattern of behavior or an overriding tendency.

Of course...that doesn't excuse those that are hijacking this as an avenue to force religion into school in a place it may/may not belong.

If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. _{Fudd's First Law of Opposition}

[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]

If you think being anti-OOP is controversial.... - (tablizer) - (113) - Dec. 3, 2005, 11:19:25 PM EST

well that pretty much sinks ID :-) - (boxley) - (100) - Dec. 3, 2005, 11:34:40 PM EST

No, it is not a "soft" science - (ben_tilly) - (74) - Dec. 4, 2005, 05:05:19 AM EST

it is a philosophy, noted soft science much like psychology - (boxley) - (73) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:06:58 AM EST

how about theology. -NT - (bepatient) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:27:23 AM EST

subscience of philosophy -NT - (boxley) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:28:26 AM EST

No, it isn't. - (pwhysall) - (20) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:40:23 AM EST

Is sociology a science? -NT - (bepatient) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:56:23 AM EST

In places, yes. - (pwhysall) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2005, 11:01:31 AM EST

In part it is the same methodology - (bepatient) - Dec. 4, 2005, 01:31:50 PM EST

point out differences between the examples - (boxley) - (16) - Dec. 4, 2005, 01:33:57 PM EST

ID starts with a creator. - (pwhysall) - (15) - Dec. 4, 2005, 01:58:25 PM EST

Not really - (bepatient) - (14) - Dec. 4, 2005, 07:44:12 PM EST

And how is that not creationism? - (pwhysall) - (13) - Dec. 5, 2005, 01:26:12 AM EST

No. Well, sorta. - (drewk) - (4) - Dec. 5, 2005, 09:22:03 AM EST

How is a designer not a creator? -NT - (pwhysall) - (2) - Dec. 7, 2005, 03:33:23 PM EST

If the universe designed itself in a fit of recursion -NT - (ChrisR) - Dec. 7, 2005, 03:52:40 PM EST

That's what ID people say, and why I didn't say it - (drewk) - Dec. 7, 2005, 07:13:54 PM EST

Re: No. Well, sorta. - (danreck) - Dec. 8, 2005, 05:11:29 PM EST

Minor difference - (bepatient) - (7) - Dec. 5, 2005, 03:52:31 PM EST

Same difference - (Silverlock) - (6) - Dec. 5, 2005, 04:44:56 PM EST

No again - (bepatient) - (5) - Dec. 5, 2005, 09:02:50 PM EST

No again - (ben_tilly) - (4) - Dec. 5, 2005, 10:08:02 PM EST

Sturgeon? -NT - (jake123) - Dec. 5, 2005, 11:13:40 PM EST

(Could be fun - with chromosomes.) -NT - (Ashton) - Dec. 5, 2005, 11:36:47 PM EST

If there is significance to the variable names, then - (jbrabeck) - (1) - Dec. 7, 2005, 03:57:54 PM EST

It's fun seeing people guess but... - (ben_tilly) - Dec. 7, 2005, 04:19:28 PM EST

I feel that the other examples are not sciences either - (ben_tilly) - (48) - Dec. 4, 2005, 09:39:09 PM EST

Agreed, social science might be a better descriptive - (boxley) - (47) - Dec. 5, 2005, 01:22:41 PM EST

You are right that those are missing... - (ben_tilly) - (46) - Dec. 5, 2005, 10:03:44 PM EST

Not interested enough to read the literature :-) - (boxley) - (45) - Dec. 6, 2005, 09:38:58 AM EST

Thats the issue - (bepatient) - (44) - Dec. 6, 2005, 11:34:33 AM EST

Can ID be experimentally disproven? - (imric) - (43) - Dec. 6, 2005, 12:02:26 PM EST

disagree - (boxley) - (31) - Dec. 6, 2005, 12:05:20 PM EST

Don't think so. - (imric) - (30) - Dec. 6, 2005, 12:15:29 PM EST

if you can predict results from the patterns then - (boxley) - (29) - Dec. 6, 2005, 12:48:17 PM EST

Nope. That's just genetics. ID is not genetics. - (imric) - (28) - Dec. 6, 2005, 12:57:23 PM EST

Q for ID-ers: How I is the D of, say, flightless birds? -NT - (Meerkat) - (27) - Dec. 6, 2005, 03:54:07 PM EST

I always use hemroids. - (Andrew Grygus) - Dec. 6, 2005, 04:13:35 PM EST

gotta have something easy to catch and consume - (boxley) - Dec. 6, 2005, 05:51:33 PM EST

Intelligent Design is a dead give away... - (ChrisR) - (2) - Dec. 6, 2005, 08:46:36 PM EST

Don't forget the other moral of the example you are quoting - (ben_tilly) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2005, 10:23:29 PM EST

Or even - - (Ashton) - Dec. 7, 2005, 07:44:29 PM EST

HD - Halfwit Design - (tablizer) - (21) - Dec. 10, 2005, 11:07:56 PM EST

ID is supernatural by definition - (pwhysall) - (20) - Dec. 11, 2005, 02:08:17 AM EST

That's just a fortunate side effect. -NT - (drewk) - (6) - Dec. 11, 2005, 02:10:43 AM EST

Not it's not. - (jake123) - (5) - Dec. 11, 2005, 08:11:12 AM EST

I see I need to expand my Ministry. - (pwhysall) - (4) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:39:16 AM EST

I beleive he did, parts stamped made in mexico -NT - (boxley) - (2) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:40:35 AM EST

That would be where every third guy is named Jesus? - (hnick) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:44:34 AM EST

Philistine. -NT - (pwhysall) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:59:30 AM EST

Damn! You mean Janis Joplin was RIGHT?!? -NT - (jb4) - Dec. 12, 2005, 01:37:23 PM EST

Creator need not be supernatural. May be ultra-tech aliens. -NT - (warmachine) - (11) - Dec. 11, 2005, 09:48:38 AM EST

And they were 'designed' to produce us, of course... -NT - (imric) - (10) - Dec. 11, 2005, 09:51:18 AM EST

ID makes no assertian of the designer, designed or not. - (warmachine) - (9) - Dec. 11, 2005, 01:56:48 PM EST

Except it's basic tenet . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (1) - Dec. 11, 2005, 02:08:28 PM EST

That's an extrapolation of ID itself, not a basic tenet. - (warmachine) - Dec. 11, 2005, 05:26:30 PM EST

Here's you task for today, grasshopper: - (jb4) - (6) - Dec. 12, 2005, 01:41:33 PM EST

You forgot: bring a bodyguard - - (Ashton) - (5) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:18:23 PM EST

What does the Prince of Peace have to do with ID? - (jb4) - (4) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:27:24 PM EST

Nothing at all - we're talking GOD here . . . - (Andrew Grygus) - (3) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:32:10 PM EST

Heard a lengthy discussion re Yahweh - - (Ashton) - (2) - Dec. 12, 2005, 08:17:17 PM EST

look it doesnt apply to you gentiles, its a realestate - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 12, 2005, 08:52:42 PM EST

DPRLCI (new thread) - (Another Scott) - Dec. 12, 2005, 08:57:01 PM EST

Nothing wrong with a creator - (hnick) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:05:27 AM EST

Post of the Week (and it's only Tuesday...)! - (jb4) - Dec. 6, 2005, 02:27:07 PM EST

Falsifiable, Trueifiable - (tablizer) - (9) - Dec. 10, 2005, 11:03:20 PM EST

Patterns... Pattern institute? - (imric) - (8) - Dec. 11, 2005, 01:47:07 AM EST

fairies exist, saw one once - (boxley) - (7) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:23:01 AM EST

heh, knew where that was going -NT - (bepatient) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:23:59 AM EST

So the teacher asks the kid - (hnick) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:31:25 AM EST

They wear boots - ya gotta believe... -NT - (imric) - (3) - Dec. 11, 2005, 04:22:52 PM EST

I saw it I saw it with my own two eyes -NT - (jake123) - (1) - Dec. 11, 2005, 04:52:11 PM EST

Well all right now! -NT - (imric) - Dec. 11, 2005, 05:02:00 PM EST

And around here they ride Harleys. -NT - (Andrew Grygus) - Dec. 11, 2005, 04:56:43 PM EST

Me too...I watch Bravo.... -NT - (jb4) - Dec. 12, 2005, 01:43:15 PM EST

What's in a name? - (ChrisR) - Dec. 5, 2005, 10:03:50 AM EST

Google 'ontological proof of god' for some pithy links - (Ashton) - (4) - Dec. 4, 2005, 05:52:22 AM EST

see my answer to Ben, -NT - (boxley) - (3) - Dec. 4, 2005, 10:08:16 AM EST

Unsatisfying, just word/def'n pandering. - (Ashton) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2005, 07:12:30 PM EST

look, if some mook wants to look at dna - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 4, 2005, 08:10:25 PM EST

Quite right-enough - (Ashton) - Dec. 4, 2005, 09:09:38 PM EST

Sep. of church/state laws don't govern philosophy - (tablizer) - (19) - Dec. 10, 2005, 10:56:12 PM EST

It's FRAUD if you call it science instead of philosophy. -NT - (imric) - (18) - Dec. 11, 2005, 01:48:21 AM EST

then psychology is fraud -NT - (boxley) - (17) - Dec. 11, 2005, 10:37:53 AM EST

This is news? -NT - (ben_tilly) - Dec. 11, 2005, 12:43:21 PM EST

Soft science. - (imric) - Dec. 11, 2005, 04:59:52 PM EST

That would be "Psychology is FREUD" - (imqwerky) - (14) - Dec. 11, 2005, 09:30:36 PM EST

accuse me? - (boxley) - (12) - Dec. 11, 2005, 11:00:42 PM EST

No, he didn't - (Ashton) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:33:13 AM EST

I'm still not getting the connection... - (pwhysall) - (9) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:36:57 AM EST

Negative. - (imric) - (8) - Dec. 12, 2005, 07:07:51 AM EST

OK... - (pwhysall) - (7) - Dec. 12, 2005, 07:10:47 AM EST

OT branch - (imric) - (5) - Dec. 12, 2005, 07:13:28 AM EST

Damn Scientologists - (pwhysall) - (4) - Dec. 12, 2005, 07:17:11 AM EST

ROFL! -NT - (imric) - Dec. 12, 2005, 07:25:59 AM EST

Anyone catch "Last Laugh 2005" over the weekend? - (drewk) - (2) - Dec. 12, 2005, 10:01:12 AM EST

Yep. - (bepatient) - (1) - Dec. 12, 2005, 10:10:54 AM EST

Ronnie, walking around, would scare me too... - (hnick) - Dec. 12, 2005, 10:43:53 AM EST

ICLRPD (new thread) - (ben_tilly) - Dec. 12, 2005, 11:44:56 AM EST

Not accusing you. - (imqwerky) - Dec. 12, 2005, 05:43:18 PM EST

More like: Freud (pronounced: "fraud") - (jb4) - Dec. 12, 2005, 01:32:36 PM EST

Just saying "I think it's science"... - (pwhysall) - (2) - Dec. 4, 2005, 02:59:26 AM EST

ID ain't Physics. It's Meta-Physics. - (ChrisR) - (1) - Dec. 12, 2005, 06:31:15 PM EST

\ufffdPrecisam\ufffdnte! - and before you start in that field - (Ashton) - Dec. 12, 2005, 08:24:44 PM EST

intelligent design: the agenda - (rcareaga) - (5) - Dec. 5, 2005, 09:22:50 PM EST

And around and around.. - (Ashton) - Dec. 5, 2005, 10:02:40 PM EST

300 years after the Enlightenment and we still get this. -NT - (warmachine) - Dec. 6, 2005, 02:43:04 AM EST

This crap pisses me off - (Silverlock) - (2) - Dec. 6, 2005, 02:03:15 PM EST

religion is an opiate for the sociopaths? probably -NT - (boxley) - (1) - Dec. 6, 2005, 03:31:32 PM EST

Not just sociopaths, everybody ;0) - (mmoffitt) - Dec. 7, 2005, 08:47:01 AM EST

I'm not persuaded. 47 kB .img - (Another Scott) - Dec. 6, 2005, 03:45:09 PM EST

God-Man\ufffd explains finally.. how it works - (Ashton) - (1) - Dec. 8, 2005, 03:39:26 AM EST

I like the non sequitor version better - (boxley) - Dec. 8, 2005, 05:49:48 PM EST

iwethey.org

I WAS HAVING FUN. CAPS EASIER READ.
136 ms