Post #237,012
12/4/05 1:58:25 PM
|
ID starts with a creator.
And the others start with people.
People demonstrably and scientifically test-ably exist, unless you've got a long and lurid history of hallucinogenic substances.
And no, "If there were no creator, we wouldn't be here, and we are here, ergo there's a creator" isn't a hypothesis.
Also, I never said the others were science. You're the one saying that if sociology is a science, then ID must also be.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #237,041
12/4/05 7:44:12 PM
|
Not really
It starts with an observation of reality and assumes that reality to be too ordered to be random.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #237,063
12/5/05 1:26:12 AM
|
And how is that not creationism?
If it didn't happen by chance, there's a creator.
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #237,068
12/5/05 9:22:03 AM
|
No. Well, sorta.
Liquid water is more random than ice. But there are still patterns to it: currents, tides, etc. And sometimes you get whirlpools. These are -- to modern science -- fairly predictable. A thousand years ago (or 10 thousand, pick whatever number makes you happy) the working of the tides seemed too ordered to not have a cause, but they couldn't discern a cause, so it must be a god doing it.
And that's the real problem with ID. To an ID proponent, anything that "seems too ordered, it didn't happen by chance," is taken as evidence of a design; and by extension, a designer. To a scientist, anything that "seems too ordered, it didn't happen by chance," is taken as a good thesis topic.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #237,287
12/7/05 3:33:23 PM
|
How is a designer not a creator?
Peter
[link|http://www.no2id.net/|Don't Let The Terrorists Win]
[link|http://www.kuro5hin.org|There is no K5 Cabal]
[link|http://guildenstern.dyndns.org|Home]
Use P2P for legitimate purposes!
|
Post #237,289
12/7/05 3:52:40 PM
|
If the universe designed itself in a fit of recursion
|
Post #237,306
12/7/05 7:13:54 PM
|
That's what ID people say, and why I didn't say it
When stating their position, I said design. When I was not stating their position, I said pattern.
===
Purveyor of Doc Hope's [link|http://DocHope.com|fresh-baked dog biscuits and pet treats].
[link|http://DocHope.com|http://DocHope.com]
|
Post #237,373
12/8/05 5:11:29 PM
|
Re: No. Well, sorta.
Hey,
Since we're having a wacko pseudo-intellectual Descartes-less rationalist "debate" on water, how does wind work to create the tides? How does thermo dynamics create wind? How does that work without the sun. Where did the sun come from? etc...
;-)
We (as a species) still don't know shit about apriori stuff we can't observe.
Just an observation.
;-)
Just a few thoughts,
Danno
|
Post #237,104
12/5/05 3:52:31 PM
|
Minor difference
Creationism is a "top down" approach. God created the earth and heavens in 7 days.
ID is supposed to be a "bottom up" approach by saying x,y and z are highly complex, yet fairly ordered, there is no rational explanation for that order, so there must be something guiding (a creator).
Different directions to try and explain the same thing.
In the end, they get to the same place. There is a God. At least, according to them.
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #237,108
12/5/05 4:44:56 PM
|
Same difference
1+1=2, 2=1+1
-----------------------------------------
No new taxes.
--George H. W. Bush
We don't torture.
--George W. Bush
|
Post #237,123
12/5/05 9:02:50 PM
|
No again
1+1=2
2=X+X. solve for X where X is an integer :-)
If you push something hard enough, it will fall over. Fudd's First Law of Opposition
[link|mailto:bepatient@aol.com|BePatient]
|
Post #237,133
12/5/05 10:08:02 PM
|
No again
2 = X + Y
Scientists are supposed to be in the business of understanding Y and categorizing the stuff that fits into there.
Intelligent Design folks are into pre-emptively declaring X to be 1.
Cheers,
Ben
PS There is significance to the variable names I chose. :-)
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
Post #237,135
12/5/05 11:13:40 PM
|
Sturgeon?
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca] [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #237,136
12/5/05 11:36:47 PM
|
(Could be fun - with chromosomes.)
|
Post #237,290
12/7/05 3:57:54 PM
|
If there is significance to the variable names, then
X + Y = 3 (or more)
A good friend will come and bail you out of jail ... but, a true friend will be sitting next to you saying, "Damn...that was fun!"
|
Post #237,293
12/7/05 4:19:28 PM
|
It's fun seeing people guess but...
my thinking was straightforward.
Y = "Why"
X = "Unknown" *
Cheers,
Ben
* One could also say that X stands for "wrong", but that is just biased.
I have come to believe that idealism without discipline is a quick road to disaster, while discipline without idealism is pointless. -- Aaron Ward (my brother)
|
