And how is that not creationism?

1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User

Welcome to IWETHEY!

Post #237,063 by pwhysall 12/5/05 1:26:12 AM Reply	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 by drewk 12/5/05 9:22:03 AM Reply	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 by pwhysall 12/7/05 3:33:23 PM Reply	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 by ChrisR 12/7/05 3:52:40 PM Reply	If the universe designed itself in a fit of recursion
Post #237,306 by drewk 12/7/05 7:13:54 PM Reply	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 by danreck 12/8/05 5:11:29 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 12/5/05 3:52:31 PM Reply	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 by Silverlock 12/5/05 4:44:56 PM Reply	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 by bepatient 12/5/05 9:02:50 PM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 12/5/05 10:08:02 PM Reply	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 by jake123 12/5/05 11:13:40 PM Reply	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 by Ashton 12/5/05 11:36:47 PM Reply	(Could be fun - with chromosomes.)
Post #237,290 by jbrabeck 12/7/05 3:57:54 PM Reply	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 by ben_tilly 12/7/05 4:19:28 PM Reply	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)

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

The parity bit is a bit that detects an error in itself 1/9th of the time.
240 ms