An "Intelligently Designed" Ruling?

Taking any kind of info that has been orally transfered for years and written down by a couple of different writers litterally is stupid..
Oral history is as good as the weakest links.. Hell try it out.. If you can't even keep a story the same with 20 people let alone hundreds over thousands of years..
And that was even before the Vatican and the Kings of Europe started messing with history..

IMHO the Thora, Bible and Quoran are in the same line of trusworthability as a historic refference as the fairytales of the brothers Grimm..

Taking any kind of info that has been orally transfered for years and written down by a couple of different writers litterally is stupid..
Oral history is as good as the weakest links.. Hell try it out.. If you can't even keep a story the same with 20 people let alone hundreds over thousands of years..
And that was even before the Vatican and the Kings of Europe started messing with history..

IMHO the Thora, Bible and Quoran are in the same line of trusworthability as a historic refference as the fairytales of the brothers Grimm..

Quote:

---

So as I see it, you're either a Creationist hocking religion in disguise, or you're an Evolutionist--regardless of how we came into existance.

---

That is way too simplistic.

Only things that have already been created can evolve. The question is how did the creation come about?

The real argument then becomes:

Religion: "By divine intervention"
Non-religion: "By chance"
???: "Exactly as in that camp fire story told by primitive bronze age nomads thousands of years ago"

To put it crudely, religion is about how/why we got here and what should we do about it now we have arrived?

Science is about the observation and analysis of "here" (of which we are a part)

So, "evolution" has been dragged into the argument as the antithesis of "creation", which it clearly is not. Remember that science is about facts and religion is about beliefs.

It has been common practice to attempt to use science to justify "chance" or "God" Neither will work, because we cannot make the required observations.

Quote:

---

So as I see it, you're either a Creationist hocking religion in disguise, or you're an Evolutionist--regardless of how we came into existance.

---

That is way too simplistic.

Only things that have already been created can evolve. The question is how did the creation come about?

The real argument then becomes:

Religion: "By divine intervention"
Non-religion: "By chance"
???: "Exactly as in that camp fire story told by primitive bronze age nomads thousands of years ago"

To put it crudely, religion is about how/why we got here and what should we do about it now we have arrived?

Science is about the observation and analysis of "here" (of which we are a part)

So, "evolution" has been dragged into the argument as the antithesis of "creation", which it clearly is not. Remember that science is about facts and religion is about beliefs.

It has been common practice to attempt to use science to justify "chance" or "God" Neither will work, because we cannot make the required observations.

What makes me giggle uncontrollably about this whole ID furore is the fact that people automatically equate ID with a supreme being without regard for the possibility that the ID _might_ have been simply superior being(s). So off we go down the separation of church and state road when anyone tries to teach it.

ID is _far_ more likely and logical than creation itself. ID is no more or less likely than pure evolution from a common ancestor since the design may have been from a single, "low level" species. The argument that evolution has holes that _should_ be there but aren't - therefore invalidating the theory - is specious at best. I have a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle with 4 pieces missing - does that invalidate my entire puzzle or can I reasonable assume that the pieces exist somewhere but I have had no luck in finding them. Of course, they may also have been destroyed, in which case I will never find them - is my jigsaw puzzle still invalid because I am missing 4 pieces or can I, through appropriate interpolation, still see the picture?

Why do people always equate ID to evolution when it probably should be more appropriately applied to the big bang or wherever else you want to place as the origin of the universe as we know it? Evolution is being held up in the court of science because of a few missing pieces but the big bang theory goes practically unchallenged by most. Is it because the concept is too difficult for the masses? Most probably.... But then evolution or ID is hardly a cakewalk for your average, (Read: Braindead), citizen. The big bang is a far more appropriate place to be considering ID because without that point of origin being designed intelligently the remainder of ID would be proportionately unintelligent - OIW, it would be patches applied to the existing system rather than the system itself being properly suited to the subsequent design elements.

Yes, I fully understand that the big bang crashes headlong into creationism and that creationism does not necessarily crash headlong into ID or the big bang but I firmly believe that both ID and creationsism suffer from the same problem - they are both being touted as occurring at the hand of an individual - which is why people balk at it because it is not _their_ individual.

IMO, teach ID, teach evolution and teach creationism. Why? It's far more important to teach kids how to think than it is to teach them how to repeat what you or someone else believes to be the facts. We end up with the same braindead population if we go that route.

What makes me giggle uncontrollably about this whole ID furore is the fact that people automatically equate ID with a supreme being without regard for the possibility that the ID _might_ have been simply superior being(s). So off we go down the separation of church and state road when anyone tries to teach it.

ID is _far_ more likely and logical than creation itself. ID is no more or less likely than pure evolution from a common ancestor since the design may have been from a single, "low level" species. The argument that evolution has holes that _should_ be there but aren't - therefore invalidating the theory - is specious at best. I have a 1000 piece jigsaw puzzle with 4 pieces missing - does that invalidate my entire puzzle or can I reasonable assume that the pieces exist somewhere but I have had no luck in finding them. Of course, they may also have been destroyed, in which case I will never find them - is my jigsaw puzzle still invalid because I am missing 4 pieces or can I, through appropriate interpolation, still see the picture?

Why do people always equate ID to evolution when it probably should be more appropriately applied to the big bang or wherever else you want to place as the origin of the universe as we know it? Evolution is being held up in the court of science because of a few missing pieces but the big bang theory goes practically unchallenged by most. Is it because the concept is too difficult for the masses? Most probably.... But then evolution or ID is hardly a cakewalk for your average, (Read: Braindead), citizen. The big bang is a far more appropriate place to be considering ID because without that point of origin being designed intelligently the remainder of ID would be proportionately unintelligent - OIW, it would be patches applied to the existing system rather than the system itself being properly suited to the subsequent design elements.

Yes, I fully understand that the big bang crashes headlong into creationism and that creationism does not necessarily crash headlong into ID or the big bang but I firmly believe that both ID and creationsism suffer from the same problem - they are both being touted as occurring at the hand of an individual - which is why people balk at it because it is not _their_ individual.

IMO, teach ID, teach evolution and teach creationism. Why? It's far more important to teach kids how to think than it is to teach them how to repeat what you or someone else believes to be the facts. We end up with the same braindead population if we go that route.

Quote:

---

Yes, I fully understand that the big bang crashes headlong into creationism

---

Not really, you could ask "who created the big bang"? :)

I believe that in education you should teach science in science classes and theology in theology classes.

The real argument is divine intervention against chance, and both are beyond the scope of our science.

:)

Quote:

---

Yes, I fully understand that the big bang crashes headlong into creationism

---

Not really, you could ask "who created the big bang"? :)

I believe that in education you should teach science in science classes and theology in theology classes.

The real argument is divine intervention against chance, and both are beyond the scope of our science.

:)

Relyt: Quit lieing about the foundign faterhs...most where masions, most where diests not christian and very much not evangelical..and soem like jeferson that you quoted where blak mass style satinsts (we would probably lable them humanists today)

Relyt: Quit lieing about the foundign faterhs...most where masions, most where diests not christian and very much not evangelical..and soem like jeferson that you quoted where blak mass style satinsts (we would probably lable them humanists today)