R4M0N
Brazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA | Nice jab at other people's beliefs
As if that little tidbit about intelligent design added anything significant to the article.
I usually expect trolling in the comments section. |
|
Shamayim
I already have a Messiah.
Premium
join:2002-09-23 | Intelligent Design? I read the article - what are you referring to? |
|
nklb
Premium
join:2000-11-17
Ann Arbor, MI
clubs:
| I think he's referring to the very first sentence (bold highlighting mine):
said by DSLR article :
We've frequently discussed and debunked the "exaflood," a term coined by the same think tank that brought you intelligent design, created in part to justify a shift to metered billing and decreased regulation in the sector
--
for all your Linux questions |
|
Shamayim
I already have a Messiah.
Premium
join:2002-09-23 | Oh, you're talking about Karl's part. Hm, I think it's a put down of ID if anything.
--
Who is Jesus? and Why it matters (to YOU).
|
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | reply to R4M0N
Obamalypse or gawking, no difference. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
 ·Verizon Online DSL
 ·Skype
| reply to nklb
Both "Intelligent Design" and "ExaFlood" are bumper-sticker terms created by the conservative political thinktank known as the Discovery Institute. "Intelligent Design" is a term that has replaced "Creationist" or "Creationism" in political discourse.
The title of this thread is, "Nice jab at other people's beliefs" -- which has to tickle the Discovery Institute folks to no end.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD
| reply to R4M0N
I think it was very appropriate. I want national policy to be decided on measurable situations whose impact on the culture and its populations can be measured and tested, not on beliefs. ID is not a fact and won't be until it can be proven and those results replicated by any who also attempt to test it.
That folks choose to believe it is fine and I wish more power to them. But any organization that that starts pushing their beliefs (and "belief" and "believe" are defined as certitude without evidence) are demonstrating an agenda that is suspect and which makes ALL their assumptions and conclusions suspicious as well. I'm pretty sure that that's the point Karl was making. |
|
james
join:2001-02-26
antarctica
| reply to R4M0N
said by R4M0N  :As if that little tidbit about intelligent design added anything significant to the article. Actually it did, it points out that there's one group of insane neo-cons who continuously pumps out misinformation and retarded ideas. |
|
disconnected
@snet.net
| reply to lesopp
said by lesopp :Obamalypse or gawking, no difference. I'd say this whole situation is an "Obamination." Get me outa' this country!  |
|
R4M0N
Brazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA | reply to james
Much better... THIS is the place for trolling. |
|
wtansill
Ncc1701
join:2000-10-10
Falls Church, VA
| reply to disconnected
said by disconnected :I'd say this whole situation is an "Obamination." Get me outa' this country! If you really feel that way, tickets are available for purchase at airline counters at any airport in the country, or via any number of online reservation sites.
--
"In every generation, there are those who want to rule well - but they mean to rule. They promise to be good masters - but they mean to be master."
--Daniel Webster
|
|
R4M0N
Brazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
 ·Comcast
| reply to Desdinova
said by Desdinova :I think it was very appropriate. I want national policy to be decided on measurable situations whose impact on the culture and its populations can be measured and tested, not on beliefs. ID is not a fact and won't be until it can be proven and those results replicated by any who also attempt to test it. That folks choose to believe it is fine and I wish more power to them. But any organization that that starts pushing their beliefs (and "belief" and "believe" are defined as certitude without evidence) are demonstrating an agenda that is suspect and which makes ALL their assumptions and conclusions suspicious as well. I'm pretty sure that that's the point Karl was making. Not to make this into a creationism/evolutionism discussion (it wasn't), your standards would also disqualify the big bang theory, thus disqualifying a whole bunch of other theories that depend on it.
At some point both evolutionists and creationists alike have to rely on "believing" since neither theory can be proven. |
|
Desdinova
join:2003-01-26
Gaithersburg, MD | reply to Desdinova
Fair enough!  |
|
Matt
Take me down to the paradise city
Premium
join:2003-07-20
Jamestown, NC
·North State Commun..
| reply to R4M0N
said by R4M0N :said by Desdinova :I think it was very appropriate. I want national policy to be decided on measurable situations whose impact on the culture and its populations can be measured and tested, not on beliefs. ID is not a fact and won't be until it can be proven and those results replicated by any who also attempt to test it. That folks choose to believe it is fine and I wish more power to them. But any organization that that starts pushing their beliefs (and "belief" and "believe" are defined as certitude without evidence) are demonstrating an agenda that is suspect and which makes ALL their assumptions and conclusions suspicious as well. I'm pretty sure that that's the point Karl was making. Not to make this into a creationism/evolutionism discussion (it wasn't), your standards would also disqualify the big bang theory, thus disqualifying a whole bunch of other theories that depend on it. At some point both evolutionists and creationists alike have to rely on "believing" since neither theory can be proven. Big Bang has a lot more backing it up than ID? Look up the Cosmic Background Radiation ... |
|
Valya6
@teksavvy.com
| reply to R4M0N
quote:
"At some point both evolutionists and creationists alike have to rely on "believing" since neither theory can be proven."
This. In spades.
Atheism is just as much a faith as Christianity/Judaism/Islam is. And I for one am glad! |
|
karlmarx
join:2006-09-18
iraq
·Fairpoint Communic..
| reply to R4M0N
Personally, I subscribe to the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory. The point Karl was making, is that the same people who don't believe in evolution, are again trying to cram more lies about the internet. Look at it this way, we EXIST, because by defition, the odds are we WILL exist. There are 500 Million Stars in the Galaxy, and most of them probably have planets. There are 100 Million Billion Galaxies in the universe, Thus, there are 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. The fact that a LAB can CREATE the basic building block of life through random chemical reactions, shows that we are just the end result of a random chemical reaction. There is no 'greater purpose' in life, we exist simply because the odds are that we WOULD exist. Sure, a lot of people get scared when they think that we are nothing more than a collection of random chemicals, which is why religion was formed in the first place. But those who can see beyond their own ignorance, accept life for what it is, a random act of the universe, no 'god', no 'greater purpose', just randomness, are the ones who can drive our understanding of the universe. If we ceased to exist tomorrow, guess what, the universe wouldn't care. The earth is 4.5 Billion years old. Religion, by the most accurate estimates, started about 20,000 years ago. Religion has existed for 1/450,000th of the age of the earth. All religious people are just emotionally crippled people, who just can't accept the reality of the world.
--
The happiest countries are the most secular. The struggle AGAINST corporations is the struggle FOR humanity! |
|
BabyBear
Keep wise ...with Night-Owl
join:2007-01-11 | reply to wtansill
Just done forget your Passport. Make sure you get to the airport 2+ hours ahead of your flight. Take off your shoes, and no liquids over 3 oz.  |
|
brandon
Some truth included in this post.
Premium
join:2003-03-31
Hurley, MS
·AT&T Southeast
| reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :All religious people are just emotionally crippled people, who just can't accept the reality of the world. Hooray for bigotry! |
|
R4M0N
Brazilian Soccer Ownz Joo
join:2000-10-04
Glen Allen, VA
·Comcast
1 edit | said by brandon :said by karlmarx :All religious people are just emotionally crippled people, who just can't accept the reality of the world. Hooray for bigotry! Not only that but he's making a "scientific" point with very liberal use of logical leaps that, quite frankly, wouldn't fly in most scientific circles.
His response to my post was quite interesting considering the fact that I did not discredit those who believe in evolutionism, just pointed out that at some point both camps have to resort to believing something that can't be proven, which is a fact.
Whether that point comes much later in evolutionism than in creationism is irrelevant when applying scientific standards for proving something as fact. |
|
funchords
Hello
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-11
Washington, DC
·Verizon Online DSL
·Skype
1 edit | reply to karlmarx
said by karlmarx :Thus, there are 500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 stars in the universe. The fact that a LAB can CREATE the basic building block of life through random chemical reactions, shows that we are just the end result of a random chemical reaction. First, a lab cannot create the basic building block of life through RANDOM chemical reactions.
Second, that I lab can create a basic building block of life through a specific process doesn't mean anything, either.
The fact that CPR or defibrillators can restore the beat to a heart (save life) or that murderers and executioners exist (take life) says nothing to prove or disprove the entire set of religious beliefs.
said by karlmarx :There is no 'greater purpose' in life, we exist simply because the odds are that we WOULD exist. Prove it.
said by karlmarx : Sure, a lot of people get scared when they think that we are nothing more than a collection of random chemicals, which is why religion was formed in the first place. Perhaps. It's plausibly a reason of why it "catches on."
said by karlmarx : But those who can see beyond their own ignorance, accept life for what it is, a random act of the universe, no 'god', no 'greater purpose', just randomness, are the ones who can drive our understanding of the universe. But how well does randomness work out in real life? Do you practice randomness? Or do you have a plan? Do you go to school? Do you pay your bills? Do you eat or sleep at times that accommodate what you will be doing later?
Do we build structures randomly? Do we just put the roads wherever?
Perhaps there's something to the idea that an intelligence greater than our own capacity to understand is at work. And, perhaps not. But there's an awfully lot of balance in this randomness, and those two concepts are dissonant.
said by karlmarx :If we ceased to exist tomorrow, guess what, the universe wouldn't care. The earth is 4.5 Billion years old.
Probably. I am persuaded that it's a solid enough estimate.
And we know that, why? Because it aligns with other theories? We have no first-hand accounts. We have a very young science capability that is constantly disproving itself -- one that's been around for only a few HUNDRED years.
said by karlmarx :Religion, by the most accurate estimates, started about 20,000 years ago.
So the belief in a God is as old as man. That doesn't say much for your theory.
Look, if God made us, he also made us curious seekers of explanations to our existence. If there is no God, we're still curious seekers of explanations to our existence.
said by karlmarx : All religious people are just emotionally crippled people, who just can't accept the reality of the world. All religious people are are just people who are seeking very common, normal answers as to "Who are we?" and "Why are we here?"
Anyone who thinks they have a grasp on the reality of the world -- one way or another -- is ignoring man's consistent ability to conclusively proclaim the final truth -- only to be later proven wrong.
--
Robb Topolski -= funchords.com =- Hillsboro, Oregon -- KJ7RL
... Should we pay those who are "too big to fail" more money to ensure they stay that way? ... |
|
