"P.S. the perfect human *was* [insert your favorite supermodel's name here]."
Seriously people? This is not a new theory.

#krellinisscarlettjohansson

@Philcore, blind dogmatic belief in AGW is bullshit, sure, but the actual science being done is still science, and climate change is happening. Find something else to be incredibly stupid about.

Actually, we have made life. Or rather, the building blocks of life.

Miller-Urey experiment. Turned inorganic materials into amino acids.

Basically, showed that the theories about how life began at least hold some water. Doesn't prove that that is how it happened, merely that the hypothesis seems to hold up.


And krellin, if you look at things you don't understand, and attribute God to it, you're no different from an ancient Greek not understanding lightning and attributing it to Zeus, and just as deluded.

Which comes as no shock to me.(see what I did there?)

And no surprise that Jack_Klein jumped straight into ad hominem.

That's not an ad hominem. He's criticizing the beliefs themselves in an a rather insulting way, not insulting the believers in an attempt to invalidate their beliefs.

You also can't really talk here...

I'm not going to pretend to respect an idea that I have nothing but contempt for.

If you want to engage in delusions, go right ahead. But don't expect me to pat you on the head and say its ok and I "respect" your beliefs.

ID isn't even *shitty* science. Its one of the last dying gasps of a religion that cannot reconcile itself with the facts of life. Its contemptible, and it deserves only contempt.

Sorry, won't blow smoke up your ass so you feel better.

Also, what ghug says. I find your beliefs contemptible. Not you.

And if your beliefs are so fragile that they can't take a little abuse, then that says a bit more about you than it does me. (Now that was a little closer to ad hominem, but still not there)

Actually, ghug, he called krellin deluded., comparing him to the ancient Greeks. That was ad hominem. And I have tried to be civil the entire time in this thread and argue the merits, only insulting someone directly *after* they have insulted me directly first. So yeah, I do have room to tslk in this thread.

@Jackass Klein - You define intolerant and close-minded wiht your statements. First, I have repeatedly stated ID *isn't* science. It is no more science than any other philosophical view. It is a philosophical view that can be tied to many different religions (not just Abrahamic ones). But since you have closed your minds to any philosophy that doesn't fit within your narrow-minded militant athiest view and won't respect the individuals who disagree with you, I consider this conversation done.

@Jack - ad hominem is attacking the man, not the argument he presents. The moment you called him deluded and refused to argue for your side and against his is the moment your argument became about the person being deluded and became ad hominem. Yes, I actually do know what the phrase means. Do you?

Draug, no. It was rude, yes, but he was saying that the argument is a deluded one. It was a general "you" and a response to a point with a teensy bit of not-so-fancy rhetoric.

Anyway, your version of ID is not the common one. It's far more reasonable than the common one, and it is one that I can accept as a legitimate belief, though it is not one I share. That doesn't change the fact that normal ID *is* a rejection of scientific principles.

Again, if your ideas are so fragile that they must be treated with kid gloves at all times, its a more telling sign than anything else I could say.

My ideas? Science. Observable, testable. By definition, I wish you to abuse them. Test them. Rattle them around and make sure all the parts fit. And if they don't? Fix them. Change them so they do.

But no. I must, apparently, treat your absurd ideas with absolute respect and not treat them the same as I would my own ideas.

No. A thousand times, no. If your ideas can't take the heat of intellectual investigation, then I suggest you pack them off to fairy-land along with people who read tarot, or palms. They can't stand up under a rigorous investigation either.

@Draug

What did Jack do wrong here? He wasn't even addressing you. He as addressing a specific statement krellin made and, quite frankly, I agree with him.

How many mutants does it take to grow a light bulb?

@ghug - "It was a general "you" and a response to a point"

Really? Then perhaps you can explain how a statement directed at krellin with the word "you" in it was the general you. If you doubt me, here is the relevant cut and paste:

"And krellin, if you look at things"...

Seems like a really specific "you" to me. But then perhaps my reading comprehension isn't psychic. "You" could say I only read at a human level, not Professor X's. :-)

@abge - Just pushing buttons to take my mind off my wife. Jack is almost as bad as Putin about attacking individuals and being uncivil, so whether it is directed at me or someone else, I like to return the favor.

@Ghug - One more item of note, I bet more people than you realize hold my view (like many of the Christians I know from the numerous churches I have attended in my nearly 30 years of adult life). It's just that the whack jobs like those at the Creation Museum get all the press. But I won't deny that there are many recent converts to ID from creationism who take the view presented by the extremists and are, unfortunately, growing in ranks from the creationists who need to find a ne explanation for the Genesis creation story that the other lemmings will accept and not call them "backsliders".

@Jack - Please investigate and test my *philosophical* ideas the same as you would any other *philosophy*. As I've said, my view is *not* incompatible with any of the current theories that explain evolution. Those scientific theories attempt to explain how evolution works. My philosophy attempts to providing meaning to *why* it occurs. To me, it isn't enough to understand how. I want to know why. Unfortunately, just as we will never truly know how, we won't ever know why either.

And in order to test anything, you'd have to provide some evidence. Or proof.

But there isn't any. Better men than you have tried(but hey, surprise me).

You can't explain it, so you say your God did it. Its an old tradition, goes back to the dawn of time.

But if you're going to assert something without any evidence, I can dismiss it without any as well. The burden is on you to prove your ideas, not for me to disprove them.


Otherwise, I may assert that invisible unicorns created everything twenty minutes ago, and demand the same 'respect' for that idea that you do for your equally baseless assertions.

Do you see the problem?

Draug, he's saying that anyone who believes these things is deluded, not specifically krellin. Think of it this way:
Scenario 1: Putin is arguing with someone about insulting women. That person says, "you think Stalin was a good leader, why should I care what you have to say?"
Scenario 2: Putin is arguing with someone about Stalin's merits as a leader. That person says "if you honestly think that Stalin was good for the Russian people, you're an idiot."

One of these is an ad hominem, and one is not. Do you see the difference.

RE: ID, I admit that I'm severely lacking in contact with sane religious folk like you, it's usually either atheists, agnostics, or radical Christians. We are, however, arguing (actually talking about how we're not arguing, that went well) about the belief that evolution didn't happen. Therefore it's not your beliefs that are being criticized, but those of aforementioned crazy radicals.

@Jack -- we have *not* made life from scratch. I'm aware of various experiments that make various claims regarding life...and they hardly qualifies as creating life from scratch.

You want to impress me, do the following:
Take a chaotic, random mix of chemicals, shake 'em up in whatever conditions you choose, and pour out a living creature. This means a creature that has
at least these attributes (and this is taking it easy on you):
A. Can utilize some form some form of energy
B. Can respond to it's environment
C. Can reproduce

Each of these attributes requires a complex system in an of itself, by the way...an amino acid is *laughably* shy of this target.

Extra Credit: Once you have magically poured out your random assortment chemicals into this most simple of lifeforms...which happens to contain very complex internal structures...then somehow make this life improve itself with each passing generation...

What these experiments generally do is take *per-existing* complex structures and reshape them in to other complex structures. It's more like taking apart a machine and then using some of the pieces to make another simple machine...or more likely create a part that would be used in a machine, and then claiming you've made some great discovery towards making a machine from scratch.

@Jack - The problem is really that I my view is a philosophy. I have yet to see a philosophy that is supported by evidence. And yes, if you argued that you truly believed the whole unicorn thing, I would accept it as your view and not belittle you for it. If you tried to assert it as a science, then I would argue against it being a science for the very reason you give on mine. But I'm not arguing my view as science, only as philosophy.

As far as krellin's view that God created the universe with photons in transit and all, that, too, is a philosophy. One I don't proscribe to, but a philosophy none the less. And one that is neither illogical or disprovable and therefore not worthy of outright contempt unless he attempts to equate it with science. You philosophy (I'm just guessing here) is probably of an infinite repetitive universe where a singularity explodes and eventually collapses back on itself to repeat the process all over again creating a whole new matter/energy "matrix" (for lack of a better term) each time.

And that is neither provable nor unprovable. The big difference is, in your mindset your philosophy isn't incompatible with science, while krellin's view (and my different view) are. They aren't, although krellin's more negates the whole concept of science, much as the unicorn one does where as mine looks to explain why not how.

Hey Krellin, remember when you claimed that "spooky action at a distance" was proof of a designer? Lol you're like a caveman looking up at the moon and making the same claim. You don't understand it, so it "must have been caused by God." Laughable.




@ghug, actually, though #2 is clearly ad hominem, #1 is "guilt by association" which is also a form of ad hominem. Sorry :P

@Draugnar: Krellin IS deluded.

@ Jack love the train of thought... keep it rolling!

@ghug, still, Jack's original statement wasn't ad hominem. I think your first statement alone sufficed to explain why.

And jack...if it makes you feel better to attack me because I, like, oh, I don't know, BILLIONS of people on the planet have religious beliefs...if that is what it takes to make you feel better, that's OK. You happen to keep very good company...Stalin (murderer of millions), Mao Zedong (murderer of millions), Pol Pot, Ceausescu, Mussolini...

Ahhh yes....great minds...well, great murderers, anyway. I wish I were an aetheist, too.

See what I did there?


Anyway...In complete honesty, simply because I have religious belief does not mean I don't believe in science. THAT sort of thinking is typical of the types of jackasses that kill people for not having their belief. IN FACT, I am an engineer...you know...a guy that studied science. I've taken advanced anatomy and physiology course. I've believe religious people SHOULD study science so that they understand it.

The *only* difference is this: YOU think that there was a *magical* "big bang" that set everything in to motion (debatable even amongst scientists -- and even if you believe in it, you don't know what started it). As a religious person, I think the "what started it" might have been God. I believe that the fossils and science that we have right now show evidence of certain things, and let us make theories about certain things, etc. Lot's of them can *NEVER* be proven. You will *NEVER* prove where life came from. EVER. You think it magically popped in to existence in some primordial swill...that a bunch of stuff floated together and *bang* on day the right stuff -- you know, a bunch of very complex structures... -- suddenly came together within some package (cells walls...) and kick started in to life. blah blah blah. You think it happened by accident.

I think that *however* it happened (and I have not told you how I think it happened)...I just think that the hand of God was behind it. From a practical standpoint, it make ZERO difference to the science. You, being a narrow-minded jackass, think my belief in God means I don't believe in science. This just makes you a moron. I simply credit the science to a creator, not randomness...

Yellowjacket -- I *NEVER* claimed that "spooky action at a distance" was *proof* of a designer. You idiots *really* need to learn how to read better. I *did* say that there are certain wonders in the universe - that being one of them - that are so amazing, so complex, so whatever that they point to a designer. I **NEVER** said it is proof of a designer.

I don't understand why you people must lie about things. What does that do for you? Do you think it bolsters your own arguments to lie about mine? Do you think I'm suddenly going to accept your lie as my own and change my beliefs? Good god...grow up.

@Krellin, nice, thank you for perfectly illustrating my point on the guilt by association ad hominem. I'm sure you just meant to show the others "how it was done."

Also, in FACT you're not an engineer - you have a degree in engineering and you're one of the lamest 3% who couldn't get a job in the field so now you're a talent scout. Quit pretending to be a scientist - nobody is fooled.

The *only* difference is NOT whether or not we believe god started it. The big bang has evidence to support it. It's the best theory we have, and it adapts as new evidence is added. Your faith does not. And THAT is the real difference.

Idiot.

(ad hominem)

@Krellin, you're right about that.

Fine. You didn't say proof. You said it "points" do a designer. So though I'm wrong about the means by which you're an idiot, an idiot you remain. Unless you'd care to offer an argument about how it "points" to a designer that doesn't involve something like, "oh it's so beautiful and complex only a creator could do it."

Well?

Hey krellin remember when you claimed Obama was a mulsim terrorist?

Draug -- my philospohy as stated....i.e. a universe created "in motion" does *nothing* to be incompatible with science. In fact, what I believe is that when we find some bit of scientific *fact* (not theories) we are obligated as Christians to do one of two things:
1. Figure out how this science fits in with God -- so, IF you believe the earth is 6000 years old (and *I* never said I did, by the way!) and science says it is 6 billions or a trillion years old, then you figure out HOW the universe *measures* accurately as that old. The way this happens is God created the universe with age. *I* *NEVER* said I believe the universe is 6,000 years old, though. I gave an explanation as to how one might believe it.

2. If a Christian can not reconcile his faith with scientific facts, then he must dismiss his faith, or say he doesn't believe in the science and give a reasonable explanation as to why.

So again, you don't understand, therefore it must be God.

*sigh*

Goddidits are possibly the most intellectually lazy exercises known to mankind.

I'm sorry. I prefer to say, instead of "God did it!", I would say "Well, this is what we've got. Aside from that, we don't know. Yet. But we're working on that"

Thats a statement of progress. That's the kind of statement that figures shit out.

Your kind of thinking would rather attribute disease to curses instead of germs and viruses, and would rather pretend we have all the answers from revelation than investigation.

I heap scorn upon the idea, because its a scornful idea. And no, I don't give a shit that the majority of people in the world believe in the divine. It doesn't impress me in the slightest. For the vast majority of our history, we've had some really screwy ideas. And you know what? I'm fairly sure at least some of our current theories are wrong right NOW. The difference? We're constantly updating them as more facts roll in. If a scientific theory is contradicted by evidence, the theory changes.

I can see why you couldn't hack it as a real engineer... clear thinking isn't your forte.