Bush endorses teaching "intelligent design."

hammegk said:
You are wrong, but I have no intention of debating that canard again with you, or anyone. Either you figure it out for yourself, or not.
Click to expand...

Well, what I figure is that you're a typical delusional combination of ignorance and arrogance and that you don't know what science is.

Actually, a good question. Damned if I know. Do you?
Click to expand...

Well, when Marvin Minsky was asked to define it he said "intelligence is the ability to solve problems."

More interesting though, would you posit that Thought does not exist?
Click to expand...

No.

But it does depend on what you think thought is.
 
hammegk said:
The Narrative (oops, I mean Theory} of Evolution is all boiler plate, for sure. Please define "species" for us, and put the last rivet in. ;)

Thanks in advance.
Click to expand...

Just wondering, what “theory” have ID/creation scientists come up with? Is it published in any scientific journals so I could read up on it to become better informed?

Also, what school do the ID/creation scientists get their degree from? What is the curriculum to get a PhD for the ID/creation science?
 
Daylight said:
Just wondering, what “theory” have ID/creation scientists come up with? Is it published in any scientific journals so I could read up on it to become better informed?

Also, what school do the ID/creation scientists get their degree from? What is the curriculum to get a PhD for the ID/creation science?
Click to expand...

They seem to be basing their arguments on the very old, and often refuted "irreducible complexity" issue. That things like the eye, cannot have simpler forms, and therefore are the result of intelligent design.
 
Mark said:
They seem to be basing their arguments on the very old, and often refuted "irreducible complexity" issue. That things like the eye, cannot have simpler forms, and therefore are the result of intelligent design.
Click to expand...

True, and irreducible complexity is simply a logical fallacy. It's just another form of appeal to ignorance. Their argument relies on the fact that there are some things to which scientists haven't been able to explain using evolution, therefore ID must be true. Also, many of the cases that ID'ers use as examples of "irreducible complexity" have been thoroughly explained using evolution at the time or afterwards.
 
hammegk said:
Uppie, you are correct in the sense that unbeknownst to you, your comments made me re-examine the position *I* Think, and be forced to accept that Truth must hinge, rather, on Thought Exists.
...
Click to expand...
hammy, you've been talking to your imaginary friend again. Most disturbing in someone of your age. Does *I* tell you to come around here and be annoying? Because I think he gives bad advice.
 
thaiboxerken said:
True, and irreducible complexity is simply a logical fallacy. It's just another form of appeal to ignorance. Their argument relies on the fact that there are some things to which scientists haven't been able to explain using evolution, therefore ID must be true. Also, many of the cases that ID'ers use as examples of "irreducible complexity" have been thoroughly explained using evolution at the time or afterwards.
Click to expand...
The God of the Gaps strike once again MUHAHAHAHA!!!!!!
 
thaiboxerken said:
True, and irreducible complexity is simply a logical fallacy. It's just another form of appeal to ignorance. Their argument relies on the fact that there are some things to which scientists haven't been able to explain using evolution, therefore ID must be true. Also, many of the cases that ID'ers use as examples of "irreducible complexity" have been thoroughly explained using evolution at the time or afterwards.
Click to expand...

Science doesn't have all the answers, but Jesus does. :D
 
Daylight said:
Just wondering, what “theory” have ID/creation scientists come up with?
Click to expand...

The theory is that people are ignorant and stupid enough to be conned by mere apperances and illusions, such as the appearance and illusion of "design" in living things.

There is also the appearance and illusion of science.

If you don't like what scientists say you simply get wealthy churches, people and corporations to put money into think tanks and create a parallel intellectual universe, a world of "scholars" whose careers are based on toeing an ideological line, not on doing research that stands up to scrutiny by their peers.

Then you accuse scientists of doing the same thing.

The public, mostly nonscientists, doesn't know how to tell the difference between research and advocacy - as Krugman says of them: "if it's got numbers and charts in it, doesn't that make it science?"

Is it published in any scientific journals so I could read up on it to become better informed?
Click to expand...

It's published in books. And there are magazines too. I saw one at my doctor's office.

Also, what school do the ID/creation scientists get their degree from? What is the curriculum to get a PhD for the ID/creation science?
Click to expand...

I bet if you look, you will find one.
 
normdoering said:
Then who gave Osama bin Laden his answers?

And why does Jesus give different answers to different people?
Click to expand...

Mark is not actually serious with his "Jesus has all the answers" comment.
 
Are there many scientists who have a PhD in ID/creation science from an accredited school?
 
Upchurch said:
Unbeknownst to me? What else could I have possibly been referring to? :D
Click to expand...
Historically you seemed to favor links; finally have a thought of your own?


All that work to show you that no knowledge is 100% certain and you've re-written it in your own mind that my making you question what you thought you knew "for sure" was an unintended consequence.
Click to expand...
Wrong as usual; I do have one 100% certain fact (as do you even though you don't grasp it).


Such materialistic hubris. :rub:


Dear hgc: Sorry, you still haven't made my ignore list ... keep trying if that floats your boat.


Daylight said:
Just wondering, what “theory” have ID/creation scientists come up with?
Click to expand...
Find someone who is an ID/creation scientist & ask, same as I would do had I any particular interest in their answer.

normd. said:

I figure ... that you're a typical delusional combination of ignorance and arrogance and that you don't know what science is.
Click to expand...
Mmmkay. :)
 
hammegk said:
Find someone who is an ID/creation scientist & ask, same as I would do had I any particular interest in their answer.
Click to expand...

OK, but where are the ID/creation scientists? They are very hard to find, ideas? Just to be clear, it needs to be a person with a PhD in ID/creation science obtained from an accredited school.
 
hammegk said:
Historically you seemed to favor links; finally have a thought of your own?
Click to expand...

Given how many times you have demanded links, I find this comment humorous, to say the least.
 
normdoering said:

Well, when Marvin Minsky was asked to define it he said "intelligence is the ability to solve problems."
Click to expand...

I would think that you could reduce this even further and say that intelligence is the ability to first recognize the existence of a/the problem, whether or not you succesfully solve it.

Given Minsky's terms, it might be argued that in some way a computer is intelligent, but given mine, I would say it could not.

That said, I just popped in here to read some of Hammy's posts and extend him a friendly hello.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom