OT: Huckabee, Ughh

Page 6 of 13  
On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 19:26:10 -0500, "J. Clarke"

Even if we ever did run into questions that science could not answer, that's no excuse to simply make up answers like religion routinely does. "I don't know, make something up" is never a rational solution.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 6, 5:41 pm, Brian Henderson

Astonishing, though, isn't it, when, IIRC, the thread started as a look at the Huckster and his religion and politics. Now it's religious philosophy versus scientific fact.
I long ago found out something about Tim, too: there is no chance of making a change in his mind, regardless of subject.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Charlie Self wrote:

You can change my mind - some here have done so. e.g., Fredfighter convinced me that Intelligent Design as currently proposed does not qualify as science. You just can't do it using your favorite technique, Charlie, by swearing at me. Perhaps that approach works well in your world. I consider it profoundly rude.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Holy crap!
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

Hmmm, I thought that was clear to you last we exchanged barbs. I remain convinced the the IDers (the intellectuals, not the Rev. Billybob Swampwaters) are right about some things - or at least they trend that way, but excepting a couple of very narrow areas of work by Behe, they have not done a good job of putting forth a testable hypothesis - a bedrock of science. They have done a much better job of making the case that philosophical reductionism unnecessarily restricts science. But ... they haven't proposed what might replace it.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:45:01 -0800 (PST), Charlie Self

Oh, I don't care about changing Tim's mind, I only do it so that the people on the fence recognize that Tim is an idiot. That's not too hard to do at all.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Brian Henderson wrote:

More of that tightly reasoned "logical thought" you're so proud of, I see ...
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Tue, 08 Jan 2008 15:54:39 -0600, Tim Daneliuk

And who is getting laughed at here, Tim? Oh wait, that was you.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

In the scientific method it's referred to as an hypothesis.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And it has to be tested and be shown to be repeatable before it is accepted as anything other than hypothesis. Religion hypothesizes answers but never proves them. That doesn't necessarily make religion invalid, but, IMO, when religious opinion crosses scientific fact, then it's time to adjust the religious opinion, not the scientific fact.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Too funny, Charlie, given that you're the prince of conspiracy theories and manufacturer of corporate and political demons.
You have a system of belief which relies on faith, you just haven't the intellectual ambition to analyze it or the insight to acknowledge it.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Mon, 07 Jan 2008 16:59:20 +0000, George wrote:

Funny how the religious folks keep trying to bring science down to the level of religion. False, but funny.
The desk I'm sitting at looks like a solid piece of wood. But I believe it's made up of atomic components and a LOT of empty space. Not because some scientist said so, but because atomic theory both explains and predicts observed physical behavior.
If you can't see the difference it's because you don't want to.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Larry Blanchard wrote:

A telling statement of just how arrogant the empiricist community has become. What's funny is that we theists *embrace* Reason, science, and all that it give us - at least most of us do. But it takes an empiricist to look down their nose at all other systems.

You're missing an imporant point: The words "observed" and "predicts physical behavior" are rooted in the (unprovable) assumption that you can reliably measure, observe, and reason about your universe. I happen to share that assumption, but it is not somehow inferior to the assumption that all this had an intelligent first cause. They are both axioms without proof an cannot be demonstrated or falsified.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk snipped-for-privacy@tundraware.com
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No. You can't *comprehend* science and you *embrace* the irrational. Funny indeed Timmy!

Sorry Timmy. People look down on those that believe in Russell's TeaPot also.

There is no more probability of a "first cause" creator than the existence of Russell's TeaPot.

More TeaPot. <For those still following along http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell's_teapot) as this guy pulls out more rabbits from his hat>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Just a thought here. Could you cut it with the "Timmy" stuff? It doesn't bolster your argument and makes you look like a giant ass.
Let me see if I understand what you're saying. You're basically saying that anyone who believes in a god is an irrational idiot who doesn't comprehend science? Does that sum up your position? I don't want to be accused of putting words in your mouth, so feel free to clarify your position. You'll have to forgive me for having thread fatigue, so I haven't read every single post to have figured out your exact position on that question.
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No not at all. I never called anyone an "idiot" nor was that implied. The "looking down" on "believers" was said tongue-in-cheek, do to thread fatigue :^)

No. Not even close. If you want to get more of an understanding of my position read "The God Delusion" by Dawkins.
I also encourage you to read about "The God of the Gaps" (google is your pal here).

I don't have the energy to re-hash my position. Feel free to re-read the thread when you have more time and energy.
-This is my last post here in this thread.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

If you can't be bothered to restate it in a paragraph, I'm certainly not going to read a whole book to find out.

ditto
todd
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

What's that word? "Believe????" You used it but don't understand? If you can't see that you have a system of belief, different in its canons, but belief nonetheless, it's because you don't want to.
So let the folks who make more money than you pay for all the services you demand as their "fair share," and that only vast conspiracies can bring down the righteous, or other political cant. 'Taint true, but it explains things for you, and that's enough. That's faith.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, a hypothesis is a concept that explains observations and is set up for testing. Since ID, and religion in general, is not testable, it cannot be a hypothesis. Creationism on the other hand, the forerunner of ID, was a completely failed hypothesis. It was tested, it failed.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Jan 8, 4:29 pm, Brian Henderson

It was tested? How? How do you set up experiments to test for the existence, motivation and methods of an Invisible Sky Designer?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Site Timeline

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.