Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hello, I'm starting "slow": Intelligent Design and its implications

Posted on 08/25/2005 10:11:22 PM PDT by Rurudyne

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

1 posted on 08/25/2005 10:11:23 PM PDT by Rurudyne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

A long vanity post is a very bad start. Good luck, though.


2 posted on 08/25/2005 10:13:36 PM PDT by HitmanLV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

is a christian, i have no problem reconciling that god in his omnipotence, omnivoyance, omniscience, created in detail every single building block of matter and energy and set it forth using the big bang as the instrument of the dispersal of that matter and energy into the newly created medium of the ether/universe... i also have no problem in reconciling that evolution in it's infinite complexity is the manifestation of that creation...


3 posted on 08/25/2005 10:15:43 PM PDT by Methadras
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne
Pretty ambitious first post. I get mixed up in these threads sometimes, and they can get, shall we say, acrimonious. Good luck, I didn't read your post (brevity is the soul of wit BTW)

And just in case...

IBTZ!

4 posted on 08/25/2005 10:16:26 PM PDT by lafroste (gravity is not a force. See my profile to read my novel absolutely free (I know, beyond shameless))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY; Rurudyne

Bad starts are not good. Rurudyne, you are going to get some interesting replies.


5 posted on 08/25/2005 10:16:34 PM PDT by Theresawithanh (As long as Dean's the head of the D-N-C, it just looks better for the G-O-P!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Theresawithanh

The truth is I lost interest around the time that the author finished his preamble.

If there is a sure sign of a dull writer, it's one who is compelled to provide color commentary of his (or her) own work within the work itself. So that 'preamble' and 'meat' commentary sent me into slumberland.

A very poor first post, though not a bad topic at all.


6 posted on 08/25/2005 10:18:47 PM PDT by HitmanLV
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Methadras

What Methadras says.

Also check out http://www.reasons.org/


7 posted on 08/25/2005 10:19:30 PM PDT by HisKingdomWillAbolishSinDeath (Pray for America like its future depended on it, because it does!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY

True, not really a bad first post, if a little on the long side, but the old adage rings true - - "less is more".


8 posted on 08/25/2005 10:25:38 PM PDT by Theresawithanh (As long as Dean's the head of the D-N-C, it just looks better for the G-O-P!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne
And please forgive me for any improprieties or inaccuracies of fact, since I'm a mere "standup philosopher" after all.

huh?

Did you run a bunch of words through a randomizer ?
9 posted on 08/25/2005 10:27:32 PM PDT by stylin19a (In golf, some are long, I'm "Lama Long")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

"So instead of seeing their world view exposed, naturalist have redoubled their assertion that they arbitrate what is or is not scientific. It's life or death to them."

In their minds, science is the only form of knowledge. And they have replaced the priests as the new clerisy. Began to do so about the time of Darwin. Professional scientistst were rare before that time, plentiful thereafter. Darwin himself was one of the last "amateurs," even though it was his life's work, he did not make a living from it. Evolution brought poiwer and prestige not only to th naturalist but to every other sort of scientist. They became the dominant force in the universities. War brought them into government. Industry has also thrived on their work. So Darwinism DOES have a powerful symbolic meaning to them.


10 posted on 08/25/2005 10:31:29 PM PDT by RobbyS ( CHIRHO)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne
"Naturalism, like intelligent design, is not scientific."

Yes it is. Science considers only what can be physically observed and can be demonstrated to exist.

If you can't demonstrate that something exists, so that anyone can examine it, it's not a proper subject of science. It belongs in religion, phil, or psych.

11 posted on 08/25/2005 10:35:08 PM PDT by spunkets
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: stylin19a
"Standup Philosopher" comes from Mel Brook's History of the World, Part 1. In the movie it was synonmous with "BS Artist."

I've adopted the term because it lacks the pretension of saying "I'm a philosopher" and it allows me to not take myself too seriously ... after all, a BS Artist should have fun when he does what he does.
12 posted on 08/25/2005 10:38:27 PM PDT by Rurudyne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Theresawithanh

ME...non science minded. Heard that the chances of evolution occuring as described would be on par with shooting a bullet across the known universe and hitting a one foot or less target. Thus, intelligent design.

Pick your poison. Live right and die forever with no worries or live badly with nagging doubt and dread that you may die and live forever in a neighborhood not of your choosing. Seems like a pretty easy choice.


13 posted on 08/25/2005 10:41:17 PM PDT by Edison
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne

To even call God "intelligent" is human nonsense.

It is reducing the perfect mystery to something both human and imperfect.

Intelligence requires a system of thought, one prone to error and uncertainty, contrary to His omniscience and omnipotence.

ID, in essence, is a statement that the universe represents God's brain, not the product of any such brain, but God's brain itself. You may as well worship Gaia, or for that matter, your favorite book of chemistry and physics equations.


14 posted on 08/25/2005 10:41:44 PM PDT by SteveMcKing ("I was born a Democrat. I expect I'll be a Democrat the day I leave this earth." -Zell Miller '04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne
You did fine; my post are usually pulled. Your topic is well within the norms for fc (Freeper correctness) acceptance.
15 posted on 08/25/2005 10:43:04 PM PDT by kublia khan (absolute war brings total victory)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Rurudyne
Excellent post. I have tried in my mind to simplify the issue as follows;

The Theory of Evolution is a theory and as such may or may not be true. But, this theory says nothing about the start of life and does not contradict the concept of Intelligent Design.

The concept of Intelligent Design (first conceived by St Augustine) contains nothing that contradicts the Theory of Evolution.

The concepts of Creationism and Naturalism as regards this planet both have a time problem in my opinion, the Earth is too old for the former and too young for the latter.

Gonna bookmark this one to follow the bloody fray.

16 posted on 08/25/2005 10:45:11 PM PDT by Mike Darancette (Mesocons for Rice '08)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Science considers only what can be physically observed and can be demonstrated to exist.

Of course you must be joking.

17 posted on 08/25/2005 10:47:13 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
Science considers only what can be physically observed and can be demonstrated to exist.

Of course you must be joking.

18 posted on 08/25/2005 10:47:27 PM PDT by taxesareforever (Government is running amuck)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: spunkets
"Yes it is. Science considers only what can be physically observed and can be demonstrated to exist."

So, are you saying we can observe and demonstrate the origins of life?I'm not talking about a chromosome pair fusing in an ancient pony to give us the domestic horse, I'm talking about organic ooze becoming living organic ooze. Ooze that begins to devour the unsuccessful leftovers in the organic soup as it reproduces itself.

If such an idea (central to naturalism) can only be inferred but not tested then it is a mere belief.
19 posted on 08/25/2005 10:48:28 PM PDT by Rurudyne
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: HitmanNY
But if intelligent design accepts evolution then why is there such a fuss about it?

because the opposite is not true...

Evolution theory abhors Intelligent Design.

20 posted on 08/25/2005 10:49:09 PM PDT by Wil H
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-6061-8081-91 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson