View Poll Results: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

Voters
69. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    3 4.35%
  • no

    66 95.65%
Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 206

Thread: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

  1. #51
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    The effects of what is theorized to be the big bang can be observed. Don't get me wrong, it's still a theory and far from being fact, but it's the best current paradigm for the observations astronomers are currently making about the universe.
    Coming from astronomers who invented dark matter fudge numbers I'll take that with a grain of salt, just like I take what I read in the bible with a grain of salt.

  2. #52
    Death2Globalists Matt Foley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    ExecuteTheTraitors
    Last Seen
    11-24-12 @ 12:17 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    5,574

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Thunder View Post
    wrong.

    the results and even residual energy from the Big Bang can indeed be observed.

    notice that static on your tv between channels? that's residual energy from the Big Bang.
    Noise (video) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Most of this noise comes from the first transistor the antenna is attached to.
    I learnded something today.

  3. #53
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Where they have FOX on in bars and restaurants
    Last Seen
    09-14-14 @ 02:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    14,700

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by StillBallin75 View Post
    Looks like you didn't comprehend your own definition, sawyer.
    Ya know stillballin, this post does nothing to advance the conversation, it is uncivil and confrontational and does nothing to advance the conversation. You of all people should try to keep a certain standard in here. What you could have said was something like, I think your definition negates the ID theory meeting the standards of scientific theory and then gave me your reasons why, then I could say I disagree and heres why or I could even say you have a point on this that or the other thing. That would be how adults discuss things in a civil fashion. Now I have work to do, have a good day.

  4. #54
    Sage
    MoSurveyor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Last Seen
    04-13-17 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    9,985

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    Coming from astronomers who invented dark matter fudge numbers I'll take that with a grain of salt, just like I take what I read in the bible with a grain of salt.
    Dark energy? Ehhh, that one's a little iffy at this point.
    Dark matter? It's pretty hard to explain away the effects of gravitational lensing.
    Mt. Rushmore: Three surveyors and some other guy.
    Life goes on within you and without you. -Harrison
    Hear the echoes of the centuries, Power isn't all that money buys. -Peart
    After you learn quantum mechanics you're never really the same again. -Weinberg

  5. #55
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by sawyerloggingon View Post
    Ya know stillballin, this post does nothing to advance the conversation, it is uncivil and confrontational and does nothing to advance the conversation. You of all people should try to keep a certain standard in here. What you could have said was something like, I think your definition negates the ID theory meeting the standards of scientific theory and then gave me your reasons why, then I could say I disagree and heres why or I could even say you have a point on this that or the other thing. That would be how adults discuss things in a civil fashion. Now I have work to do, have a good day.
    It had nothing to do with civility. You pointed out that ID fits the definition of scientific theory according to the definition you provided. I pointed out that you were flat-out wrong, and why. You clearly failed to read the definition carefully, or comprehend it.
    Last edited by StillBallin75; 04-27-12 at 12:24 PM.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

  6. #56
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by NoC_T View Post
    And hence exterior to even consciousness? I think not. Such facts as exist, are ones defined both by ourselves, and the means we contrive to both measure and label them. A belief becomes more than that, where it goes goes uncontested. Especially where no one believes otherwise.
    Yes, exterior to consciousness. Gravity exists whether there's anyone around to observe it or not. If humans had never existed, animals would still fall out of trees because of gravity.

    We now know it was never a fact. Previously, we knew nothing else. It was accepted as fact.
    That's because human knowledge is always provisional. We only "know" what we "know" based on current understanding. It's always open to revision as we learn more about the universe around us. At the time people believed in a flat earth, their "science" wasn't very rigorous. Many ancient people knew the Earth wasn't flat, they could see it every time they looked at the moon. In fact, most of the people who believed the Earth was flat did so for religious, not scientific reasons. Once science came on the scene, it became clear from the evidence that the planet was, in fact, relatively spherical. It just took throwing religion out the window for the actual facts to come to light.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  7. #57
    Banned
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Location
    The greatest city on Earth
    Last Seen
    08-04-12 @ 04:27 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    31,089

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Matt Foley View Post
    ...I learnded something today.
    yes, you did.

    Several members of the NASA Goddard COBE team work on WMAP. Like COBE, WMAP scans the sky over and over again, soaking up the ancient light from the Big Bang known as the cosmic microwave background. Microwaves are a low-energy form of radiation but higher in energy than radio waves. The cosmic microwave background blankets the universe and is responsible for a sizeable amount of static on your television set--well, before the days of cable. Turn your television to an "in between" channel, and part of the static you'll see is the afterglow of the big bang

    NASA - Background on the Background Explorer and the Science of John Mather

  8. #58
    Sage

    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Last Seen
    Today @ 12:55 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Other
    Posts
    10,343

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    No. Religious doctrine should not be taught in public schools at all (except perhaps as part of a course on comparative religion), and students certainly shouldn't be misled to believe that it's an equally plausible alternative to ACTUAL science.

    Evolution is the scientific view for how life on earth came to exist in its present state, and anyone who doesn't "believe" it is simply wrong about the evidence for it. Period. Our schools should try to produce graduates who can think critically, and that's impossible to do if people intentionally try to prevent them from learning the scientific method.
    I like the idea of teaching comparative or teaching religion objectively in schools. Like it or not, we all have to deal with religion on a daily basis, and an understanding of the worlds religions aids in that dealing. Whether or not objective teaching is possible is another matter. The closest I can come to an answer is to form a panel of leaders of various religions, and present all sides.

  9. #59
    Sage
    Cephus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    CA
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 09:38 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    29,792

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by jimbo View Post
    I like the idea of teaching comparative or teaching religion objectively in schools. Like it or not, we all have to deal with religion on a daily basis, and an understanding of the worlds religions aids in that dealing. Whether or not objective teaching is possible is another matter. The closest I can come to an answer is to form a panel of leaders of various religions, and present all sides.
    The problem is, you'll never get that because all religions want to be the only religion and you'll just get fights. It's best to just leave religion entirely out of schools, which are supposed to be teaching facts, and leave it to churches.
    There is nothing demonstrably true that religion can provide the world that cannot be achieved more rationally through entirely secular means.

    Blog me! YouTube me! VidMe me!

  10. #60
    Basketball Nerd
    StillBallin75's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Vilseck, Germany
    Last Seen
    12-10-17 @ 07:52 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Progressive
    Posts
    21,896

    Re: Is intelligent Design a scientific theory?

    Quote Originally Posted by Cephus View Post
    The problem is, you'll never get that because all religions want to be the only religion and you'll just get fights. It's best to just leave religion entirely out of schools, which are supposed to be teaching facts, and leave it to churches.
    I happen to agree with Jimbo. Nothing wrong with teaching comparative religion or religious history. It can and is done objectively all the time. In fact, as a history major, I'd say the study of history in general is vastly incomplete if you keep religion out of it.
    Nobody who wins a war indulges in a bifurcated definition of victory. War is a political act; victory and defeat have meaning only in political terms. A country incapable of achieving its political objectives at an acceptable cost is losing the war, regardless of battlefield events.

    Bifurcating victory (e.g. winning militarily, losing politically) is a useful salve for defeated armies. The "stab in the back" narrative helped take the sting out of failure for German generals after WWI and their American counterparts after Vietnam.

    All the same, it's nonsense. To paraphrase Vince Lombardi, show me a political loser, and I'll show you a loser.
    - Colonel Paul Yingling

Page 6 of 21 FirstFirst ... 4567816 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •