What is Intelligent Design

  • Thread starter Thread starter HagiaSophia
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
vern humphrey:
When one espouses the ridiculous, one must accept the consequences. You aren’t offering debate – you’re making unsubstantiated claims.
Click to expand...
I guess the first visionaries who thought man could fly should have quit based on this ridiculous statement. Advances of knowledge can come from pursuuing ridiculous ideas.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Time to brush up on the early Church fathers, Vern. If you have time go back even further to Greek philosophers BC.
Click to expand...
So show me a quote from one of the early Church fathers “defending the Church against evolution.”
 
vern humphrey:
So what? They were working on the problem of the structure of the Solar System, and both saw the flaws in the old Ptolomaic system.

.
Click to expand...
The mathematical facets found in the Judaeo-Christians texts are exquisite and intricate.They wither in the hands of brute sensibilities who neither know nor care for the purposes and intents which they serve and no easy answer can be given except for those who possess not just a great mind but a generous heart.

I look at what you wrote about the documented history of people such as Brahe and Kepler *,if you cannot comment accurately on the difference between the two you will not stand a chance through intellectual laziness in even beginning to appreceate the great Johannine Work of Revelation.

I look at the duplicity and the carelessness which you approach the sacred texts of Christianity for it is the same way you approach the works of the astronomers.The carelessness comes from the same cause- exchanging passive knowledge for actually going outside and living and enjoying the Works of God through Jesus and nature and especially in the great balances.

*The great graphic of Kepler known as the Panis Quadragesimalis or the motions of Mars as seen from Earth is almost totally anonymous because of the empirical hijacking of astronomy and its methods.The graphic which Kepler used along with the idea of the Ptolomaic Equant was set within the heliocentric system founded by Copernicus so whatever flaws you imagine Kepler saw,they were long gone when he started to work on heliocentricplanetary motion.
 
vern humphrey:
Which means what?

.
Click to expand...
It means that there are good Catholics who display an accurate picture of why Western Christianity should not be allowed to lapse into the standard of discussion which amplify the baseness of people who call themselves Catholic but act otherwise.

I have seen more than a few participants who call themselves Catholic apologise to non-believers even though these useless numbskulls can’t even get fundamental things right such as how long it takes the planet to spin on its axis.

Is there some article of faith that you subscribe to that says you must set yourself up as a stool pidgeon so God may be glorified ?.
 
40.png
oriel36:
The mathematical facets found in the Judaeo-Christians texts are exquisite and intricate.They wither in the hands of brute sensibilities who neither know nor care for the purposes and intents which they serve and no easy answer can be given except for those who possess not just a great mind but a generous heart…
Click to expand...
You’re into numerology now, are you?
40.png
oriel36:
I look at what you wrote about the documented history of people such as Brahe and Kepler *,if you cannot comment accurately on the difference between the two you will not stand a chance through intellectual laziness in even beginning to appreceate the great Johannine Work of Revelation…
Click to expand...
The differences between two scientists in astronomy has nothing to do with the validity or lack thereof of evolution.
40.png
oriel36:
I look at the duplicity and the carelessness which you approach the sacred texts of Christianity for it is the same way you approach the works of the astronomers.The carelessness comes from the same cause- exchanging passive knowledge for actually going outside and living and enjoying the Works of God through Jesus and nature and especially in the great balances…
Click to expand...
And you show your Catholic upbringing by gettin personal like this?

Shame on you.
 
vern humphrey:
Oh, my! If we don’t accept every cockamamie idea that comes down the pike, we’ll miss out on the next great scientific breakthrough.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
Click to expand...
well, this really isn’t too far from the truth, is it?

i mean, anyone opposing the magesterial genius of newton was considered a nutjob back in the day - witness the resolute opposition to the wave theory of light (propounded on solid, experimental and mathematical grounds by huygens, young, and fresnel) just because newton’s theory was corpuscular.

take into consideration the generation of physicists beguiled by von neumann’s so-called proof that hidden variables theories were impossible, a claim proved false by gerte hermann in '35, and subsequently by john bell in the 60’s, not to mention the pioneering wave-mechanical work of de broglie and bohm, completed in opposition to the prevailing wisdom.

then there’s zweig, considered by the scientific establishment as a charlatan for his theory of the internal structure of the proton and neutron, theory which ultimately won gell-mann the nobel prize and which forms the basis of quantum chromodynamics.

and the list goes on. and why shouldn’t it? you don’t think scientists are just as susceptible to emotion, ambition, pride, and embarassment as anyone else? where would we be now, scientifically, if not for those few, brave souls who bucked the trend and ignored derision and significant personal and professional loss in order to bring us what we take now to be at least a closer approximation to the truth, if not the truth itself?

look - i’m not saying that creation science is right (i don’t think it is), nor that neo-darwinism is false (though i think it is); i’m only pointing out that using the theoretical coin of the scientific realm as a definitive benchmark seems a little myopic.
 
40.png
buffalo:
Let’s start here. Am I gonna have to step you through this?
Click to expand...
Anximander’s theory was to the theory of evolution as another near-contemporaty philosopher’s theory of the atom was to nuclear physics.
Thales of Miletus, the first Greek philosopher of historical times, postulated the existence of primordial matter. His friend and associate Anaximander completed the picture by declaring this primordial matter to be animated by eternal, ceaseless motion. Anaximenes identified this motion with Life itself, asserting that the universe is a living organism, every particle of which is endowed with life. As these three men had been initiated into the Mysteries, they naturally considered the atom from the occult point of view – as the first-born of the ever-concealed Cause of all Causes; hence as a center of potential vitality. Being Initiates, they knew the occult teaching concerning the relationship between Space, motion and atoms. Space, in Occultism, is the all-container. Atoms fill the immensity of Space, and in their aggregate are that Motion which keeps the wheels of life revolving.
Click to expand...
Now show me where the early Church fathers even knew about all this, let alone had to defend the Church from it.
 
john doran:
i mean, anyone opposing the magesterial genius of newton was considered a nutjob back in the day
Click to expand...
Sometimes a nutjob really is a nutjob.
john doran:
witness the resolute opposition to the wave theory of light (propounded on solid, experimental and mathematical grounds by huygens, young, and fresnel) just because newton’s theory was corpuscular.
Click to expand...
And witness how with solid evidence, the wave theory of light carried the day – not by its proponents holding their breath and kicking their heels, but by them providing more and more evidence.
john doran:
take into consideration the generation of physicists beguiled by von neumann’s so-called proof that hidden variables theories were impossible, a claim proved false by gerte hermann in '35, and subsequently by john bell in the 60’s, not to mention the pioneering wave-mechanical work of de broglie and bohm, completed in opposition to the prevailing wisdom…
Click to expand...
Each example you cite shows science winning – by presenting solid evidence.
john doran:
you don’t think scientists are just as susceptible to emotion, ambition, pride, and embarassment as anyone else? …
Click to expand...
The fact that scientists are human doesn’t automatically mean we must go hallooing off after every cockamamie idea that comes down the pike – especially those with no evidence behind them.
john doran:
look - i’m not saying that creation science is right (i don’t think it is), nor that neo-darwinism is false (though i think it is); i’m only pointing out that using the theoretical coin of the scientific realm as a definitive benchmark seems a little myopic.
Click to expand...
What coin do you propose to offer in its place?

Science at its core is scepticism – it rejects that for which there is no evidence. That is the coin of science. Do you expect us to believe EVERYTHING anyone proposes, without any evidence at all?
 
I didn’t say accept. I said explore.
Click to expand...
Explore what? You haven’t given me anything to explore. It’s like getting all suited up to explore a cave, find it goes in six feet, turns left and dead-ends.
However, it would be foolhardy to say many of our recent inventions did not come from dreamers with ridiculous ideas. Even you should be able to agree with this.
Click to expand...
That’s the Al Gore theory of scientific invention – “some kid saw the communicator on Star Trek and thought it would be neat and that’s how we got cell phones.”

No one dreamed the airplane into existance – the Wright Brothers worked long and hard on it, and did serious science – making their own wind tunnels and developing their own lift tables.

No one dreamed the electric light into existance – Thomas Edison himself said, “Genius is one percent inspiration and ninty-nine percent persperation.”
 
john doran:
well, this really isn’t too far from the truth, is it?

i mean, anyone opposing the magesterial genius of newton was considered a nutjob back in the day - witness the resolute opposition to the wave theory of light (propounded on solid, experimental and mathematical grounds by huygens, young, and fresnel) just because newton’s theory was corpuscular.

take into consideration the generation of physicists beguiled by von neumann’s so-called proof that hidden variables theories were impossible, a claim proved false by gerte hermann in '35, and subsequently by john bell in the 60’s, not to mention the pioneering wave-mechanical work of de broglie and bohm, completed in opposition to the prevailing wisdom.

then there’s zweig, considered by the scientific establishment as a charlatan for his theory of the internal structure of the proton and neutron, theory which ultimately won gell-mann the nobel prize and which forms the basis of quantum chromodynamics.

and the list goes on. and why shouldn’t it? you don’t think scientists are just as susceptible to emotion, ambition, pride, and embarassment as anyone else? where would we be now, scientifically, if not for those few, brave souls who bucked the trend and ignored derision and significant personal and professional loss in order to bring us what we take now to be at least a closer approximation to the truth, if not the truth itself?

look - i’m not saying that creation science is right (i don’t think it is), nor that neo-darwinism is false (though i think it is); i’m only pointing out that using the theoretical coin of the scientific realm as a definitive benchmark seems a little myopic.
Click to expand...
This is empirical thumbsucking,launch enough linguistic fireworks and associate genius with Newton and nobody will argue.Newton was a peevish Arian numbskull who made a guess that planetary motion and the way an apple falls are basically the same thing and created a geometry to get them to fit.

The only thing I ever asked participants in this forum to at least try to understand is how the pre-Copernican average 24 hour day using the Earth’s rotation and the Equation of Time correction translates into constant axial rotation within the heliocentric system.It is not difficult at all.

Newton,the poor numbskull used the sidereal format of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec for axial rotation through 360 degrees.

hypertextbook.com/facts/1999/JennyChen.shtml

I believe in miracles but my goodness,my Lord certainly chooses to make unbelievers look especially foolish and even though the blatant error remains and children come under its influence,it cannot be far off that some responsible people call a halt.
 
40.png
oriel36:
This is empirical thumbsucking,launch enough linguistic fireworks and associate genius with Newton and nobody will argue.Newton was a peevish Arian numbskull who made a guess that planetary motion and the way an apple falls are basically the same thing and created a geometry to get them to fit.

The only thing I ever asked participants in this forum to at least try to understand is how the pre-Copernican average 24 hour day using the Earth’s rotation and the Equation of Time correction translates into constant axial rotation within the heliocentric system.It is not difficult at all.

Newton,the poor numbskull used the sidereal format of 23 hours 56 min 04 sec for axial rotation through 360 degrees.
Click to expand...
And you, of course, are much smarter than Newton

Hey, do me a favor – explain the relationship between the basic equation, the first derivitave and the second derivitave.http://forums.catholic-questions.org/images/icons/icon12.gif
 
vern humphrey:
The fact that scientists are human doesn’t automatically mean we must go hallooing off after every cockamamie idea that comes down the pike – especially those with no evidence behind them.
[snip]
Science at its core is scepticism – it rejects that for which there is no evidence. That is the coin of science. Do you expect us to believe EVERYTHING anyone proposes, without any evidence at all?
Click to expand...
GO VERN GO! Looks like you’re doing a heck of job kicking booty. I’ve lost track how many touch downs you’ve made. I’ll return to this ‘environmental landscape’ when you’ve cleared the field from obstacles presented by our species ‘behavior’. 🙂

Gentlemen, the field is yours. (This sure beats watching ice hockey!)
Code: 
. "Human beings, created in the image of God, are persons called to enjoy communion and to exercise stewardship in a physical universe. The activities entailed by interpersonal communion and responsible stewardship engage the spiritual - intellectual and affective - capacities of human persons, but they do not leave the body behind. Human beings are physical beings sharing a world with other physical beings. Implicit in the Catholic theology of the imago Dei is the profound truth that the material world creates the conditions for the engagement of human persons with one another."

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/congregations/cfaith/cti_documents/rc_con_cfaith_doc_20040723_communion-stewardship_en.html
 
vern humphrey:
Explore what? You haven’t given me anything to explore. It’s like getting all suited up to explore a cave, find it goes in six feet, turns left and dead-ends.
Click to expand...
You didn’t know it was a dead end until you explored it and found out. But are you really sure it’s a dead end? It is based on what you know right now. Upon further exploration you could find it has a door and leads you further.
 
Vern>We’re talking scientific consensus – and the scientists of the day well knew, and demonstrated by actual measurements and observations that the earth orbited the sun.

The Scientists of Galileo’s day who held to heliocentric views couldn’t answer Aristotle’s arguments against them. They couldn’t prove it, Galileo couldn’t prove it at the time, the larger majority of the scientific consensus was a geocentric view, people who didn’t hold the consensus view were ridiculed as many are today. Go check out the articles at Catholic.com. While you’re at it look up the time when the medical and scientific consensus laughed at the idea that clean and sterilized environments in hospitals would help lower the mortality and infection rate, where the idea of invisible germs sounded ridiculous. Also look up an essay by Michael Crichton humourously entitled, ‘Aliens Cause Global Warming’ it’s a good read…

Vern>The difference being, you haven’t offered any of those fossils and strata for evidence. I go out and find them myself, and what I find matches what science finds.

Visit some Creationist websites and find out yourself, I’m not going to dig one up for you and mail it. You seem to be missing th epoint, I could take the same fossil you found and interpret it differently. Of course it’s going to match what your science thinks, it’s completely interpretable!

Vern>More smoke – you fail to make a case that “creation science” is science…

When did I ever call Creation Science actual science? Please go reread all my posts. I’m not trying to make a case for it at all. It is an origins science, not operational science. It is based on biased presuppositions.

Vern>A site put up by the usual suspects – I don’t see them doing any science.

Well what alternate are you left with? You beg for evidence, then refuse to look at it… none are so blind…

Vern>It’s evolving. It works as expected, and it allows us to contol the outcome.

You’re again missing the point, all you’ve been proving is micro-evolution, something all creationists and people the world over can agree with and is blatently obvious, that is, constant small scale changes, variation within kinds. it is not macro evolution, which is the concept of large scale changes from simple celled organisms to fish to amphibians to mammals to humanoids to modern man in an ancestral chain. For someone who tries to come off knowing their stuff, I’m surprised you haven’t already recognized this from the start.

Vern>No, genes can be turned on that pre-existed. That’s how natural variation works. The DNA itself can be altered as well, but by and large, it is a matter of switching genes.

Yeah, exactly what I said, it all supposedly existed in this greater complexity from the start.

vern>That’s simply not true – and you haven’t offered a shred of evidence it is.

What do you think Darwin did?

Vern>And that matter is up to the Magisterium, not to lay preachers and amateur “interpreters.”

And the Magisterium relies on the knowledge of the subject and those who know their stuff in order to make pronouncements, they’d spend immense time studying it, it’s not some magically decided thing. I’d love to se you go up to some of the reknowned men in the field and call them ‘amateur interpreters’ to their face.
 
vern humphrey:
Anximander’s theory was to the theory of evolution as another near-contemporaty philosopher’s theory of the atom was to nuclear physics.

Now show me where the early Church fathers even knew about all this, let alone had to defend the Church from it.
Click to expand...
We can start with the Apostle’s Creed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top