|
|
| Macro-Evolution to be proved false? |
| yes |
|
57% |
[ 8 ] |
| no |
|
42% |
[ 6 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 14 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Tue May 27, 2008 3:30 pm
xxPromarkxx Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 I just don't understand why they don't accept intelligent design as a rational theory. They don't have to believe it, they can scoff at it all they want, but at least let it be a part of rational disscussion. They can't accept it as a rational theory because it's not really rational. If we accept Occam's razor, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is always the best", the intelligent design is rather silly. It's essentially evolution, but with the unnecessary step of a supernatural ultra-intelligent being directing it all. Why would they consider it? And who makes that judgement? The atheists who run the scientific community. Please, explain to me how it itsn't rational. Because there's no reason to jump to the completely unbacked hypothesis of a supernatural deity directing it all. It's unnecessary. It isn't rational in the same way that saying a guitar makes a sound because when you pluck it small insects inside the string make sounds. Why can't it just be the guitar string?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 6:08 pm
Lethkhar xxPromarkxx Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 I just don't understand why they don't accept intelligent design as a rational theory. They don't have to believe it, they can scoff at it all they want, but at least let it be a part of rational disscussion. They can't accept it as a rational theory because it's not really rational. If we accept Occam's razor, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is always the best", the intelligent design is rather silly. It's essentially evolution, but with the unnecessary step of a supernatural ultra-intelligent being directing it all. Why would they consider it? And who makes that judgement? The atheists who run the scientific community. Please, explain to me how it itsn't rational. Because there's no reason to jump to the completely unbacked hypothesis of a supernatural deity directing it all. It's unnecessary. It isn't rational in the same way that saying a guitar makes a sound because when you pluck it small insects inside the string make sounds. Why can't it just be the guitar string? There are so many things in the world that do not make sense, especially in regards to consciousness. The consciousness of mans leads to many irrational things. A thing does not need to be rational to be correct. Rationally, it does not matter how dinosaurs were created, but humans still want to know. Humans are the only creatures that actually worry about this kind of thing, so obviously there is something in consciousness that can not be explained rationally. Therefore, a supernatural consciousness may do things that we would not call rational.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed May 28, 2008 10:10 pm
Lethkhar xxPromarkxx Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 I just don't understand why they don't accept intelligent design as a rational theory. They don't have to believe it, they can scoff at it all they want, but at least let it be a part of rational disscussion. They can't accept it as a rational theory because it's not really rational. If we accept Occam's razor, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is always the best", the intelligent design is rather silly. It's essentially evolution, but with the unnecessary step of a supernatural ultra-intelligent being directing it all. Why would they consider it? And who makes that judgement? The atheists who run the scientific community. Please, explain to me how it itsn't rational. Because there's no reason to jump to the completely unbacked hypothesis of a supernatural deity directing it all. Completely unbacked? Do you know the chances of an entire universe exploding from an object the size of a pinhead? And then think about the chances of a planet perfectly suited for human life, and then having life appear on this specific planet? That's completely unbacked, if you ask me. Quote: It's unnecessary. It isn't rational in the same way that saying a guitar makes a sound because when you pluck it small insects inside the string make sounds. Why can't it just be the guitar string? Who decides what is rational? The atheists who run the scientific community. They're so scared of having an all-powerful being who can see their deepest, darkest secrets, of having any moral responsibility whatsoever, that they will accept any other theory except that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 6:42 pm
Goldenlici Lethkhar xxPromarkxx Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 I just don't understand why they don't accept intelligent design as a rational theory. They don't have to believe it, they can scoff at it all they want, but at least let it be a part of rational disscussion. They can't accept it as a rational theory because it's not really rational. If we accept Occam's razor, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is always the best", the intelligent design is rather silly. It's essentially evolution, but with the unnecessary step of a supernatural ultra-intelligent being directing it all. Why would they consider it? And who makes that judgement? The atheists who run the scientific community. Please, explain to me how it itsn't rational. Because there's no reason to jump to the completely unbacked hypothesis of a supernatural deity directing it all. It's unnecessary. It isn't rational in the same way that saying a guitar makes a sound because when you pluck it small insects inside the string make sounds. Why can't it just be the guitar string? There are so many things in the world that do not make sense, especially in regards to consciousness. The consciousness of mans leads to many irrational things. A thing does not need to be rational to be correct. Technically, it does. Quote: Rationally, it does not matter how dinosaurs were created, but humans still want to know. Humans are the only creatures that actually worry about this kind of thing, so obviously there is something in consciousness that can not be explained rationally. I can explain that rationally. Humans want to know how dinosaurs were "created" because they're massive creatures that fascinate us. We're fascinated with massive creatures because from birth we were encouraged to enjoy exciting, large things. The reasons for us wanting something are totally rational.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat May 31, 2008 6:46 pm
xxPromarkxx Lethkhar xxPromarkxx Lethkhar GuardianAngel44 I just don't understand why they don't accept intelligent design as a rational theory. They don't have to believe it, they can scoff at it all they want, but at least let it be a part of rational disscussion. They can't accept it as a rational theory because it's not really rational. If we accept Occam's razor, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is always the best", the intelligent design is rather silly. It's essentially evolution, but with the unnecessary step of a supernatural ultra-intelligent being directing it all. Why would they consider it? And who makes that judgement? The atheists who run the scientific community. Please, explain to me how it itsn't rational. Because there's no reason to jump to the completely unbacked hypothesis of a supernatural deity directing it all. Completely unbacked? Do you know the chances of an entire universe exploding from an object the size of a pinhead? Not off the top of my head, no. But I know it's certainly larger than an invisible man waving his invisible hands and creating everything. Especially considering the evidence in favor of the idea that the universe is at expanding. Quote: And then think about the chances of a planet perfectly suited for human life, and then having life appear on this specific planet? Really, all you needed was life. Everything that followed, including humans, was just evolution. And considering the amount of matter in the universe and how much time it was given, I don't consider life to be too much of a stretch. Quote: Quote: It's unnecessary. It isn't rational in the same way that saying a guitar makes a sound because when you pluck it small insects inside the string make sounds. Why can't it just be the guitar string? Who decides what is rational? The atheists who run the scientific community. They're so scared of having an all-powerful being who can see their deepest, darkest secrets, of having any moral responsibility whatsoever, that they will accept any other theory except that. Too bad for your argument that the majority of scientists believe in God.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 01, 2008 8:08 am
Lethkhar xxPromarkxx Lethkhar xxPromarkxx Lethkhar They can't accept it as a rational theory because it's not really rational. If we accept Occam's razor, "All other things being equal, the simplest solution is always the best", the intelligent design is rather silly. It's essentially evolution, but with the unnecessary step of a supernatural ultra-intelligent being directing it all. Why would they consider it? And who makes that judgement? The atheists who run the scientific community. Please, explain to me how it itsn't rational. Because there's no reason to jump to the completely unbacked hypothesis of a supernatural deity directing it all. Completely unbacked? Do you know the chances of an entire universe exploding from an object the size of a pinhead? Not off the top of my head, no. But I know it's certainly larger than an invisible man waving his invisible hands and creating everything. Especially considering the evidence in favor of the idea that the universe is at expanding. And how can we possibly know that? As far as I know, we don't have any evidence that the universe is expanding. Quote: Quote: And then think about the chances of a planet perfectly suited for human life, and then having life appear on this specific planet? Really, all you needed was life. Everything that followed, including humans, was just evolution. And considering the amount of matter in the universe and how much time it was given, I don't consider life to be too much of a stretch. But how did it just happen to appear on the one planet perfect to support that kind of life? There's just too much left to coincidence. Are you saying that all of this happened purely by coincidence? Quote: Quote: Quote: It's unnecessary. It isn't rational in the same way that saying a guitar makes a sound because when you pluck it small insects inside the string make sounds. Why can't it just be the guitar string? Who decides what is rational? The atheists who run the scientific community. They're so scared of having an all-powerful being who can see their deepest, darkest secrets, of having any moral responsibility whatsoever, that they will accept any other theory except that. Too bad for your argument that the majority of scientists believe in God. Too bad for yours that I said "atheists". See? (look above)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
