Posted on 05/03/2006 8:23:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Ah, first you and I talk about the movie 'Jezebel', and now we are using 'My Fair Lady'....working 2 movies into the Crevo debat...shall we try for 3?
. . . to be able to gather objective evidence . . .
The most objective evidence is to have the crime repeated exactly as it took place. This cannot and does not happen in a court of law. Shame on you for equating the practices of criminal justice with the certitude of the repeatable, testable claims of science. Organized matter that performs specific functions is repeatable and testable, and is often and easily traced to the natural undertakings of intelligent beings. The big bang is not.
Scared.....that there are actually folks such as these, raising children and voting...both of which, to me, require one to having a deep understanding of the issues involved...yet, as I said, this expains some of the behavior and actions of people I know in real life, and even some here on FR...so I would say, that I am not surprised...at least now I have a 'name', so to speak, which very nicely describes such behavior...
I tried the javascript version from the link off of Wikipedia. The following is a real conversation:
* ID should not be taught in school
> Say, do you have any psychological problems?
* Yes, his name is Fester
> Names don't interest me.
* Me either what are you doing later?
> Perhaps in your fantasies I am doing later?
* So tell me is ID science or not
> Come, come, elucidate your thoughts.
* ID is faith based
> What does that suggest to you?
* it should not be taught in school
> Say, do you have any psychological problems?
ID is a peripheral, tentative, general approach to science. Science can, has, and does operate very well under the assumption that an intelligent designer is behind those things science investigates. There is no need to introduce it as a special topic or even give it a chapter in science books, although this should certainly not be prohibted by law. All the hubbub we are witnessing is over a tentative, yet reasonable, proposal regarding the bigger picture we all enjoy as observers.
Why are you trying to change this thread into a gay agenda thread? Would it not be more useful to bring arguments for or against ID to the debate?
When? What subject does that? Quantum Mechanics? Particle Physics? Volcanology? Meteorology?
Because we were intelligently designed to apply our reason and senses to the world we live in. That does not negate the problem of testing, i.e. recreating in a scientific context, the big bang and all the history that has ensued. We all apply our reason to infer from the evidence what that history is about. Empirical science, as far as I am concerned, is about the here and now; what can be seen by the eyeballs as it happens. Since we are creatures of history, we are bound to make extrapolations, and are limited to our experiences. That makes for a particularly tenuous, tentative arrangement when it comes to declaring what is, was, and ever shall be.
All of them can work under this assumption. It is merely a backdrop, just as no author of a book needs to have his name mentioned in every sentence.
You said all of them did work... not can
Don't you think you should ask the scientists who study in those fields if they agree first?
Now try answering my question instead of creating a fantasy. You are most certainly not dealing with an Eliza program in my case, and you know it.
You know, this reminds me of the brother of a friend of mine...the brother had a low IQ...not severely low, because he was able to hold down a job, which was created in a company, which created a whole range of special jobs, for people who had very low IQs...these people were able to work quite effectively at these jobs, they were able to earn a salary, and also found themselves with friends, true friends with whom they could relate...
What always struck me as so impressive about this man, was that in spite of his very low IQ(I believe he was categorized as retarded), he was able to carry on meaningful conversations with people of normal to high IQs...yet, when I think back on it, I realize that perhaps what he was doing, was in effect, using the Eliza principle, in his ways of dealing with other people...he did seem to pick up on certain 'key' words, and zeroed in on them, without actually understanding the context in which those words were being used...to the casual observer, it would appear that he was able to carry on a normal conversation, and understand all that was being discussed...tho most people of normal IQ did realize within a very short time frame, that this young man, tho seeming to verbalize quite well, did not quite understand what anyone was actually talking about...
Please understand...I am in no way, saying anything bad about people with low IQs...to the contrary, what I am saying, is that the explanation of 'Eliza', does indeed indicate to me, how this young man was able to overcome any problems that his low IQ might bring to him, regarding conversation with those of normal IQ
This is very interesting to me...
Duh...and I was too dense to catch on...shame on me...
And just which tests are these?
"Organized matter that performs specific functions is repeatable and testable, and is often and easily traced to the natural undertakings of intelligent beings"
Please supply some examples of "organized matter that performs specific functions" that is not the result of human action.
By the way since ID isn't faith based... how come only "one" Intelligent Designer? What proof is there that there is only one? Why not two? Why not 42??
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.