DrAwkward wrote:The intelligent design debate is a fun one to have...in a philosophy classroom. Not in a science classroom. The end.

Seriously, this thread could have ended there.

The only reason it continues is because people are using one word to mean two different things. Most people in the thread have one understanding of what "science" means, one person has another understanding. It's ludicrous to think either side will agree to, or even come to understand, the other's definition, so the thread will continue for 15 pages of banging-heads-against-walls. I've been there.

Skronk wrote: Science's place isn't to simply exclude, but ID wouldn't even fall into that category, i.e. be in the position to be excluded, because it's not science.

Yes. This is key. There are exactly two things you need to know in order to correctly conclude that ID is not science: (1) what ID is, and (2) what the word "science" means.

Bob wrote:The atheists do not understand the limits of existing science....
...
The atheists know they have no scientific explanation for original matter, but lie and say that they do.

Atheists, as a group, have exactly one thing in common, and neither of these is it.

Rick Reuben wrote:The atheists have no scientific explanation for original matter, but lie and say that they know what isn't a scientific explanation.

"The atheists." This is a straw man. Unless, Rick, you have some sort of documented respectable academic journal that claims it has come up with a scientific explanation?

Rick, here's a great way for you to win all your arguments: start up a Rick Reuben Drinking Game. Everyone does a shot whenever you use the phrase "sellout liberals" or say the word "atheists." That way everyone else will be so totally knackered after two posts that they won't notice your straw men anymore and your only job will be to respond to posts largely consisting of "kjasdhfkjhdsajghasrty3475c1=nj."

Rick Reuben wrote:

DrAwkward wrote: i have never heard any scientist posit a theory regarding where the matter in the big bang originated.

*Both* existing science and the creationists are out of their depth when attempting to explain original matter. The question here ( for most of us ) is not what we do or do not know. The question is this: who can admit what they do not know? Atheists cling to an indefensible position. They clearly do not know the answers to many questions, and yet they want the right to decide what answers are allowed to be explored.

So this whole thread has just been about atheism vs. agnosticism?

Christ.

Then call it that, eh?

Rick Reuben wrote:All existing theories for original matter are too reliant on speculation and unverifiable conclusions to be categorized as 'scientific', including the theories mislabeled as scientific by the arrogant atheists.

Says you. What you fail to accept is that just because you say so does not make it so. Science says that their existing theories and conclusions are scientific. Science gave the world the computers we are typing on. You have given the world nothing.

I stand with science.

Rick Reuben wrote:There. Do you see the disagreement?

The "disagreement" stems from your refusal to accept the common definition of "science".

Rick Reuben wrote:Rick Reuben knows he has no scientific explanation for original matter, and admits it.

The atheists have no scientific explanation for original matter, but lie and say that they know what isn't a scientific explanation.

Keep on setting up those straw men and knocking them down, Rick. We never tire of watching you do that.

Again, for the 134th time, any "theory" which can not be conclusively proven through experimentation or conclusively demonstrated by observable material evidence is not scientific, all your characterizations of "atheists", "elites", "bankers", "Zionists", "sellout liberals", "angels" or "trolls" notwithstanding.

DrAwkward wrote:So this whole thread has just been about atheism vs. agnosticism?

This agnostic atheist calls "false dichotomy"!

Can we say "agnosticism vs. atheist anagnosticism"?

("Gnosticism" is already a word and it means something else.)

Rick Reuben wrote:

steve wrote:Since creationism is an article of faith among those who believe in it, nothing can ever demonstrate enough for them that it has failed. They believe it not just despite the lack of evidence, but because of the lack of evidence.

And you believe it *could not* be so, also based on the same lack of evidence. You are making an opposite faith-based judgement, based on the same lack of evidence.

Nonsense. I've already said that it could be so. It's just unlikely and ridiculous. It takes no faith to understand that some things have evidence in their favor, like the march of speciation through time in the fossil record or the likely origin of matter (please google Casimir effect for demonstration of matter popping into existence in a vacuum through quantum fluctutation), and some things have only mythology -- guy in a robe clapped his hands and said "behold."

Creationism requires belief beyond and despite all evidence. It requires belief in magic.

Linus Van Pelt wrote:This agnostic atheist calls "false dichotomy"!

I'll add that to the list of Rick Reuben's Favorite Logical Fallacies.

Rick, could you please point me to where some atheist "scientist" has offered a theory about the origin of original matter? Still waiting for a link or something.

Rick Reuben wrote:There are exactly two things you need to know in order to correctly conclude that current explanations offered by science for original matter are not scientific: (1), what original matter was, and (2), what the word 'science' means.

Maybe. Since I don't know what original matter was, I guess I can't correctly conclude that current explanations offered by science for original matter are not scientific.

It seems to me that if you know (1) what those explanations are, and (2) what the word "science" means, that would be also sufficient knowledge to declare those explanations unscientific. I don't really know (1) what those explanations are, but I don't have to, because I'm not claiming they are or are not scientific.

What are we accomplishing with all this?

It's just stupid.

I'm off to peruse the Tech Room and Crap/Not Crap.