Automotive Fish Wars

[kevinthenerd]

There's the original Christian fish. Then there's the Darwin fish. Then everybody else came up with their own fish, like this one I saw today:

http://i51.photobucket.com/albums/f360/kevinthenerd/darwin.jpg

With all the fish on the back of people's cars, I was beginning to wonder... are there any fish that support INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

 

[xanis]

Why would anyone want to stick one of those stupid fishes on the back of their cars anyhow?

 

[BatmanNate]

There's an FSM fish.

 

[JulesMaximus]

I have this one on my car. It PWNS all other fish!!!

 

[shimsham]

oh yeah? can darwin explain this?

 

[kevinthenerd]

What's FSM all about anyway? Is that some kind of underground slashdot thing I don't know about (again)?

 

[BatmanNate]

Text

 

[Heisenberg]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
With all the fish on the back of people's cars, I was beginning to wonder... are there any fish that support INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

That would be the Christian fish...

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: Heisenberg

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
With all the fish on the back of people's cars, I was beginning to wonder... are there any fish that support INTELLIGENT DESIGN?

That would be the Christian fish...

That doesn't specifically support intelligent design. Many people with those on their cars support creationism, which is an entirely different theory.

I believe that the Big Bang happened with evolution and all that stuff, but unlike many atheist scientists, I believe it all happened for a reason and with a plan.

 

[nakedfrog]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
That doesn't specifically support intelligent design. Many people with those on their cars support creationism, which is an entirely different theory.

I believe that the Big Bang happened with evolution and all that stuff, but unlike many atheist scientists, I believe it all happened for a reason and with a plan.

I would hardly call ID "entirely different" than creationism. Creationism is a form of ID, it just provided specifics on who the designer was.

 

[jagec]

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
That doesn't specifically support intelligent design. Many people with those on their cars support creationism, which is an entirely different theory.

I believe that the Big Bang happened with evolution and all that stuff, but unlike many atheist scientists, I believe it all happened for a reason and with a plan.

I would hardly call ID "entirely different" than creationism. Creationism is a form of ID, it just provided specifics on who the designer was.

No...ID and creationism both believe that God created the world. The difference is in method...in ID, God created the world through evolution, in creationism, it's the Genesis account.

 

[erikistired]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I have this one on my car. It PWNS all other fish!!!

now i have to order one of the pirate fish. damn you.

 

[BatmanNate]

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
That doesn't specifically support intelligent design. Many people with those on their cars support creationism, which is an entirely different theory.

I believe that the Big Bang happened with evolution and all that stuff, but unlike many atheist scientists, I believe it all happened for a reason and with a plan.

I would hardly call ID "entirely different" than creationism. Creationism is a form of ID, it just provided specifics on who the designer was.

No...ID and creationism both believe that God created the world. The difference is in method...in ID, God created the world through evolution, in creationism, it's the Genesis account.

Regardless, neither of them have any scientific support, hence they don't belong in a science classroom, hence the FSM. Entropy is a compelling enough case for God, as Stephen Hawking pointed out.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: BatmanNate

Originally posted by: jagec

Originally posted by: nakedfrog

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
That doesn't specifically support intelligent design. Many people with those on their cars support creationism, which is an entirely different theory.

I believe that the Big Bang happened with evolution and all that stuff, but unlike many atheist scientists, I believe it all happened for a reason and with a plan.

I would hardly call ID "entirely different" than creationism. Creationism is a form of ID, it just provided specifics on who the designer was.

No...ID and creationism both believe that God created the world. The difference is in method...in ID, God created the world through evolution, in creationism, it's the Genesis account.

Regardless, neither of them have any scientific support, hence they don't belong in a science classroom, hence the FSM. Entropy is a compelling enough case for God, as Stephen Hawking pointed out.

I don't care if my personal beliefs, unfounded in evidence observable with the five senses alone, don't fit in a scientific classroom. I'm not teaching science, and if I ever did, I wouldn't force my beliefs on others (unless I was teaching in a Catholic school where I was expected to).

Intelligent design has no conflict with the standard evolutionary account of the world. It only goes one step further to say that God intended the whole thing to happen. While I can't prove this to you, you can't prove it wrong.

 

[davestar]

my favorite car decorations are the "Satan" fish and "Dinner" fish

 

[davestar]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
Intelligent design has no conflict with the standard evolutionary account of the world. It only goes one step further to say that God intended the whole thing to happen. While I can't prove this to you, you can't prove it wrong.

No. The problem with ID is that the theory was created to serve a purpose - to implant God in biological discussion. A true scientific theory would collect data without bias and form a hypothesis to fit the data. Inserting God into the equation violates Occam's Razor.

 

[TheTony]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
Intelligent design has no conflict with the standard evolutionary account of the world. It only goes one step further to say that God intended the whole thing to happen. While I can't prove this to you, you can't prove it wrong.

Your understanding of intelligent design and evolution doesn't quite reflect the widely accepted definitions of them, then. That said, there's nothing wrong with your POV - it's just doesn't fall under their definitions.

creationism + evolution != intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".

Evolution is natural selection.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: TheTony

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
Intelligent design has no conflict with the standard evolutionary account of the world. It only goes one step further to say that God intended the whole thing to happen. While I can't prove this to you, you can't prove it wrong.

Your understanding of intelligent design and evolution doesn't quite reflect the widely accepted definitions of them, then. That said, there's nothing wrong with your POV - it's just doesn't fall under their definitions.

creationism + evolution != intelligent design

Intelligent design (ID) is the concept that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection".

Evolution is natural selection.

I can quote Wikipedia too....
"Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se."

To me, evolution is one of those "intelligent causes."

While I may not be in full agreement with the original proponents of ID, I can still claim it as my own because I find certain pieces of this universe to be far too improbable to be random.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
Intelligent design has no conflict with the standard evolutionary account of the world. It only goes one step further to say that God intended the whole thing to happen. While I can't prove this to you, you can't prove it wrong.

No. The problem with ID is that the theory was created to serve a purpose - to implant God in biological discussion. A true scientific theory would collect data without bias and form a hypothesis to fit the data. Inserting God into the equation violates Occam's Razor.

I love how you use Occam's Razor to prove that God doesn't exist. Didn't you know that William of Ockham was a friar? He was in the Order of Friars Minor to be exact. (I've met a lot of Franciscans myself.) You might have been better off calling it the Law of Parsimony, which is the more accepted term among atheists for trying to disprove God. (I've met plenty of you.)

The theory was not created to serve a purpose. It's just that God-fearing people see things that atheists don't. People are more than just machines with five senses. If you accept that, you'll see why. You won't see the evidence until you start to believe it. It's funny like that. You have emotions, and you draw conclusions from things that are only BASED on the five senses, yet you deny the existence of a universal LOGIC that you use every day to base your scientific observations. Logic is only a remnant of an intelligent creator... the ashes of the fires of Creation.

What is a circle? What is a square? These things don't exist in the world. Numbers don't exist in the world. These "mathematicals" (as Plato called them) are the halfway point between the material and the eternal. Are you going to tell me that circles don't exist, even though they can't be observed with the five senses? (Be careful here: you can see objects that are SHAPED like circles, but nothing is truly a circle in and of itself. All objects have mass and volume, but a circle is a locus of points, and a circle has no volume.)

 

[kevinthenerd]

THE FISH PEOPLE! NO ID FISH?

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: JulesMaximus
I have this one on my car. It PWNS all other fish!!!

Loses all the impact with Darwin right next to it. :thumbsdown:

 

[TheTony]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
I can quote Wikipedia too....
"Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se."

To me, evolution is one of those "intelligent causes."

While I may not be in full agreement with the original proponents of ID, I can still claim it as my own because I find certain pieces of this universe to be far too improbable to be random.

Yes, but you fail to see that that is not intelligent design. The things you agree with inherently contradict.

You're more than entitled to your view. But to take both and call them your own while changing their meaning to suit your view makes them no longer what they're defined to be. To represent them as such is simply misleading.

I don't see a problem with accepting both creation and evolution - neither exclude the other. Intelligent design, however, does reject one for the other. If you appreciate concepts and beliefs of both, then that is what it is - why rename it to fit you in with one side? Or is there something more to it? The fact is, you represented Intelligent design as "dovetailing" with evolution. It, in fact, in its basic premise rejects the idea of evolution.

Not that that matters, though, right? Cause you said so...

edit: I wasn't quoting wikipedia. > ID link

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd

Originally posted by: davestar

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
Intelligent design has no conflict with the standard evolutionary account of the world. It only goes one step further to say that God intended the whole thing to happen. While I can't prove this to you, you can't prove it wrong.

No. The problem with ID is that the theory was created to serve a purpose - to implant God in biological discussion. A true scientific theory would collect data without bias and form a hypothesis to fit the data. Inserting God into the equation violates Occam's Razor.

I love how you use Occam's Razor to prove that God doesn't exist. Didn't you know that William of Ockham was a friar? He was in the Order of Friars Minor to be exact. (I've met a lot of Franciscans myself.) You might have been better off calling it the Law of Parsimony, which is the more accepted term among atheists for trying to disprove God. (I've met plenty of you.)

The theory was not created to serve a purpose. It's just that God-fearing people see things that atheists don't. People are more than just machines with five senses. If you accept that, you'll see why. You won't see the evidence until you start to believe it. It's funny like that. You have emotions, and you draw conclusions from things that are only BASED on the five senses, yet you deny the existence of a universal LOGIC that you use every day to base your scientific observations. Logic is only a remnant of an intelligent creator... the ashes of the fires of Creation.

What is a circle? What is a square? These things don't exist in the world. Numbers don't exist in the world. These "mathematicals" (as Plato called them) are the halfway point between the material and the eternal. Are you going to tell me that circles don't exist, even though they can't be observed with the five senses? (Be careful here: you can see objects that are SHAPED like circles, but nothing is truly a circle in and of itself. All objects have mass and volume, but a circle is a locus of points, and a circle has no volume.)

Holy Post-of-the-frickin-year, Batman!

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: TheTony

Originally posted by: kevinthenerd
I can quote Wikipedia too....
"Note that intelligent design studies the effects of intelligent causes and not intelligent causes per se."

To me, evolution is one of those "intelligent causes."

While I may not be in full agreement with the original proponents of ID, I can still claim it as my own because I find certain pieces of this universe to be far too improbable to be random.

Yes, but you fail to see that that is not intelligent design. The things you agree with inherently contradict.

You're more than entitled to your view. But to take both and call them your own while changing their meaning to suit your view makes them no longer what they're defined to be. To represent them as such is simply misleading.

I don't see a problem with accepting both creation and evolution - neither exclude the other. Intelligent design, however, does reject one for the other. If you appreciate concepts and beliefs of both, then that is what it is - why rename it to fit you in with one side? Or is there something more to it? The fact is, you represented Intelligent design as "dovetailing" with evolution. It, in fact, in its basic premise rejects the idea of evolution.

Not that that matters, though, right? Cause you said so...

edit: I wasn't quoting wikipedia. > ID link

That's a good link.

I explained my viewpoint in full to several people who told me that what I believe can be classified as Intelligent Design. Thank you for correcting me. From the looks of things, these guys have some other crap up their sleeve, and it seems they want to use the whole thing as a vehicle to slip creationism in the public classroom. Unlike these guys, I don't think this stuff can be called science whatsoever.

 

[kevinthenerd]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor
Holy Post-of-the-frickin-year, Batman!

I'm sorry. I get frustrated about this stuff because, without proof based in the five senses, I can never get people to understand where I'm coming from. I think at least half of the world's problems could be solved if everybody would just sit down and resolve their philosophical and ideological differences. Facts are easy to prove, but it's ideology that tells you where to go with them.