Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Silat on November 08, 2005, 08:35:45 PM
-
http://www.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/index.html
WTG REPS>>>All six of those who voted for the new standards were Republicans. Two Republicans and two Democrats voted no.
-
My favorite part, they also legislate that they don't have to use science to explain things, they can say magic if they want.
-
No matter what is taught in the classroom, some of it will not be acceptable to the parents of students; sex, politics, religion, creation, and numerous others.
It is impossible to legislate every aspect that can be covered in a classroom.
Oh, and I almost forgot... BOTH sides (liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats) are miserable individuals that want to stifle independent thought that does not closely resemble their own.
-
As long as they don't outlaw common sense, flying pigs don't stand a chance.
-
Evolution does not need to be protected from other theories.
It should be able to stand on its own, why do you guys fear an alternative being taught next to it?
(I am not a creationist BTW)
-
Originally posted by Delirium
No matter what is taught in the classroom, some of it will not be acceptable to the parents of students; sex, politics, religion, creation, and numerous others.
It is impossible to legislate every aspect that can be covered in a classroom.
Oh, and I almost forgot... BOTH sides (liberals and conservatives, Republicans and Democrats) are miserable individuals that want to stifle independent thought that does not closely resemble their own.
True enough Del. But this is RepFanaticChristians that are doing this.
-
Evolution is not a proven fact, so it shouldn't be taught as the only possibility.
To support Evolution, you almost have to support an array of things like:
1. all matter exploded out of nothing and created itself and the universe. (how scientific is this?)
2. the earth formed, and by pure chance, an evironment formed which could sustain life
3. life forms at random and just happens to have a waiting environment which can sustain it and feed it.
4. life not only survives, but has the means to reproduce itself and eventually evolve into humans. If the first life form had died before reproducing, that would mean that a different life form came into existance at another time, then was able to survive and reproduce.
What are the odds that,
a. the first life form survived and reproduced?
b. multiple life forms kept popping into existance until one was lucky enough to survice, then reproduce?
Sorry, but the giant leaps of faith needed to believe that the perfect chain of miraculous events all happened in order for humans and life to exist is just as good as saying it was all magic.
I believe evolution has happened within species, but that's it. No way do I believe that life formed by itself and morphed into humans and everything else.
Intelligent design is just as viable an angle for pursuing answers to these events, and it should be taught. Evolution and the big bang cannot be explained by any science. The big bang defies the "laws" of physics that are being taught.
An intelligent creator is just as viable a scenario as saying that all matter created itself out of nothing, then exploded and became what is now our universe and all life within it.
-
ID just smacks of anthropomorphism and argument from ignorance, but that's just my instinct.
What matters is advancement, to advance you need predictability, to predict you need understanding, and to me ID seems to just black-box a lot of things.
-
Intelligent design is not a proven fact.
-
Nuke, where's the credibility and use of admiting something you cannot prove?
-
Originally posted by moot
Nuke, where's the credibility and use of admiting something you cannot prove?
exactly.
-
There's something fishy about ID and I can't prove it yet, but since you're an old branch anyway, you won't mind me taking my time to figure it out before getting back to you.. :D
-
Originally posted by moot
ID just smacks of anthropomorphism and argument from ignorance, but that's just my instinct.
What matters is advancement, to advance you need predictability, to predict you need understanding, and to me ID seems to just black-box a lot of things.
Okay, lets start with the big bang, because this is the ultimate starting point for the origins of life.
Science teaches that all of the matter/energy in the universe was gathered at one infinatey small, infinate mass point refered to as the sigularity. It one day exploded and formed into our universe.
Now where did this energy or matter come from? Any scientific answer? Even a hint of a clue by science? There are only two possibilities for the origin of matter.
1. it created itself from nothing
2. something created it.
3. it always existed
See anything wrong so far?
Seems like some people take great comfort in a scientific answer, yet there isn't one. There's not even a basis for an explanation. The laws of physics are ignored.
People have no problem thinking that all the matter in the universe exploded into existance from nothing one day, yet have the gall to tell others, who leave open the possibility of a supreme intelligence, that they are being ignorant.
-
Some experts in theology disagree. (http://www.news.com.au/story/0,10117,17162341-13762,00.html)
-
We don't have to go even that far.
Leaps of faith aren't invalid. But they aren't valid either, as far as said advance is concerned, because they aren't rational. If they aren't rational, they can't be predicted, etc.
ID feels like a leap of faith to me, but I'm not done thinking and reading to conclude that yet.
-
ID is just creationism, anyone who says otherwise is either fooling themselves or being deliberately disingenuos.
It's an effort to remove science and replace it with religion in public schools, and a disgrace.
-
“During the youthful period of mankind's spiritual evolution human fantasy created gods in man's own image, who, by the operations of their will were supposed to determine, or at any rate to influence, the phenomenal world. Man sought to alter the disposition of these gods in his own favor by means of magic and prayer. The idea of God in the religions taught at present is a sublimation of that old concept of the gods. Its anthropomorphic character is shown, for instance, by the fact that men appeal to the Divine Being in prayers and plead for the fulfillment of their wishes.
“Nobody, certainly, will deny that the idea of the existence of an omnipotent, just, and omnibeneficent personal God is able to accord man solace, help, and guidance; also, by virtue of its simplicity it is accessible to the most undeveloped mind. But, on the other hand, there are decisive weaknesses attached to this idea in itself, which have been painfully felt since the beginning of history. That is, if this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?
“The main source of the present-day conflicts between the spheres of religion and of science lies in this concept of a personal God. It is the aim of science to establish general rules which determine the reciprocal connection of objects and events in time and space. For these rules, or laws of nature, absolutely general validity is required—not proven. It is mainly a program, and faith in the possibility of its accomplishment in principle is only founded on partial successes. But hardly anyone could be found who would deny these partial successes and ascribe them to human self-deception. The fact that on the basis of such laws we are able to predict the temporal behavior of phenomena in certain domains with great precision and certainty is deeply embedded in the consciousness of the modern man, even though he may have grasped very little of the contents of those laws. He need only consider that planetary courses within the solar system may be calculated in advance with great exactitude on the basis of a limited number of simple laws. In a similar way, though not with the same precision, it is possible to calculate in advance the mode of operation of an electric motor, a transmission system, or of a wireless apparatus, even when dealing with a novel development.
“To be sure, when the number of factors coming into play in a phenomenological complex is too large, scientific method in most cases fails us. One need only think of the weather, in which case prediction even for a few days ahead is impossible. Nevertheless no one doubts that we are confronted with a causal connection whose causal components are in the main known to us. Occurrences in this domain are beyond the reach of exact prediction because of the variety of factors in operation, not because of any lack of order in nature.
“We have penetrated far less deeply into the regularities obtaining within the realm of living things, but deeply enough nevertheless to sense at least the rule of fixed necessity. One need only think of the systematic order in heredity, and in the effect of poisons, as for instance alcohol, on the behavior of organic beings. What is still lacking here is a grasp of connections of profound generality, but not a knowledge of order in itself.
“The more a man is imbued with the ordered regularity of all events the firmer becomes his conviction that there is no room left by the side of this ordered regularity for causes of a different nature. For him neither the rule of human nor the rule of divine will exists as an independent cause of natural events. To be sure, the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted, in the real sense, by science, for this doctrine can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot.
“But I am persuaded that such behavior on the part of the representatives of religion would not only be unworthy but also fatal. For a doctrine which is able to maintain itself not in clear light but only in the dark, will of necessity lose its effect on mankind, with incalculable harm to human progress. In their struggle for the ethical good, teachers of religion must have the stature to give up the doctrine of a personal God, that is, give up that source of fear and hope which in the past placed such vast power in the hands of priests. In their labors they will have to avail themselves of those forces which are capable of cultivating the Good, the True, and the Beautiful in humanity itself. This is, to be sure, a more difficult but an incomparably more worthy task.”
Albert Einstein, Science, Philosophy, and Religion, A 1934 Symposium published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941; from Einstein's Out of My Later Years, Westport, Connecticut: Greenwood Press, 1970, pp. 26-29.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
ID is just creationism, anyone who says otherwise is either fooling themselves or being deliberately disingenuos.
It's an effort to remove science and replace it with religion in public schools, and a disgrace.
I view evolution and the big bang to be illogical and opposed to what is being taught about physics and science.
The fact is that it is just as logical to seek answers based on a supreme intelligence as it is to cling to the idea that all the matter in the universe exploded into existance from nothing and created life.
-
You smarter than Einstein, Nuke?
-
(http://kevinremde.members.winisp.net/images/beating_2Da_2Ddead_2Dhorse.gif)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
You smarter than Einstein, Nuke?
probably not. Einstein believed in a supreme intelligence and said so several times though.
-
I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you really believe that. I'll assume good faith and decide that it must be the latter, though it boggles my mind.
Of course... this ruling also rules that anything that's too "hard" to understand can be considered the result of magic. The decision of religious folks to decide that quantum mechanics is too hard to understand is fine. It's natural. But deciding that since THEY can't understand it means that it must just be false...
That's like ruling that pi=3.
Oh wait. That happened too. In Indiana. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
-
Hey Sandman, don't you find it a little ironic that people who absolutley believe that all matter exploded into existance on it's own one fine day and created the universe and all life, have a problem with even the chance that it could have been the work of a creator?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Einstein believed in a supreme intelligence and said so several times though.
Bull****.
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.
-
Hang, I can come up with at least 4 quotes that Einstein made on the subject.
Eienstein did not believe in a "personal" god and stated that several times. He believed that the supreme intelligence behind the universe did not care for humans on a personal level.
He even wrote an essay on the futility of prayer. He believed that the universe was the work of a supreme intelligence though.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you really believe that. I'll assume good faith and decide that it must be the latter, though it boggles my mind.
Of course... this ruling also rules that anything that's too "hard" to understand can be considered the result of magic. The decision of religious folks to decide that quantum mechanics is too hard to understand is fine. It's natural. But deciding that since THEY can't understand it means that it must just be false...
That's like ruling that pi=3.
Oh wait. That happened too. In Indiana. http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_341.html
Chairboy, maybe you are the one who has trouble understanding. Ever have a mind open enough to think that perhapse you don't undertand?
Can you explain the existance of matter in laymens terms for me? How did it come into being?
-
Quite frankly, the burden of proof is not on me, because I'm not the guy saying a magic bearded guy made everything up because you don't understand quantum foam theory, so... no. I won't be your pet monkey, get your kicks elsewhere. We both know that you're not really interested in anything I have to say.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
(http://kevinremde.members.winisp.net/images/beating_2Da_2Ddead_2Dhorse.gif)
what he said. Why don't we argue over abortion, or WMDs, or swift boats, or riots/natural disasters? Those arguments allways bring out the loonies. These ones involve science and alot of thinking. Woa I need a nap.
-
Only a religious fanatic could read Einstein and come up with 'supreme intelligence'.
Or a troll.
Or both.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Quite frankly, the burden of proof is not on me, because I'm not the guy saying a magic bearded guy made everything up because you don't understand quantum foam theory, so... no. I won't be your pet monkey, get your kicks elsewhere. We both know that you're not really interested in anything I have to say.
I am interested.....intensley.
You seem to be stuck on a "magic beared guy". My position is that it is just as logical to be open to an intelligent creator as it is to believe in a random creator.
An intelligent creator seems more logical to me though, since everything in our universe follows logic, reason and laws rather than random events and chaos.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Only a religious fanatic could read Einstein and come up with 'supreme intelligence'.
Or a troll.
Or both.
You need to see some quotes? Einstein stated more than once that he believed in a supreme intelligence who was responsible for the universe.
And it is perfectly logical.
-
Nuke,
Not related directly to this but interesting: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clockmaker_hypothesis
For this discussion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bounce
This is one of the universe creation hypothesis that I'm studying right now. It might be wrong, but in the end, it's possible to find that out through experimentation, and that's good. The problem with religious creation stories is that they cannot be tested, they require faith and that makes them no more reliable than Flying Spaghettism.
-
I think the hardest thing for the human mind to admit or understand (which is evident by these debates), is that we don't know where we came from or where we are going. All prospects are a leap of faith.
-
Not true. Faith stops when experimentation can show answers. Something that religionists conveniently gloss over.
-
:lol What planet are you from?
Chairboy, I think he means it in a Cartesian sense..
As in, causality was never really proved, so everything "taken for granted by science" at the moment, is liable to change at any later moment.
And in that sense, science is a leap of faith, but to choose, at that scale of things, a knowingly irrational model over a rational one as a means of prediction is absurd.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Not true. Faith stops when experimentation can show answers. Something that religionists conveniently gloss over.
You cannot tell me one thing that science shows that absolutely proves evolution or the big bang. And you certainly cannot disprove creationism.
By the way, Moot is correct.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Not true. Faith stops when experimentation can show answers. Something that religionists conveniently gloss over.
My faith has never stopped when experimentation has shown answers. In fact, science verifies my faith. Nothing proven by science has ever contradicted my faith.
However, science has many unproven assumptions that are being taught s as being fact. The Big Bang and evolution are not supported by facts, yet are being taught as the *only* rational explanation for the existance of the universe and all life.
-
No Nuke, they're considered the *best* so far, it's a work in progress.
When you build your model planes, you tend towards a replication of the real thing, but in the mean time, they're a work in progress; you can't call one "Von Crash und Bangen's fw190" till all the details match the real one's.
But even then it won't be the real CuB fw190, just a scale model.
Likewise theories are just ideas, mime constructs in our model space.
ID is flawed even at that ideal level because of its irrationalities.
Whether a theory is crackpot or founded in facts and reasoning really doesn't matter, as long as it produces accurate predictions.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
My faith has never stopped when experimentation has shown answers. In fact, science verifies my faith. Nothing proven by science has ever contradicted my faith.
However, science has many unproven assumptions that are being taught s as being fact. The Big Bang and evolution are not supported by facts, yet are being taught as the *only* rational explanation for the existance of the universe and all life.
Every scientific discussion about the origin of life in the classroom should begin with, "we don't really know", or, "it's believed that".... To do otherwise is to turn science into a religion unto itself.
To adhere to the "invisible man in the sky" ideology is just as absurd as saying that the scientific explaination of how life came into existance as it is known right now is an absolute.
Better to admit that we don't really know and to strive for the answers.
-
ALthough I am a Christian, Iwould think anywhere in the universe where there is a tepid pool of water, that maintains a temp suitable to life as we know it, could produce lifeforms. Its all about time. With space, thats all there is. Is there a rock close to a star, in a proper orbit to maintain a suitable temperature? Well theres gotta be billions of rocks around stars..odds are theres gotta be a couple that do. Do any have water? If not, after enough time something containing water will likely hit it. Again..time.
The deep sea holds life no man had seen before deep sea tech came around. Why is it there? Maybe to keep man interested while hes here. Why limit it to this planet? Make other worlds we can explore. Maybe years ago in the time the bible was written, man was to dumb to understand the marvels we see today. So it was hidden. Now we know alot more about life and the universe than anyone back then did.
-
My view is that it is just as reasonable and logical to consider an intelligent creator as it is to consider any other option. That's it.
-
My view is that it's not reason nor logic. It's faith.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
My view is that it is just as reasonable and logical to consider an intelligent creator as it is to consider any other option. That's it.
That's called religion, not science.
That's what makes this terrible. This law mandates teaching religion in public schools.
No, that's not even the terrible part. The terrible part is that you honestly just don't get it. Since it's YOUR religion, you just don't see any problem with this and wish that people like me would go away.
Despicable, and tragic at the same time.
-
Pink Floyd already reunited, Pigs have flown.
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
That's called religion, not science.
That's what makes this terrible. This law mandates teaching religion in public schools.
No, that's not even the terrible part. The terrible part is that you honestly just don't get it. Since it's YOUR religion, you just don't see any problem with this and wish that people like me would go away.
Despicable, and tragic at the same time.
Chairboy, flawed science is your religeon. I have an open mind and you do not.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
My view is that it's not reason nor logic. It's faith.
so you have faith in the big bang theory?
-
I'm done with this, at least for tonight. I'm not going to dance for you any more.
-
We seem to have two choices:
1. all of the matter in the universe created iself out of nothing and at random one day (magic?)
2. all of the matter in the universe was created one day by an intelligent being ( magic?)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
That's called religion, not science.
That's what makes this terrible. This law mandates teaching religion in public schools.
No, that's not even the terrible part. The terrible part is that you honestly just don't get it. Since it's YOUR religion, you just don't see any problem with this and wish that people like me would go away. Despicable, and tragic at the same time.
Just what is my religion? I'd really like to know.
What I'm saying is that evolution and the big bang should not be taught as absolute fact (not saying they shouldn't be taught), because they aren't. In order to believe in the scientific THEORY of the origin of life takes an enormous leap of faith (do you understand that term?). No more of a leap of faith, in fact, than to believe in intelligent design.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I'm done with this, at least for tonight. I'm not going to dance for you any more.
You have not even danced. You cannot answer with logic or facts.
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
I'm done with this, at least for tonight. I'm not going to dance for you any more.
Of course you are. You cannot even answer the simplest of questions.
1. Name ONE thing that absolutely proves the scientific origin of life and the big bang.
2. Name ONE thing that absolutely disproves intelligent design.
You see, you adhere to just as much of a cultist religion as the "nut jobs" you make fun of.
-
It's a theory. Seems to be a good one with the information we have.
I'm not a scientist nor am I a theologian, but it seems to me that the biologists are quite content with the theory of evolution and don't worry overmuch about the big bang. It's not their discipline. Same goes for the big bang theorists. That problem is big enough without worrying about evolution as well.
As for the two positions, it seems that science is concerned with the "how" of it all. I believe religion should concern itself with "why".
Lastly, I don't believe that anything that science has discovered to date serves to deny the existence of God. Does what we know today shoot holes all through the Bible? Certainly, but we have to remember that the Bible was intended for simpler people during a simpler time. I don't believe for a second that it is literally true.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
Just what is my religion? I'd really like to know.
What I'm saying is that evolution and the big bang should not be taught as absolute fact (not saying they shouldn't be taught), because they aren't. In order to believe in the scientific THEORY of the origin of life takes an enormous leap of faith (do you understand that term?). No more of a leap of faith, in fact, than to believe in intelligent design.
Ahem... THEORY (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory)
-
The bible has nothing to do with my position regarding the universe and it's origin.
Students should be told and taught that evolution is just a theory, not a fact. They should be taught to think with open minds.
-
Sandman is my hero...
-
On one drug endused/drunken binge drinking/ wishing i could try peyote night the HIGHER POWER and i sat down and had a chat! he told me basiclly niether is wrong, and they both only saw 1/2 the story......and siad its the same thing between religons.... each only saw 1/2 (well or more, but never all) the True!
Evolution - is just things adapting.........(a natural occurance)
ID - is the same but i didnt adjust every thing.....but i wasnt the one making changes....
never was a big bang, there are alotta big bangs every where.... the universe is never ending and never had a stating point...........the only true starting point (in LIFE) is haveing a conscience!
Big bang - never
consnience - given
mental abilty to understand the consience - ID created!
or drugs and beers running thing now need to refeul so i can talk more with HP(no fool no Hewlet Pack.... Higher Power!)
BTW he said he didnt make just us,.... or our planet..... other expierements are all over the universe that he did, as well as expierements that his expieriments did too...........
(when the heck are we getting a spell checker):O :noid
-
Nuke every 100 (and 200 when it's the first of its discipline) level scientific class I've taken in Arizona either hints or briefly mentions it, or goes thru a long layman/bonehead speech on the implications of the material taught being a scientific theory.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The bible has nothing to do with my position regarding the universe and it's origin.
Students should be told and taught that evolution is just a theory, not a fact. They should be taught to think with open minds.
That's the problem with ID. It doesn't lead to an open mind. It's not even a theory. It's not testable, repeatable, nor observable.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
That's the problem with ID. It doesn't lead to an open mind. It's not even a theory. It's not testable, repeatable, nor observable.
Quite like the current theory of the origin of life.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
The bible has nothing to do with my position regarding the universe and it's origin.
Students should be told and taught that evolution is just a theory, not a fact. They should be taught to think with open minds.
Agree as well as ID , teach both sides...................then you got the athiests and the religous happy..................end of story.........
-
[Seagoon must learn, just quiet the crying child, don't check the AHBBS as well]
Too tired to post anything pithy on this subject (didn't we just go round this particular mulberry bush a month or two ago?)
Ah well, for those of you who want a view of what this decision actually does without the militant materialist spin...
Click Here (http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/index.php?command=view&id=3010&program=News&callingPage=discoMainPage)
(Yes, yes, I know, a think tank made up of philosophers, biochemists, Jews, non-religious individuals not pushing biblical creationism is actually a cover for radical rabid eee-van-jelly-cals to take over the school systems. Man, who is burning who at stake and squelching all theorems that question the reigning paradigm these days...)
Well, back to bed where I should have stayed.... Night all.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Skilless
Quite like the current theory of the origin of life.
Really. Show me the literature where science has claimed to have solved this particular riddle. At this stage, I think it's simply hypothesis.
-
This is all so bogus I don't know where to start :lol
Done for now.
-
Originally posted by moot
This is all so bogus I don't know where to start :lol
Done for now.
Yes, of course you are. The reality is that nothing is an absolute. Nothing is for sure. Nothing is real. Rather sobering isn't it?
-
I think the Intellignet Design supporters should try to relabel evolution as "Moronic Design".
Also it is ironic that both side of this debate steroetypicaly have exatly opposite view on economics.
Also I think the existence of both elevators & flatulence rules out Intelligent Design as being truly intelligent
-
Originally posted by Debonair
...Also I think the existence of both elevators & flatulence rules out Intelligent Design as being truly intelligent
LOL they aren't bugs, they are FEATURES!
-
I see nothing wrong with schools admitting that countless millions of people believe in ID and.....
Then going on to explain what the theory is.
lazs
-
Most on here seem to think that the big bang THEORY is fact, well those two terms contradict themselves as a THEORY is not and has not ever been fact. It's just that, a theory, someone's idea of what happen. It is taught in school that they don't know what happen but the most logical THEORY is that it exploded into something like we see today but has evolved over millions of years. Religion on the other hand says this book is correct and if you question it you burn in hell forever. Hmmmm which one seems more logical?
Nuke,
You kept offering a quote from Einstein yet you never provided it, could you?
-
The real point is... it doesn't matter if evolution is a fact or a theory. It is and always will be REFUTABLE. Science allows.... no it encourages refutation. Religion cannot have as a basic principle... "there might not be a God". That is why religion cannot be taught in science class.
-
You'll find that Nuke, when confronted for facts, becomes very obtuse... even when presented with iorn clad sources complete with footnotes on the subject, he dodges. (see my two footnoted einstein quotes on the subject up-thread)
Good luck. ;)
For my part, I aknowledge I can't comprehend the theory behind 'creation'.. on the other hand I can certainly accept that there's more than one possibility; and based on the thoughtful contemplation by the best brains ever fielded by humanity it's apparent that ID just religious inspired tripe being foisted off as 'scientific theory'.
-
Hello Midnight,
Originally posted by midnight Target
The real point is... it doesn't matter if evolution is a fact or a theory. It is and always will be REFUTABLE. Science allows.... no it encourages refutation. Religion cannot have as a basic principle... "there might not be a God". That is why religion cannot be taught in science class.
Evolution, as it is currently taught in most schools allows for and encourages no refutation, in fact several science teachers have been jumped on by the ACLU with both feet and at least one was fired when they began assigning articles from mainstream science journals showing the massive holes in the rapidly disintegrating Neo-Darwinist paradigm. How is someone pushing "religion" if they assign an article from say Scientific American showing that the transitional life-forms that Darwin and his followers had faith would be discovered just aren't there, or how the Finch Beaks in the Galapagos return to their normal size after the period of drought is gone, or how there is still no known chemical mechanism for creating the information contained in DNA.
What religion is ID exactly anyway? It shows that evolution, as a paradigm, can no longer "contain" the accumulated data especially in the fields of biochemistry and palentology, and that dogmatically clinging to it in spite of the rapidly accumulating evidence against it is actually a sign that most of the academy has embraced Neo-Darwinism as a religion and have become what Gould called "Neo-Darwinian Fundamentalists" and are philosophically (not scientifically) incapable of accepting change.
What ID proponents have managed to do is simply to make it possible that the old biology textbooks, filled with old and often discredited data will be supplemented by newer scientific material. They have not won the ability to teach Biblical creationism or even introduce the Bible, the Quran, or the Gilgamesh Epic.
As I've pointed out before, even if someone were to accept every proposal advanced by scientists who believe that there really is an irreducable biochemical and physical complexity to the universe and that just as 747s don't get put together by Tornados in the Junk Yard the mathematical odds against even the beginnings of life by spontaneous generation (especially now that we have much better data about the original gasses than Miller was working with) are so close to impossible as to be statistically the same, they wouldn't arrive at Christianity or the Bible.
To say or even conclude that the universe is created from scientific data teaches very little about the creator, it certainly tells us next to nothing about his will for his creation, how he is to be worshipped, whether he is the alone creator or if there are others, and so on. In fact, you can base a much more coherent religion (or anti-religion) on the writings of Darwin and Huxley.
- SEAGOON
-
there is still no known chemical mechanism for creating the information contained in DNA.
Didn't they just recently (within a few years) figure out how to map DNA, give it some more time and i'm sure they will find you more answers.
What ID proponents have managed to do is simply to make it possible that the old biology textbooks, filled with old and often discredited data will be supplemented by newer scientific material. They have not won the ability to teach Biblical creationism or even introduce the Bible, the Quran, or the Gilgamesh Epic.
You speak here of old and often discredited data yet you believe everything you read in a book that has never been updated (other than translation) and is well over 1000 years old. At least science books are updated ever year. Now if your school gets a new copy every year that is another debate.+
-
Without dipping too far back into this excercise of the mutual admiration society, an article of interest:
http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05313/603128.stm
The school board members that pushed the 'intelligent design' cruft into the curriculum have been voted out of their jobs. Good news for Kansas, and a loud message that idiot extremists can't always control the agenda.
-
First of all your 747 argument and all the others that point out the huge odds against something happening are just silly math. It happened. So the odds can't be that high. The odds of me talking to a guy named SEAGOON are 1 in 8,031,810,176. Wait a minute... there aren't that many people in the world.... Impossible!
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
First of all your 747 argument and all the others that point out the huge odds against something happening are just silly math. It happened. So the odds can't be that high. The odds of me talking to a guy named SEAGOON are 1 in 8,031,810,176. Wait a minute... there aren't that many people in the world.... Impossible!
In an infinate universe there are infinite possibilities. Including the possibility of intelligent design.
-
From CNN's online article this morning:
"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."here (http://edition.cnn.com/2005/EDUCATION/11/08/evolution.debate.ap/index.html)
I'm sure there are other references to this 'advance' in teaching science on the net if you find CNN objectionable as a source.
originally posted by Seagoon
What ID proponents have managed to do is simply to make it possible that the old biology textbooks, filled with old and often discredited data will be supplemented by newer scientific material
It seems to me these oats have already been through the horse.
asw
-
I just read the article Chairboy. Seems the ID proponents were ousted on a separation of church and state argument. There is nothing in our American constitution concerning separation of church and state, so I have to ask, where does this argument come from and more importantly, why does it have any traction in court ? I view this outcome as a great injustice not only to the ones who lost their jobs, but to the nation as a whole.
More to the point, why were they ousted on a separation of church and state argument and not on an argument that it is not science? And who's to say it's not science? ID sounds like deductive methodology. In deductive reasoning there is a hunch or insight to begin with (in this case a "creator"). This has nothing to do with religion or advancing a religious agenda. Their insight is that complex intricacies found in nature must have been designed by a creator, and they procede from that generalization to more specific details.
In my opinion, what we are seeing here is a rivalry between the inductive and deductive methods. Proponents of the two have always been at loggerheads, with inductive science mainly prefered by the empirical sciences as a matter of practicality, i.e. building and maintaining material things useful to man.
However in a science such as Biology, I would think the deductive method would be right at home, particularly when science concerns itself with seeking or explaining the origins of life. At that point there must be some philosophy involved. To discount the possibility of a creator is very unsound science if indeed philosophy has any place in science. To my thinking, if origins of life are to be discussed in a science (Biology) class, both camps must be allowed mention, or it is not scientific. To be even more scientific, Darwinian Evolution should be mentioned as outdated and for the most part no longer accepted as factual by modern scientists.
Les
-
[Oops, I inteded this as a reply to the "Pigs will fly thread"]
Here are some details of this decision that are most insane:
The measure’s language redefines “science” so that it’s not limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena.
Cool, we get to redifine science to include supernatural explanations of phenomina! I guess this means that witchcraft and ghost wispering get thrown into the science curriculum. I can see it now - a science class on using the Ouiji board. I'm sure this will sit well with the IDers. The supernatural rules!
The new standards say high school students must understand major evolutionary concepts. But they also declare that the basic Darwinian theory – that all life had a common origin and that natural chemical processes created the building blocks of life – have been challenged in recent years by fossil evidence and molecular biology.
They've been challenged in recent years?!?!
They've not credibly been challenged by any actual science (well, science according to the old definition).
This implies that all I have to do is present an unsubstantiated challenge to these idiots for it to be introduced as part of the science curriculum.
OK - I challenge the law of gravity. The Kansas state Educ. board now must require that we teach students that, in spite of all the evidence we have to the contrary, jumping off a 300ft building may not be fatal. Better yet, the board should just demonstrate it.
-
home school
-
Originally posted by Skilless
Quite like the current theory of the origin of life.
Skill that statement is absolutely untrue. Use google and you will find that you are wrong.
-
Originally posted by Silat
Skill that statement is absolutely untrue. Use google and you will find that you are wrong.
The Big Bang Theory is filled with phrases like "it's believed that" and "it's thought that" The difference between a theory and faith is that theorists believe and people of faith know.
So you're telling me you can google the mean of life now? Modern technology is something else!
-
the·o·ry ( P ) Pronunciation Key (th-r, thîr)
n. pl. the·o·ries
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
The branch of a science or art consisting of its explanatory statements, accepted principles, and methods of analysis, as opposed to practice: a fine musician who had never studied theory.
A set of theorems that constitute a systematic view of a branch of mathematics.
Abstract reasoning; speculation: a decision based on experience rather than theory.
A belief or principle that guides action or assists comprehension or judgment: staked out the house on the theory that criminals usually return to the scene of the crime.
An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
n.
Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief. See Synonyms at trust.
Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
often Faith Christianity. The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
A set of principles or beliefs.
Maybe it's just me, but I think you have your definitions crossed.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
You'll find that Nuke, when confronted for facts, becomes very obtuse... even when presented with iorn clad sources complete with footnotes on the subject, he dodges. (see my two footnoted einstein quotes on the subject up-thread)
Good luck. ;)
For my part, I aknowledge I can't comprehend the theory behind 'creation'.. on the other hand I can certainly accept that there's more than one possibility; and based on the thoughtful contemplation by the best brains ever fielded by humanity it's apparent that ID just religious inspired tripe being foisted off as 'scientific theory'.
What facts? Einstein explaned what he meant by a "personal " creator. He didn't believe in one. He said he was more in line with Spinoza's idea of a creator.
Einstein said that he believed a supreme intelligence was behind the creation of the universe. Just for you, I will dig up Einstiens quotes that back up what I am saying.
And the theory behind creation? Tell me what exactly you think created all the matter in the universe, then tell me how your version of "magic" is any more logical than believing that a supreme intelligence created all the matter. And saying a creator is not provable is being just as closed minded as saying that the only explanation is that it all exploded into existance at random and from nothing.
That's the funny thing to me and I alwayd get a kick out of people who bash others for even thinking about an intelligence behind the universe, but these same people will tell you that they believe the universe popped into existance out of nothing, and not even bat an eye. It's very ironic.
Science is fine by me and it compliments my beliefs. Science can step backwards to the big bang, and that's all fine and dandy. What I am talking about is the point at which science gives up and pretty much ignores......... where did it all come from?
And intelligent design and a creator does not have to mean religeon. All it means is that it's a viable and logical point of origin......just as logical as any other.
I think it's more logical to think that an itelligence created everything. The laws of physics don't change at random and things do not just pop into existance out of nothing. Everything has perfect order and obeys perfect laws. It's all too perfect.
-
check your PM Seagoon.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
First of all your 747 argument and all the others that point out the huge odds against something happening are just silly math. It happened. So the odds can't be that high. The odds of me talking to a guy named SEAGOON are 1 in 8,031,810,176. Wait a minute... there aren't that many people in the world.... Impossible!
If you are saying that you believe the odds are not that great that the entire universe exploded out of nothing, formed our planet, formed a life-friendly envirinment, then life popped into existance, then it seems like you would have no problem believing anything is possible, even an intelligent creator.
-
Nuke, again you dodge.. and then you muck rake.
Reconcile the two Einstein Qutoes I have above with 'Intelligent Design'.
Reconcile my "For my part, I aknowledge I can't comprehend the theory behind 'creation'.. on the other hand I can certainly accept that there's more than one possibility; and based on the thoughtful contemplation by the best brains ever fielded by humanity it's apparent that ID is just religious inspired tripe being foisted off as 'scientific theory'." with your:
That's the funny thing to me and I alwayd get a kick out of people who bash others for even thinking about an intelligence behind the universe, but these same people will tell you that they believe the universe popped into existance out of nothing, and not even bat an eye. It's very ironic.
You seem to think I've got to have an answer to the unknowable question in order to live my life... well, that may be YOUR circumstance, little man that needs a crutch, it sure ain't mine. Science does not, and will not EVER have ALL the answers to ALL the questions that crop up in life.. but yah know what, the data base is growing by leaps and bounds, the info keeps coming in, the big brains continue to chew the data. Maybe in the next 5,000 years science will have the answer to the biggie. I am certain of one thing.. it'll be science that'll either prove it or disprove it.
And my life is no less complete by not knowing the answer today.. and I sure as hell ain't gonna embrace ID over 'big bang' on the basis of 'since science can't explain it today, it must be ID'. I don't require a crutch to live my life, don't try and foist your prosthesis on me.
-
Hi Sandman,
Originally posted by Sandman
faith ( P ) Pronunciation Key (fth)
Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. [/i]
Not to split hairs, but while other religions may be fine with the above as part of their definition of faith (illogical, lacking in evidence), neither I nor the majority of Reformed theologians would accept it as part of a viable definition of the Christian faith.
Nothing is worse than quoting yourself, so I hope you'll forgive me, but as part of an essay on the subject of faith I wrote the following:
"Faith - Saving faith, the means by which Christ's righteousness is imputed to us and thus the means by which we are reconciled to God, has been described by theologians as being composed of three dynamic elements; Notitia (knowledge), Assensus (theoretical assent), and Fiducia (trust or practical assent).
By Notitia we refer to our knowledge of our faith. In order for us to have true saving faith, the content of that faith, must also be true. If we are merely sincere in our faith, but that which we believe in is false, then our faith is also false. This principle can be clearly seen in the fact that the world is literally filled with people who strongly and sincerely believe in certain things. They have a faith, for instance, in what Islam or Mormonism teaches. But if (as I believe) the intellectual content of these religions is false, so too the faith of their believers is also counterfeit. To make the example all the more clear (and I hope here that I am not bursting any personal bubbles) I can have a sincere faith in the Easter Bunny, but my faith is ultimately false because the content of my faith is untrue.
...
Christianity is not a religion of ignorance or superstition, it stands or falls on the validity of it's truth claims. The process of spreading the gospel involves more than merely the transmission of it's intellectual content, but it does not involve less." [On Saving Faith (http://www.providencepca.com/essays/savingfaith.html) ]
Paul makes this point very well when he said:
"And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up -- if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable." (1 Cor. 15:14-19)
Interestingly enough though, much of the content of Darwinian theory has been historically accepted without logical proof or material evidence. As Niles Eldridge, an invertebrate paleontologist put it:
"No wonder paleontologists shied away from evolution for so long. It never seems to happen. Assiduous collecting up cliff faces yield zigzags, minor oscillations, and the very occasional slight accumulation of change--over millions of years, at a rate too slow to account for all the prodigious change that has occurred in evolutionary history. When we do see the introduction of evolutionary novelty, it usually shows up with a bang, and often with no firm evidence that the fossils did not evolve elsewhere! Evolution cannot forever be going on somewhere else. Yet that's how the fossil record has struck many a forlorn paleontologist looking to learn something about evolution." [Niles Eldridge, The Great Debate at the High Table of Evolutionary Theory , p. 95]
But more on the faith of scientific materialists later...
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Nuke, again you dodge.. and then you muck rake.
Reconcile the two Einstein Qutoes I have above with 'Intelligent Design'.
Reconcile my "For my part, I aknowledge I can't comprehend the theory behind 'creation'.. on the other hand I can certainly accept that there's more than one possibility; and based on the thoughtful contemplation by the best brains ever fielded by humanity it's apparent that ID is just religious inspired tripe being foisted off as 'scientific theory'." with your:
You seem to think I've got to have an answer to the unknowable question in order to live my life... well, that may be YOUR circumstance, little man that needs a crutch, it sure ain't mine. Science does not, and will not EVER have ALL the answers to ALL the questions that crop up in life.. but yah know what, the data base is growing by leaps and bounds, the info keeps coming in, the big brains continue to chew the data. Maybe in the next 5,000 years science will have the answer to the biggie. I am certain of one thing.. it'll be science that'll either prove it or disprove it.
And my life is no less complete by not knowing the answer today.. and I sure as hell ain't gonna embrace ID over 'big bang' on the basis of 'since science can't explain it today, it must be ID'. I don't require a crutch to live my life, don't try and foist your prosthesis on me.
First of all, you seem frustrated and are attacking me personally. I have not once said anything about what you believe or how you should live your life.
I have not said anything about religion. The debate is about the origins of the universe and of life. In your quote, you have said that the idea of an intelligent creator is just religious tripe, so therefore you are only saying you have an open mind about it, when in reality you do not. That's what I get out of it.
No one is saying that anyone has the answers, I am saying that it's just as logical to view the universe as a product of an intelligent creator as it is to say it created itself out of nothing.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
If you are saying that you believe the odds are not that great that the entire universe exploded out of nothing, formed our planet, formed a life-friendly envirinment, then life popped into existance, then it seems like you would have no problem believing anything is possible, even an intelligent creator.
Unfortunately ... for the sake of your fingers and all that typing you did.... no, that's not what I'm saying.
-
Dinosaurs lived for billions of years on mother earth, compared to them
we humans exits just a fraction of a second and pigs will fly.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
The Big Bang Theory is filled with phrases like "it's believed that" and "it's thought that" The difference between a theory and faith is that theorists believe and people of faith know.
So you're telling me you can google the mean of life now? Modern technology is something else!
Skill get back to me when you find the definitions of what a theory is in the scientific community.
Religion has no relationship to scientific fact or theory. ID doesnt pass the test to make it even to the THEORY level.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
First of all, you seem frustrated and are attacking me personally. I have not once said anything about what you believe or how you should live your life.
I have not said anything about religion. The debate is about the origins of the universe and of life. In your quote, you have said that the idea of an intelligent creator is just religious tripe, so therefore you are only saying you have an open mind about it, when in reality you do not. That's what I get out of it.
No one is saying that anyone has the answers, I am saying that it's just as logical to view the universe as a product of an intelligent creator as it is to say it created itself out of nothing.
I think this is about whether matters of FAITH should be taught in science class NUKE.
:)
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Sandman,
Not to split hairs, but while other religions may be fine with the above as part of their definition of faith (illogical, lacking in evidence), neither I nor the majority of Reformed theologians would accept it as part of a viable definition of the Christian faith.
- SEAGOON
I'll bite. What evidence do you have?
-
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.
Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time.
At the heart of FAITH is absolutely no evidence.............
-
A theory is an educated guess developed to explain an unknown occurrence. An educated guess is an hypothesis drawn from the likelihood of an occurrence as related to similar known occurrences.
My point, which you apparently missed, is that to believe wholeheartedly that a scientific theory is fact, takes a certain leap of faith.
To have FAITH in a higher power means that the believer knows their convictions to be fact. (doesn't necessarily mean it is fact in either instance)
-
You all can believe and have all the faith you want. You can even have a sense of certainty about the origins of the universe.
Just keep that weak crap outta my kids science class.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
A theory is an educated guess developed to explain an unknown occurrence. An educated guess is an hypothesis drawn from the likelihood of an occurrence as related to similar known occurrences.
My point, which you apparently missed, is that to believe wholeheartedly that a scientific theory is fact, takes a certain leap of faith.
To have FAITH in a higher power means that the believer knows their convictions to be fact. (doesn't necessarily mean it is fact in either instance)
Perhaps the choices are Scientific Method vs Faith? As far as Faith is concerned, all the Facts are in. Science on the other hand continues to re-evaluate the evidence and postulate theory to accomodate the data.
Care to guess which program I think should be taught in science class?
-
Originally posted by Skilless
A theory is an educated guess developed to explain an unknown occurrence. An educated guess is an hypothesis drawn from the likelihood of an occurrence as related to similar known occurrences.
Don't confuse your definition of a theory with that of scientific theory.
Originally posted by Skilless
My point, which you apparently missed, is that to believe wholeheartedly that a scientific theory is fact, takes a certain leap of faith.
Scientific theory is not a fact but based on the facts. Nothing in science is absolute, for we can't know all about everything, therefore it's called theory. Even so, it does not requires faith but rather probability.
Originally posted by Skilless
To have FAITH in a higher power means that the believer knows their convictions to be fact.
Uhh, which facts? You mean something like: "God created people. There in fact are people, so there must be god"?
-
ID isn't science.
Some people have physics and metaphysics mixed up.
What's next to be taught after this? I don't mean to slippery slope, but what stops anything, say racism, to find its way into class?
Maybe mathematics' definition can be rewritten to not be limited to logic?
If it isn't rational thru and thru, the "facts" taught might as well come from an eight-ball.
-
Evolution is a scientific theory.
Intelligent design is a religous theory.
They should not be taught in the same class but in separate classes (one in science and one in religion). Teaching them in the same class or even comparing them is a victory for the fundamentalists who hold belief over knowlege.
-
If you consider ideas as a metaphor for viruses, ID is going to disappear as per Darwin. :lol
There really oughta be a basic or crashcourse philosophy class required the same way basic english comp is. I don't think it's a good idea to just ingest any religion without a neutral base of philosophy first.
-
I guess, as a feeble minded people, we prefer to perpetuate our own ignorance to our children. Becuase so many posters here have no concept of what science is, how can we expect them to support properly teaching it to our children?
A theory is an educated guess developed to explain an unknown occurrence. An educated guess is an hypothesis drawn from the likelihood of an occurrence as related to similar known occurrences.
Skilless, you must've been sleeping when the scientific method was taught to you - or maybe you went to school in Kansas. A scientific theory is not a guess of any kind. It is an explanation of a complex system that is supported by hard, cold, provable facts.
The Big Bang Theory is filled with phrases like "it's believed that" and "it's thought that" The difference between a theory and faith is that theorists believe and people of faith know.
The difference between scientific theory and faith is that scientific theory is supported by observable, provable facts.
You're faith may be 100% true, and worthy of being taught to everyone on the planet. That does not make it scientifically valid. You can put forth a hypothesis that may make perfectly rational sense and call that hypothisis anything you want - creation theory, intelligent design - but it is only an unsubstantiated hypothesis - NOT SCIENCE - until you can substatiate it with observable, testable, verifiable facts.
If we wish to advance technology and do things like feed the world, prevent disease, and expand our understanding of the universe, we need to seperate what we know to be true by faith from what we can establish as being true using science and understand the place each has in our lives.
Or, we could chose to regres and sit around in our own feces, wondering why we are getting sick and dying, and believing that the sun revolves around the earth.
I have not said anything about religion. The debate is about the origins of the universe and of life. In your quote, you have said that the idea of an intelligent creator is just religious tripe, so therefore you are only saying you have an open mind about it, when in reality you do not. That's what I get out of it.
The debate is about what should be taught as science in our schools. How about I concede that we should "properly teach the science of ID" in our schools?
By this, I mean we teach that there are people who believe in intellegent design, but that there is not one shred of scientific evidence to support this belief. That the basis of this belief is the biblical account combined with some gaps in what we can currently scientifically prove. We all know that taking a book on faith is not science. We also know, through our study of the scientific method that you do not prove a positive with a negative. Ergo, even though people believe in itelligent design, this belief has nothing to do with science, and this is a science class, so the issue is mute. Itelligent design may or may not be wrong, but it is absolutely wrong to consider it science. End of discussion of intelligent design is science class.
-
In my view, the Big Bang and evolution of species are fine. The problem I have is the point at which both theories break down and become nothing other than an ID style argument.
The Big bang breakes down at the point of origin for all the matter/energy. It's fine for explaining after the point of th explosion, but it does not cover the creation of the energy/matter in the first place. This point should be made and it should be noted that there really are only three logical explainations for the existance of matter
1. it always existed
2. it created itself
3. something created it.
The options are valid. The idea that an intelligence could have been responsible is not unscientific or illogical any more than the other two options are. If nobody knows, and no option can be proven or disproven, then at the very least they should all be presented as viable options.
-
waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle waffle..
egg.
Which came first?
the waffle or the egg?
I'll take mine with bacon.
Class dismissed.
-
Hello Silat,
Originally posted by Silat
At the heart of evolutionary theory is the basic idea that life has existed for billions of years and has changed over time.
Overwhelming evidence supports this fact. Scientists continue to argue about details of evolution, but the question of whether life has a long history or not was answered in the affirmative at least two centuries ago.
The history of living things is documented through multiple lines of evidence that converge to tell the story of life through time.
At the heart of FAITH is absolutely no evidence.............
I know that you an unshakeable belief in the truth of what you have written above Silat, but long before I became a Christian, when I was still a pagan and a believer in Darwinianism I began to have serious doubts about evolution simply from reading what was being written by palentologists and biochemists in popular scientific journals. Stephen Jay Gould in particular had a profound effect on me, because while he was an atheist and a materialist, he wasn't afraid to face the fact that there are insurmountable problems with Darwinian theory and to propose new solutions such as punctuated equilibrium and to critique those who were doggedly maintaining the status quo in spite of mounting evidence, and even attacking them as being guilty of the same closed-mindedness the Medieval church is accused of by materialists.
In one of the best pieces he ever wrote, entitled "Darwinian Fundamentalism" (available online here (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/1151) ) Gould wrote the following:
"In this light, especially given history's tendency to recycle great issues, I am amused by an irony that has recently ensnared evolutionary theory. A movement of strict constructionism, a self-styled form of Darwinian fundamentalism, has risen to some prominence in a variety of fields, from the English biological heartland of John Maynard Smith to the uncompromising ideology (albeit in graceful prose) of his compatriot Richard Dawkins, to the equally narrow and more ponderous writing of the American philosopher Daniel Dennett (who entitled his latest book Darwin's Dangerous Idea). Moreover, a larger group of strict constructionists are now engaged in an almost mordantly self-conscious effort to "revolutionize" the study of human behavior along a Darwinian straight and narrow under the name of "evolutionary psychology."
Some of these ideas have filtered into the general press, but the uniting theme of Darwinian fundamentalism has not been adequately stressed or identified. Professionals, on the other hand, are well aware of the connections. My colleague Niles Eldredge, for example, speaks of this coordinated movement as Ultra-Darwinism in his recent book, Reinventing Darwin. Amid the variety of their subject matter, the ultra-Darwinists share a conviction that natural selection regulates everything of any importance in evolution, and that adaptation emerges as a universal result and ultimate test of selection's ubiquity.
The irony of this situation is twofold. First, as illustrated by the quotation above, Darwin himself strongly opposed the ultras of his own day. (In one sense, this nicety of history should not be relevant to modern concerns; maybe Darwin was overcautious, and modern ultras therefore out-Darwin Darwin for good reason. But since the modern ultras push their line with an almost theological fervor, and since the views of founding fathers do matter in religion, though supposedly not in science, Darwin's own fierce opposition does become a factor in judgment.) Second, the invigoration of modern evolutionary biology with exciting nonselectionist and nonadaptationist data from the three central disciplines of population genetics, developmental biology, and paleontology (see examples below) makes our pre-millennial decade an especially unpropitious time for Darwinian fundamentalism—and seems only to reconfirm Darwin's own eminently sensible pluralism."
In other words Silat, even men like Gould and Eldridge, materialists to the core, identified the kind of ultra-darwinist fervor you are displaying as more theological and faith oriented than scientific. The unreasoning refusal to even consider, for the briefest moment, that neo-Darwinism and natural selection might not be right in light of rapidly developing evidence is hardly a hallmark of good science. To paraphrase Gould, we have moved from the era of observation to the era of anathematization.
I've read Dawkins and Darwin Silat, but ask yourself, why wouldn't you even consider reading Behe or Johnson?
- SEAGOON
-
Hello Pei,
Originally posted by Pei
Evolution is a scientific theory.
Intelligent design is a religous theory.
I'm curious, because I read this all the time here, what religion is Intelligent Design exactly, because I've never heard of it, neither can I find any of its houses of worship in the phonebook? I'm also curious about a religion that has as its proponents Agnostics, Jews, Catholics, Protestants, Muslims, and so on from the scientific and academic rather than theological communities and which doesn't possess nearly the consensus that say Ultradarwinists share. In any event, ID may be many things, but biblical Christianity it certainly isn't.
They should not be taught in the same class but in separate classes (one in science and one in religion). Teaching them in the same class or even comparing them is a victory for the fundamentalists who hold belief over knowlege.
This and other comments about a supposed "lack of faith commitments" amongst materialists reminded me of a quote from Phil Johnson -
"One of the illusions of scientific materialism is its insistence that materialists don't have faith commitments. Faith is not something some people have and others don't. Faith also isn't something opposed to reason. Faith is something that everybody needs to get started in any direction, and to keep going in the face of discouragement. Reason builds on a foundation of faith.
For example, scientific materialists have faith that they will eventually find a materialistic theory to explain the origin of life, even though the experimental evidence may be pretty discouraging for now. Because they have faith in their theory, Darwinists believe that common ancestors for the animal phyla once lived on the earth, even though those ancestors can't be found. Eldredge calls himself a "knee-jerk neo-Darwinist" in spite of the invertebrate fossil record - because he is convinced, on philosophical grounds, that the theory must be true. That's every bit as much of a faith commitment as the belief of a young-earth creationist that all radiometric dating must be wrong because it contradicts the literal words of Genesis..."
[Phillip E. Johnson, Defeating Darwinism by Opening Minds, p.66]
- SEAGOON
-
You hear the one about the fella who died, went to the pearly gates? St. Peter lets him in. Sees a guy in a suit making closing argument. Says, "Who's that?" St. Peter says, "Oh, that's God. Thinks he's Denny Crane."
-
Originally posted by Samiam
The difference between scientific theory and faith is that scientific theory is supported by observable, provable facts.
.
The very word THEORY, means it is unproven. None of you know if I am a religious fanatic or a atheist. All I am saying is STOP PREACHING THEORY AS FACT! because the true FACT of the matter is, none of us truly know what the origin of life is. To scream Big Bang and Darwinism is just as rediculous as to say "there's an invisible man in the sky who is watching us"! Get over yourself and look at reality.
-
so...jump off a ten story building, it's only a theory of gravity holding you back.
-
(pssst.. torque, it's called the law of gravity. when science is about 90% sure of something they start calling it a 'law' instead of a 'theory'. ;))
-
you mean walt disney...lied?
i propose a new theory of "intelligent falling".
-
and he's dead too.
nothin worse than lyin dead dudes with persistent social influence.
(damn.. did i just define religion? is this the theory of dead dude relativity?)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Students should be told and taught that evolution is just a theory, not a fact.
Heh, just a theory. Gravity is just a theory as well. What makes you think that students aren't being taught was a scientific theory is in science class.
The debate is about the origins of the universe and of life.
No, that's your strawman. The name of Darwin's book was "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life" nor "The Origin of the Universe". Evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of life or the universe. Perhaps you should try to have a passing knowledge of something before you chose to be against it.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
(pssst.. torque, it's called the law of gravity. when science is about 90% sure of something they start calling it a 'law' instead of a 'theory'. ;))
Actually, "Law" is an archaic term that they came up with when indeed they thought they found laws that govern how things work. The theories that had the term law attached to them way back when generally still are referred to as such. But when new theories surpass the old ones the term isn't used for the new theories.
PS: Anyone that is interested in reading "The Origin of Species" can find the complete test by following the link below.
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
-
Thanks for that link. I had always been interested in what Darwin actually said, not what others attributed to him. Here are his words:
...Throughout whole classes various structures are formed on the same pattern, and at an embryonic age the species closely resemble each other. Therefore I cannot doubt that the theory of descent with modification embraces all the members of the same class. I believe that animals have descended from at most only four or five progenitors, and plants from an equal or lesser number.
Analogy would lead me one step further, namely, to the belief that all animals and plants have descended from some one prototype. But analogy may be a deceitful guide. Nevertheless all living things have much in common, in their chemical composition, their germinal vesicles, their cellular structure, and their laws of growth and reproduction. We see this even in so trifling a circumstance as that the same poison often similarly affects plants and animals; or that the poison secreted by the gall-fly produces monstrous growths on the wild rose or oak-tree. Therefore I should infer from analogy that probably all the organic beings which have ever lived on this earth have descended from some one primordial form, into which life was first breathed.
Sounds like he had some doubts ("analogy may be a deceitful guide") and in the very end, regarding the Origin of Life itself, was a creationist.
Tempest in a Teacup?
-
Originally posted by Skilless
You cannot tell me one thing that science shows that absolutely proves evolution or the big bang. And you certainly cannot disprove creationism.
By the way, Moot is correct.
I think developing wildlife in different areas proves evolution is correct. Madegascar has animals that have adapted to life on the island and they exist no where else. Did God just randomly disperse animals all about based on a whim? A Polar bear in Zaire?...... Ooops. Oh I forgot... he created each animal especially so that they could survive in specific habitat so that we could pave it and put up a Burger King.
Assuming there was an imaginary daddy floating around up in the "sky" he obviously doesn't give a rat's fanny about anything or anybody. Especially not mankind.
Oh yeah... I forgot... Whatever imaginary daddy you believe in only helps a select few and dumps on everyone else. I'm still trying to figure out which imaginary daddy is the correct one to believe in.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
The very word THEORY, means it is unproven. None of you know if I am a religious fanatic or a atheist. All I am saying is STOP PREACHING THEORY AS FACT! because the true FACT of the matter is, none of us truly know what the origin of life is. To scream Big Bang and Darwinism is just as rediculous as to say "there's an invisible man in the sky who is watching us"! Get over yourself and look at reality.
Go back to school, Skilless (but not in Kansas).
A scientific theory is an explanation of a complex system that is held to be TRUE by the scientific community and is supported by tested science.
In science, the term HYPOTHESIS means an unproven educated guess. ID is at best a hypothesis. The difference between most scientific hypotheses and ID, though, is that the intent of science is to devise testable, repeatable methods to substantiate them. With ID, by definition, there is no way to substantiate it becuase it is dependant on the supernatural. Therefore, by definition, IT IS NOT SCIENCE.
(Unless, of course, you do like the Kansas board of Ed. did and REDEFINE science to include the supernatural. But this opens the door to any unprovable supernatural bullpuckey, so you loose that way, too.)
Overwhelming scientific evidience supports evoloution. Nothing rediculous in stating it as scientific truth and explaining the science that leads us to this conclusion.
When you can explain the science that supports ID - actual science, not using a negative as a proof - it should be taught.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
No, that's your strawman. The name of Darwin's book was "The Origin of Species", not "The Origin of Life" nor "The Origin of the Universe". Evolution doesn't claim to explain the origins of life or the universe. Perhaps you should try to have a passing knowledge of something before you chose to be against it.
I'm tired of you and your cute assumptions.
Did I ever mention Darwin or Origin of the Species? Perhapse you should read what I was debating here before you comment.
And evolution, by the way, all boils down to the origin of life.....the first life by which all other forms have evolved. Are you saying that origin of the "species" is diferent than the origin of life? Perhapse you should also put a little more thought into your drive by answers.
So it is about the origin of life. I say the origin of life begins at the origin of all the energy/matter in the universe.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So it is about the origin of life. I say the origin of life begins at the origin of all the energy/matter in the universe.
Oh great. I pop in to see where this train wreck of a thread is going, and now you're on abortion.
Fan-tastic.
-
This thread makes drosophila melanogaster cry.
-
I have always agreed that evolution has happened within species. What I don't buy is that all life evolved from one original life-form.
-
Where in the seven layers of taco bell did you get that idea? Nobody knows how many point sources there were, as far as I've read.
-
When a person sees something they can't explain they ask, why? They then develop an hypothesis to explain the question, as in "I think X does Y becase of Z. Next, facts are gathered to support the hypothesis. They now have a theory. When all facts are compiled and no mystery remains, the theory is now known as a fact which may be then used in a larger theory to explain something else. To take any theory that is not completely proven and apply it as fact to another hypothesis, is flawed science.
These are some pretty interesting reads that I recommend-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_everything
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/images/Final_Theory_--_Chapter_1.PDF
The second is the first chapter of a book, which leaves the reader hanging (intentionally so, they want us to buy the book), but highly engaging non-the-less.
The old "forest for the tress" analogy fits this thread rather nicely...
-
Originally posted by Skilless
When a person sees something they can't explain they ask, why? They then develop an hypothesis to explain the question, as in "I think X does Y becase of Z. Next, facts are gathered to support the hypothesis. They now have a theory. When all facts are compiled and no mystery remains, the theory is now known as a fact which may be then used in a larger theory to explain something else. To take any theory that is not completely proven and apply it as fact to another hypothesis, is flawed science.
I think you've got it!
Except:
For any complex system, mystery always remains. The role of science is to keep asking questions. No mystery, no need for science.
Now:
Explain how ID fits into this as anything other than a hypothesis to which there is no possibilty of establishing facts to support. Until we can prove the supernatural - at which point it stops being supernatural and becomes natural - you can't. And the very nature of the biblical God is that it's blasphemy to consider him to be anything other than the ultimate, omnipotent supernatural being. So we have a built-in contradiction with respect to biblical based ID and science.
Beware:
A theory is established as we gather supporting evidence for our hypothesis. Positive proof. Hard evidence. Testable. Repeatable.
You cannot established a new theory based on statements about an existing theory of the form "this has yet to be proven," or, "this piece is so complex and our explanations are so inadequate that our current belief must be flawed."
These are negatives. They may lead to new hypotheses, but they in no way provide scientific evidence to support the hypotheses - they are the foundation for making the hypotheses, they do not scientifically support the hypotheses. This is the gross missunderstanding that leads to the mistaken impression that ID can somehow be treated as science.
Challenge:
Support the ID hypoethesis with positive proof, not by pointing out what some fringe scientists consider to be flaws in the theory of evolution. You can't. Why? Because ID is based on a supernatural influence and if you could prove the supernatural, then it wouldn't be supernatural, it would be natural, and suddenly it would cease being intelligent design and would become just another brick in the evolution foundation.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Challenge:
Support the ID hypoethesis with positive proof, not by pointing out what some fringe scientists consider to be flaws in the theory of evolution. You can't. Why? Because ID is based on a supernatural influence and if you could prove the supernatural, then it wouldn't be supernatural, it would be natural, and suddenly it would cease being intelligent design and would become just another brick in the evolution foundation.
Oh... you're good.
-
Originally posted by Skilless
http://www.thefinaltheory.com/images/Final_Theory_--_Chapter_1.PDF
The second is the first chapter of a book, which leaves the reader hanging (intentionally so, they want us to buy the book), but highly engaging non-the-less.
That book seems to be written by some 15-year old who got thrown out from the math class, not suprisingly there is almost no functions presented, only brain vomit. I have listened the audio book "Fabric Of The Cosmos" and its really good for average joe like me to get some grasp of what Newton discovered and what he didn't and what has happened since. But ofcourse, as that book is "Just a book, not fact", you should'nt be bothered, but accept the "controversy" you just figured out, as a fact right? Its like falling for those diet scams, the scale must be broken tho, because you _know_ the pills work.
"If the object doesn’t move, there is no work done according to the Work
Function, and therefore no energy is expended and no energy source is
required to explain how things are forcefully held down by gravity. The
serious law violation that results from gravity forcefully holding objects
to the planet’s surface with no known power source suddenly vanishes."
Crap in, crap out. For example this forum pretty much wraps it up: http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=2972
-
Scientific American Comentary (http://blog.sciam.com/index.php?title=kansas_where_ignorant_is_the_new_educate&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1)
Kansas, Where "Ignorant" is the New "Educated"
Anyone noticed that in PA all 8 of the school board members up for relection lost.
Maybe some states are smarter than others....
-
Hi Sandman,
Originally posted by Sandman
I'll bite. What evidence do you have?
This is a difficult question to answer for a number of reasons, amongst them the fact that this dialogue seems to be out of the scope of the current thread and because I know full well that the presentation of any quantity of "evidence" is not in and of itself going to cause anyone to accept the truth claims of Christianity and become Christians. The principle that raw evidence is powerless to convince and convict is reinforced within the New Testament where, for instance, Jesus did miracles in order to validate his claim to be God and thus able to do the things that only God can do, and yet those opposed to him ultimately refused to accept the testimony of those miracles:
"And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, "Who is this who speaks blasphemies? Who can forgive sins but God alone?"
But when Jesus perceived their thoughts, He answered and said to them, "Why are you reasoning in your hearts?
"Which is easier, to say, 'Your sins are forgiven you,' or to say, 'Rise up and walk'?
"But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins" -- He said to the man who was paralyzed, "I say to you, arise, take up your bed, and go to your house."
Immediately he rose up before them, took up what he had been lying on, and departed to his own house, glorifying God."
So while I want to fulfill your request, I understand that producing evidence for the Christian faith isn't going to be like fulfilling a request to prove that white light is actually composed of various constituent colors, where I can pull a prism out of my pocket and have you look, see, and accept in a matter of moments.
Another problem is simply to know where to begin, there's so much that could be covered and I already write too darn much here anyway (I could easily win the O'club Golden Turkey for boring and long-winded posts.)
Let me focus briefly then on two particular areas which are of criticial importance, the historicity of the scriptures and the reality of the resurrection.
How do we know that Socrates existed and that he did and said the things that are claimed for him? After all we've never met him, or met anyone who did. All we have to go by really is manuscript evidence, and that is all second hand as Socrates wrote down none of it himself. However, very few credible historians doubt that Socrates actually existed or speculate that he was merely the projection of a few figures who wanted to believe in a wise "Socrates figure." They look at the manuscript evidence that was copied for thousands of years, and the mentions by contemporaries and conclude there was a Socrates.
However, the manuscript and historical evidence for the existence of Socrates , the details of his life, and the content of his teaching is actually much weaker than the evidence for the Life and work of Jesus in the New Testament (hereafter NT). In the case of Socrates, all we have are copies of various works, few of them dating back to even the Roman era. We have far more manuscripts of the NT dating back much further, and they all tell the same story of Jesus Christ. In fact we have remnants from the gospel of John (the Chester Beatty Papyri) that date back to the early 2nd century, or only a few years after they were original written. To quote William Albright "We can already say emphatically that there is no longer any solid basis for dating any book of the New Testament after about A.D. 80". Additionally these copies claim to be as Luke puts it an "account... of all that Jesus began both to do and teach" and not "once upon a time" stories. Peter is among the many NT authors who hammers that principle home to the reader: "For we did not follow cunningly devised fables when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but were eyewitnesses of His majesty."
Additionally, Jesus is mentioned by contempory historians such as Josephus who wrote about him saying: "Now there was about this time Jesus, a wise man, if it be lawful to call him a man; for he was a doer of wonderful works, a teacher of such men as receive the truth with pleasure. He drew over to him both many of the Jews and many of the Gentiles. He was [the] Christ. And when Pilate, at the suggestion of the principal men amongst us, had condemned him to the cross, those that loved him at the first did not forsake him; for he appeared to them alive again the third day; as the divine prophets had foretold these and ten thousand other wonderful things concerning him. And the tribe of Christians, so named from him, are not extinct at this day." and while we are dependent on later copies to learn about Socrates, we have copies of the words above dating to the early 300s.
What is clear from this manuscript evidence, and the irrefutable evidence of existence of contemporary followers who believed His testimony, is that Jesus existed and that people wrote about his life and works. But at this point someone might counter - "ok, he might have been real and had followers like Socrates or Caesar but why should I believe what his followers wrote about him? What if they were making up tall tales?" Well there are a lot of answers to that line of reasoning amongst them that these things were written while surviving eyewitnesses were still alive who would have been able to directly refute them if they were untrue. Peter, in his preaching on Pentecost is able to appeal to the senses of the crowd in Jerusalem saying:
"Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know --"
This was no gnostic "secret revelation" approach, no "trust me, the archangel Gabriel revealed these thing to me in a cave" religion, this was a "Hey, you yourselves heard this man Jesus and saw the things He did."
Additionally there is the fact that His followers understood that the keystone to the whole Christian arch was the Resurrection. If it didn't really happen then as Paul puts it "And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty." In support of that central fact, we not only have the lives and testimony of the men who were there to see it, and who were content to die because of it, we have certain facts:
1) The empty Tomb - not even the Jewish authorities disputed this, they claimed that the disciples stole his body. That however flies in the fact of the realities.
2) Caesar's seal was broken - a death penalty offence
3) The Roman Guard fell asleep and then fled - also death penalty offences
The idea that the disciples stole the body is preposterous, if the Romans or Jews moved it, they would have produced it in a heartbeat the moment the resurrection story began circulating. There is also the attestation of the witnesses who saw Him and so on.
Lastly Sandy, I know this will probably carry no weight at all, but I'll mention it anyway. I grew up reading history, I took my M.A. at St. Andrews in History prior to becoming a Christian. I've also read through most of the main religious works of the world's religions and I'll tell you, that the NT is vastly different from all of them. The NT is written as a historical record, and is intended to be understood as a summary of facts. The gospel of Luke, for instance, is far closer in structure and presentation to Suetonius' "Twelve Caesars" than it is to the Quran, the Baghavad Gita, or the Tibetan Book of the Dead. Men will dismiss the NT as supernatural nonsense, but that has always been the case because it goes contrary to all our natural presuppositions.
Anyway, enough about the authenticity of the NT, I have to get back to writing about the contents.
- SEAGOON
PS: For a good summary of historical evidence for the reliability of the New Testament, click here: The Historical Reliability of the NT (http://www.apologetics.com/default.jsp?bodycontent=/articles/historical_apologetics/habermas-nt.html)
-
I've mislead you. I absolutely believe that Jesus Christ was indeed real. There is far too much evidence to suggest otherwise.
Now as to his divinity (or not), I lack faith.
Thanks for your time on this.
-
I already write too darn much here anyway (I could easily win the O'club Golden Turkey for boring and long-winded posts.)
Sorry Seagoon. You've got a lot of catching up to do to match Miko.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Challenge:
Support the ID hypoethesis with positive proof, not by pointing out what some fringe scientists consider to be flaws in the theory of evolution. You can't. Why? Because ID is based on a supernatural influence and if you could prove the supernatural, then it wouldn't be supernatural, it would be natural, and suddenly it would cease being intelligent design and would become just another brick in the evolution foundation.
I normally stay out of these but it's hard to resist a challenge.
I cannot produce enough scientific evidence to support the ID theory that would satisfy you. I personaly have had enough life experiences though, to convince me of a devine being and Creator.
On the other hand, you cannot produce positive proof that the universe started with a big bang or that macro evolution has ever occured or is occuring. No missing link has ever been found.
I can see that your quite convinced of your position but so am I. IMHO it takes just as much faith to believe in the theory of evolution as it does to believe in creation. The difference is that you believe you will eventually find the answer while I beleive the answere will finaly be revealed.
-
On the other hand, you cannot produce positive proof that the universe started with a big bang or that macro evolution has ever occured or is occuring. No missing link has ever been found.
Positive proof? What the heck is that? Science only tries to postulate the most likely answer based on the evidence.
But here is a little proof... If there had been a big bang, it is postulated that there would be a residual "noise" from that bang. And if that bang occurred about 13 billion years ago that noise should be of a particular frequency and it should be the same in all directions.
The noise is there. For anyone to hear. All you need is a dish and a receiver tuned to the frequency. Repeatable and verifyable.
Does that answer all the questions? No. But placing religion into the mix reduces the questions to zero. That is the scariest thing of all.
Macro Evolution - What is that? A new species? A new genus? A new family? How far does the evidence have to go before you concede? There is myriad evidence of new species being formed in our lifetime. There is fossil evidence of huge changes to species over time and there is very good evidence of transitional species in almost every phyla. Maybe you just need to rely less on life experience and do more reading.
-
Arthur C. Clarke touched on Intelligent Design in a few of his books.
Although, his stories did not start off with petrie dishes.
-
Does anyone dispute the idea that some things exist only as a result of intelligent design?
-
I'm willing to move the Renault LeCar into the 'act of god' catagory.
-
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
I cannot produce enough scientific evidence to support the ID theory that would satisfy you. I personaly have had enough life experiences though, to convince me of a devine being and Creator.
As have good portion of the human race. I have never claimed that your conviction is wrong. But I insist that this conviction is NOT a result of science and discussion of it has no place in a science curriculum - which is entirely concerned with how we explain the natural universe.
Originally posted by ChickenHawk
On the other hand, you cannot produce positive proof that the universe started with a big bang or that macro evolution has ever occured or is occuring. No missing link has ever been found.
Science can and has produced overwhelming evidence that natural selection, adaptation, and mutation have occurred throughout time and are occuring. Science can and has produced convincing evidence to support predominant hypotheses regarding the origins of the universe, as well as for species origins. (Just because your pseudo fringe-scientists claim otherwise, doesn't mean that a preponderance of evendence doesn't exist that the scientific community accepts).
But what you have done here, once again, is assert a negative to support your claim. Lack of certain specifics in one theory DO NOT lend support to an alternate hypothesis.
Why is it so hard to understand that a negative statement is not scientific evidence?
If you look in your garage and find that your car is not there, you cannot immediately assert that it is on fire in France.
It is fantastically flawed logic to assert that because science has yet to fill in certain details, God MUST have created man in His image.
Again, while it may actually be TRUE that God did, indeed, set forth a chain of events that led to man being created in His image - there is no possible way to prove this scientifically and therefore the discussion of ID does NOT belong in a science curriculum. A science curriculum should give students the skills and understanding needed to explain our natural universe so that we can grow more and better food, cure disease, build awsome computers to play games on, and generally improve the human condition. It is a disservice to introduce unsubstantiated, supernatural claims as science.
Maybe you want to fly in an airplane made of a composite created by a chemist who substituted divine inspiration for actually testing his formulae, but I prefer to rely on scientists who have been taught from day one how to differentiate scientific rigor from faith-based convictions.
-
It's funny to me.....
Something as simple as a plastic spoon could never be considered by any rational person to have created itself, yet people have no problem believing that all of the universe and all of life just created itself at random.
Might as well just believe in magic.
Intelligent design can be proven. There are things that we know exist as a result of intelligent design and no other reason.. Like a TV set or a car, or even a cloned animal (life).
Without intelligent design, many things would not exist. Seems like a good basis for a theory.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Does anyone dispute the idea that some things exist only as a result of intelligent design?
NUKE, let's not lose sight of the point.
I am not disputing intelligent design.
What I am disputing is that ID has anything to do with science.
Even the moronic Kansas board of education understands enough about science that ID has no place in it. Their solution was to simply REDEFINE what science is - to include the supernatural.
This can have some unintended consequenses.
I hope some smart-ass Kansan science teacher has the cohones to start teaching wicken spell casting as a way to clense students bodies to protect them from disease. Once you redifine science to include the supernatural, you have opened a real can of worms.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
NUKE, let's not lose sight of the point.
I am not disputing intelligent design.
What I am disputing is that ID has anything to do with science.
But it's a almost a proven fact that certain things in our universe only exist as a result of intelligent design.
Science itself is an intelligent design. If there was not intelligent design, science would not exist. I win.
-
Isn't it ironic that science is a result of intelligent design? Science could not exist without an intelligent creator/creators.
Smoke that.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
It's funny to me.....
Something as simple as a plastic spoon could never be considered by any rational person to have created itself, yet people have no problem believing that all of the universe and all of life just created itself at random.
Might as well just believe in magic.
Intelligent design can be proven. There are things that we know exist as a result of intelligent design and no other reason.. Like a TV set or a car, or even a cloned animal (life).
Without intelligent design, many things would not exist. Seems like a good basis for a theory.
There's nothing supernatural in the creation of a plastic spoon. I can point to the intelligent designer. I can explain in excrutiating detail exactly how the spoon is made. I can even explain what inspired the design and creation of the spoon. All without conjuring up the supernatural.
ID, on the other hand, defies this explanation. It's worse than that: A biblical basis for ID declares such an explanation to be IMPOSSIBLE and any other supernatural explanation as heresy. It's a trap - if ID were science by the well accepted definition, it would be heresey.
-
I am in awe of you incredible capacity to totally not understand what you are talking about NUKE.
I win!
-
Originally posted by Samiam
There's nothing supernatural in the creation of a plastic spoon. I can point to the intelligent designer.
You dont get it.
A plastic spoon is a simple thing, yet if you had never seen one before, you would assume that an intelligence was behind it's design.
On the other hand, if you saw a frog for the first time, which is infinatley more complex than a plastic spoon, you would not even consider that an intelligence was behind it's design.
Can you explain the existance of the frog in the same detail that you could explain the plastic spoon? I think not....which only solidifies my point.
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I am in awe of you incredible capacity to totally not understand what you are talking about NUKE.
I win!
It probably doesn't take much for you to be in awe of something.
-
Hey Thrawn, is science just a random series of thoughts, or is it a result of intelligent design?
-
Sometimes I have to take a step back and remind myself that I am a product of God, who created the universe. My creativity, talents, intelligence and good looks are all gifts from God.
When I die, I will be complete.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You dont get it.
A plastic spoon is a simple thing, yet if you had never seen one before, you would assume that an intelligence was behind it's design.
On the other hand, if you saw a frog for the first time, which is infinatley more complex than a plastic spoon, you would not even consider that an intelligence was behind it's design.
Can you explain the existance of the frog in the same detail that you could explain the plastic spoon? I think not....which only solidifies my point.
OK, just this one more time.
Yes, I can explain in detail how the frog came to be, to include its chemical makeup, how ma and pa frog created our little subject frog. I can produce a fossil record that shows early amphibians and how they developed specializations that led to what we know today as a frog. I can produce currently living creatures that have both fish-like and frog-like attributes, indicating a link between fish and frogs. I can produce DNA that shows the genetic makup of the frog and how that makeup is a decendent of ancient amphibians.
All of this is science and should be taught in science class.
A subjective observation such as you've made - that the frog is infinitely complex and therefore that an intelligent designer must be given credit for its existence - cannot be be substantiated through science. Therefore, it doesn't belong in science class.
-
You cannot explain how the frog came to have life and exist....nobody can, yet you automatically assume that it exists as a result of a random series of events.
You view the spoon in a different way.......you *assume* it was a result of intelligent design and that it could not possibly have been the result of a random series of events.
Thus, you are conflicted.
-
It's pretty much a proven fact that some things in our universe exist only as a result of ID, so ID must be a viable theory.
I Win.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
You cannot explain how the frog came to have life and exist....nobody can, yet you automatically assume that it exists as a result of a random series of events.
You view the spoon in a different way.......you *assume* it was a result of intelligent design and that it could not possibly have been the result of a random series of events.
Thus, you are conflicted.
I assume nothing.
What I can explain and substantiate naturally, I do. I seek to maximize what I can explain naturally. This is science.
I accept intelligent design as one hypothesis for that which we cannot (yet?) explain naturally. I have no criticism of ID other than it is NOT SCIENCE. By definition, it cannot be scientifically substantiated. Teach it in religeous studies. Teach it in philosopy. Teach it at home and in church. Shout it from the mountain tops - you will get no argument from me.
But DO NOT teach the potential future designers of pharmaceuticals on which my life may one day depend that ID is in any way shape or form grounded in science.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
I assume nothing.
What I can explain and substantiate naturally, I do. I seek to maximize what I can explain naturally. This is science.
I accept intelligent design as one hypothesis for that which we cannot (yet?) explain naturally. I have no criticism of ID other than it is NOT SCIENCE. By definition, it cannot be scientifically substantiated. Teach it in religeous studies. Teach it in philosopy. Teach it at home and in church. Shout it from the mountain tops - you will get no argument from me.
But DO NOT teach the potential future designers of pharmaceuticals on which my life may one day depend that ID is in any way shape or form grounded in science.
Cool.
Do you think that frogs are a result of intelligent design, or do you believe that they came into being after a series of random events?
Maybe a drug that will cure cancer will develope at random some day so you will not have to rely on inteligent design. :)
-
Let's face it, I win.
-
Science tells me that frogs are a result of a biological process of natural selection , adaptation, and specialization that started on earth eons ago.
'night NUKE.
-
The intelligence behind the design of the preceding post by Nuke is definitely in question.
If you were a comedian, you'd be laughing at your own jokes.
-
Nuke, yer testimony is proof that yer creator ain't all that damn intelligent.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Science tells me that frogs are a result of a biological process of natural selection , adaptation, and specialization that started on earth eons ago.
'night NUKE.
Are you saying that a plastic spoon could not be the result of the same biological process?
Maybe someone as *smart* as hang could argue that point.
-
The plastic spoon is a very complex organism.
-
darwin's theories are evidenced by the spork, which clearly evolved from the plastic spoon.
match, game, set.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Positive proof? What the heck is that? Science only tries to postulate the most likely answer based on the evidence.
Samiam was asking for positive proof for ID. I was just saying that it was impossible to prove ID through scientific resources but also pointed out that he could not provide proof positive that evolution is the reason we are here. Neither theory can be proven at this point in time.
Macro Evolution - What is that? A new species? A new genus? A new family? How far does the evidence have to go before you concede? There is myriad evidence of new species being formed in our lifetime. There is fossil evidence of huge changes to species over time and there is very good evidence of transitional species in almost every phyla. Maybe you just need to rely less on life experience and do more reading.
If your truly interested in the answer, Wikipedia is a good place to start:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Macroevolution
Basically what it boils down to is that microevolution is changes in existing DNA while macroevolution requires DNA to be added. Microevolution can be confirmed though a controlled experiment while macroevolution cannot. The emergence of completely new species would require macroevolution.
Oh, and don't assume that, just because someone holds a different view on life than you, that they don't do any reading.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
Science can and has produced overwhelming evidence that natural selection, adaptation, and mutation have occurred throughout time and are occuring. Science can and has produced convincing evidence to support predominant hypotheses regarding the origins of the universe, as well as for species origins. (Just because your pseudo fringe-scientists claim otherwise, doesn't mean that a preponderance of evendence doesn't exist that the scientific community accepts).
I agree with you that science has proved natural selection, adaptation and mutation within species but IMO it has a long way to go to prove the emergence of new species out of existing ones. I'm not one to listen to pseudo fringe-scientists either.
But what you have done here, once again, is assert a negative to support your claim. Lack of certain specifics in one theory DO NOT lend support to an alternate hypothesis.
Why is it so hard to understand that a negative statement is not scientific evidence?
If you look in your garage and find that your car is not there, you cannot immediately assert that it is on fire in France.
It is fantastically flawed logic to assert that because science has yet to fill in certain details, God MUST have created man in His image.
[/B]
I don't believe I said any of those things. I never said that because I think your theiry is wrong that mine is right. Only a fool would think that was logic. What I said was is that neither theory can be scientificaly proven at this time.
-
Neither theory can be proven beyond doubt, but only one is a scientific theory.
The other flies as high as the spaghetti monster, or the heavens, arbitrarily.
-
Oh, and don't assume that, just because someone holds a different view on life than you, that they don't do any reading.
I'm sure you read plenty. Now try applying critical thought to what you read.
I don't believe I said any of those things. I never said that because I think your theiry is wrong that mine is right. Only a fool would think that was logic. What I said was is that neither theory can be scientificaly proven at this time.
Absolute proof is for mathematicians and logicians.
Science has produced a preponderance of evidence to support its theories. (And that's what makes them scientific theories.)
Intelligent Design is founded on there being a supernatural designer. BY DEFINITION, no positive (natural) evidence will identify this designer or its motives. Therefore BY DEFINITION ID cannot ever be substantiated through science.
You hold the opinion that science has not yet adequately explained how we got here. An overwhelming majority of the credible scientists on the planet dissagree with you.
You seem to expect that somehow calling ID science and exploring it as such will lead to a different understanding of our existence than currently well accepted science will. You are wrong - ID is not a scientific pursuit. There is no explaining with ID, there is only accepting.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
Evolution does not need to be protected from other theories.
It should be able to stand on its own, why do you guys fear an alternative being taught next to it?
(I am not a creationist BTW)
It's not fear, it's more like general swhock at thir stupidity. And this is why - quote from article:
"In addition, the board rewrote the definition of science, so that it is no longer limited to the search for natural explanations of phenomena."
:O
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
I am in awe of you incredible capacity to totally not understand what you are talking about NUKE.
This is true, NUKE consistently has these moments on intensely focused and determined stupidity. Personally I think it's brain damage caused by smoking his fake plastic grass products.
:D
-
I'll go so far as to say I'm afraid.
I'm afraid that we will stop teaching our kids to think critically and that as a society we are diluting our ability to excel in the the one discipline that we know has fueled our prosperity as a nation for 150 years and is why we are the one remaining superpower.
We look at the middle east and note that the fundamentalist regimes have resulted in stagnant economies, rampant poverty, questionable human rights practices, and total disillusionment that has lead to hate for the west and terrorism.
Will our grandchildren be the next fundamentalist terrorists? If we stop teaching them how to use actual science to advance our understanding of the universe, they will eventually be pious paupers who are unable to compete in the world economy. They will be the dissillusioned ones. They will be hatefull and jealous of the "infidels" in the superpower China. They will be unable to innovate and capitalize on scientific research.
The smarter of our grandchildren will realize that our educational system is just a fundamentalist indoctrination, and will leave to pursue a quality education overseas. Prosperity will cause them to stay there. The rest of us will wallow in the mess we've made, still arrogant an not understanding why the rest of the world is becoming very wary of us - given our position as a backward fundamentalist nation with nukes.
But more than afraid, I am simply amazed by the fact that at the very same instant we are standing in judgement of Iran (justifiably so), some of us thumping our bibles and can't understand what the harm is in teaching the ten commandments and ID in our public schools. It's mindboggling, really.
-
Isn't it ironic that every great thing man has done or created is a result of intelligent design, science included?
Science is not going away and I don't know of anyone who is saying anything remotely like that. Science and religion are not incompatible.
Einstein once said that science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
True critical thinking is what a lot of you are not willing to do though.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Einstein once said that science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.
Bull****.
True critical thinking is what a lot of you are not willing to do though.
[/b]
Like yourself, for example?
-
Poor Hang, you don't seem to have the capacity to argue about much (other than how many bullets an M1 can hold, and other basic things you might have learned), or to even understand a basic principle, so you resort to personally attacking me.
Intelligent design is the reason for everything man has created and done, not random events and things exploding into existence out of thin air.
The basic principle is that there is no logical reason to rule out the idea of an intelligent design for the universe. You rule it out, but not because you are smart or because of some proof, but rather because you are ignorant, close minded, and because you "believe" it can't be a possible.
I will go with science AND logic. Reason, logic, criticle thinking.
So far you have offeren nothing other than low-brow remarks and confused statements. You don't even believe Eisnstein's own words if they clash with your comfort zone.
-
Some relevent Einstein quotes:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
"My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Science and religion are not incompatible.
I agree, NUKE.
But it's more like they shouldn't be incompatible. But more often than not, religeous dogma gets in the way of the true meaningfull message and results in religeon being a barrier to science - witness Copernicus and Galileo.
Where we depart, or what you are failing to understand in my argument, is that it is essential that we teach our children to distinguish between the two.
I would argue that in order for ones faith to be meaningfull, one must fully comprehend the depth of that faith and not pretend that it can be scientifically understood.
And we should not, under any circumstances, cloak a faith-based (or supernatural) explanation of any phenomina to our children as science.
Science class should be reserved for science. There's no confusion this way and kids will have greater apreciation of thier faith.
-
Originally posted by Samiam
I agree, NUKE.
But it's more like they shouldn't be incompatible. But more often than not, religeous dogma gets in the way of the true meaningfull message and results in religeon being a barrier to science - witness Copernicus and Galileo.
Where we depart, or what you are failing to understand in my argument, is that it is essential that we teach our children to distinguish between the two.
I would argue that in order for ones faith to be meaningfull, one must fully comprehend the depth of that faith and not pretend that it can be scientifically understood.
And we should not, under any circumstances, cloak a faith-based (or supernatural) explanation of any phenomina to our children as science.
Science class should be reserved for science. There's no confusion this way and kids will have greater apreciation of thier faith.
Here is what I'm thinking you are not understanding about my point, and intelligent design.
The basic, rock bottom fact that the existance of all energy/matter is not explainable by any science that is being taught. "Super natural" is basically what one is led to believe is science's explaination is for the existence of matter, because the fact that matter exists flys in the face of science itself.
If teaching a kid that all the matter in the universe exploded into existance from nothing one day is okay, then it should be fair game to also explain that it is indeed a possibility that an intelligence could have caused it. That has nothing to do with religion.
In fact, science has elements of it's own that could be said to be "religious"
-
Originally posted by NUKE
Some relevent Einstein quotes:
"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world."
"Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds. The latter cannot understand it when a man does not thoughtlessly submit to hereditary prejudices but honestly and courageously uses his intelligence"
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and science. He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer pause to wonder and stand rapt in awe, is as good as dead: his eyes are closed."
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
"My religiosity consists in a humble admiratation of the infinitely superior spirit that reveals itself in the little that we, with our weak and transitory understanding, can comprehend of reality. Morality is of the highest importance -- but for us, not for God."
Nuke, the 'science without religion quote' is a flat out lie. How interesting that you would choose to surround a lie with half truths and incomplete, reworded or out of context summations that would enrage the man you attribute them to. In the future, should you choose to attribute Einstein to be the source of your lies you'd better do it with the source footnotes, because I will again call you a bald faced liar and a hypocrite for trying to pawn them off here.
Now, here's the TRUTH:
“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter March 24, 1954; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 43.
looks like he's calling you a liar also, Nuke.
“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.
Looks like Einstein has no paitence with 'Religion', Nuke.
“The fairest thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the fundamental emotion which stands at the cradle of true art and true science. He who knows it not and can no longer wonder, no longer feel amazement, is as good as dead, a snuffed-out candle. It was the experience of mystery — even if mixed with fear — that engendered religion. A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate, of the manifestations of the profoundest reason and the most radiant beauty, which are only accessible to our reason in their most elementary forms-it is this knowledge and this emotion that constitute the truly religious attitude; in this sense, and in this alone, I am a deeply religious man. I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his physical death is also beyond my comprehension, nor do I wish it otherwise; such notions are for the fears or absurd egoism of feeble souls. Enough for me the mystery of the eternity of life, and the inkling of the marvellous structure of reality, together with the single-hearted endeavour to comprehend a portion, be it never so tiny, of the reason that manifests itself in nature.”
Albert Einstein, The World as I See It, Secaucus, New Jersy: The Citadel Press, 1999, p. 5.
Looks like Einstein appreciates nature... Not religious tripe, Nuke.
“It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I feel also not able to imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. My views are near those of Spinoza: admiration for the beauty of and belief in the logical simplicity of the order which we can grasp humbly and only imperfectly. I believe that we have to content ourselves with our imperfect knowledge and understanding and treat values and moral obligations as a purely human problem—the most important of all human problems.”
Albert Einstein, 1947; from Banesh Hoffmann, Albert Einstein Creator and Rebel, New York: New American Library, 1972, p. 95.
Looks Like Einstein's religion is that of the Supremacy of Nature.. not the Supremacy of Religion. Nuke.. yer thievery of this mans thoughts and intent for your own base and uncouth religious diatribe is disgusting. Where's your morality, Nuke?
“I am a deeply religious nonbeliever.… This is a somewhat new kind of religion.”
Albert Einstein, in a letter to Hans Muehsam, March 30, 1954; Einstein Archive 38-434; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 218.
You catching on yet, Nuke?
“The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions. Our inner balance and even our very existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life. To make this a living force and bring it to clear consciousness is perhaps the foremost task of education. The foundation of morality should not be made dependent on myth nor tied to any authority lest doubt about the myth or about the legitimacy of the authority imperil the foundation of sound judgment and action.”
Albert Einstein, letter to a minister November 20, 1950; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 95.
That's the real 'morality' quote, Nuke.. not the trash you posted above and attributed to him.
“I have never imputed to Nature a purpose or a goal, or anything that could be understood as anthropomorphic. What I see in Nature is a magnificent structure that we can comprehend only very imperfectly, and that must fill a thinking person with a feeling of humility. This is a genuinely religious feeling that has nothing to do with mysticism.”
Albert Einstein, replying to a letter in 1954 or 1955; from Albert Einstein the Human Side, Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, eds., Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 1981, p. 39.
And thats the real mysticisim quote, Nuke.. you lied again.
You disgust me.. you should be a politician.
-
Yeah Hang, congratulations on finding other quotes. Doesn't really make the others I have listed, which he has said, go away though.
-
Lets see the footnotes, sources.
Proof.
-
I'm reminded of William Burroughs in his "Word of advice to young people" where he advises "If you’re doing business with a religious son of a *****, get it in writing; his word isn’t worth ****, not with the good lord telling him how to **** you on the deal."
Nuke may simply feel no compunction to keep the conversation honest when he "knows" that he's right. Don't take it personally, religion is a world spanning structure that, among other things, can lead even good people to do bad or evil things while truly believing themselves to be righteous. Nuke's probably not a bad guy, he just doesn't feel any compunction to operate by the same rules you do.
Which is why I've pulled out of direct conflict in this thread. You're his dancing monkey, and Jesus is clapping you on from the sidelines in his mind.
-
Agreed Chairboy. However, I have in my old age reached near terminal quantity acceptance levels with regards to bull****.
When I see it, I call it. ;)
-
Originally posted by Chairboy
Nuke may simply feel no compunction to keep the conversation honest when he "knows" that he's right. Don't take it personally, religion is a world spanning structure that, among other things, can lead even good people to do bad or evil things while truly believing themselves to be righteous. Nuke's probably not a bad guy, he just doesn't feel any compunction to operate by the same rules you do.
Which is why I've pulled out of direct conflict in this thread. You're his dancing monkey, and Jesus is clapping you on from the sidelines in his mind.
What I have said is what I believe to be a reasonable discussion. Honest? I am being honest. You feel that I'm not being honest just because you don't agree with me?
The Einstein quotes are there for anyone to find, Hang found the quotes he wanted to find, I found the ones I wanted to find. The difference is that Hang stomps around like a child and tells me my quotes are lies and demands footnotes. Just for a clue, some of those quotes are from letters Einstein replied to in direct questions about God and/or religion. There are plent more.
Hang also engaged in personal attacks, when I have kept my arguments to the subject and to my beliefs. Too bad if Hang doesn't have the processing power to debate with his own thoughts or ideas....instead he just bashes around like a bull in a china shop.
The fact is that matter and energy exist and they had to have either always existed, or have been created. Which does science teach? Have any good answers, or even any ideas or thoughts Chairboy? I suppose you think that anything is possible, as long as it happend at random. If that makes you feel better, so be it.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
darwin's theories are evidenced by the spork, which clearly evolved from the plastic spoon.
match, game, set.
...and evolution continues....introducing....t he Knork (http://www.knork.net/index.php)
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Lets see the footnotes, sources.
Proof.
Proof???
You dont need proof or science, yoiu need IMAGINATION!!!
:rofl :rofl :aok
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Proof???
You dont need proof or science, yoiu need IMAGINATION!!!
:rofl :rofl :aok
That's actually true. Science has a great imagination when it come to explaining what is otherwise opposed by it's own laws and understanding.
All the energy/matter in the universe just exploded into existance. No imagination or reasoning is needed beyond that, end of story as far as science is teaching our kids.
"But, mr science teacher....... if energy or matter cannot be created or destroyed, how does science explain where the energy/matter came from"
Well Johnny, that's not a question for science, that's a philosophical question. You see Johnny, time began aftter the Big Bang, therefore even thinking about what happened before that is just crazy talk.
Which part of physics is wrong? Maybe it was just wrong one time, then after the big bang, everything started obeying the laws again.
-
creo quia absurdum, or how to go nowhere, fast.
-
It is amusing that this thread would be labeled in a sarcastic swipe "and pigs will fly." In fact the inverse sense demanded by the sarcasm, "and pigs will NEVER fly," is quite along the lines of the creationist idea of "stasis of kinds" promoted in the Bible. A thinking evolutionist would never say "and pigs will never fly" because for the evolutionist anything is possible (even if time is not on your side to do it stochastically). Why won't pigs eventually evolve the ability to fly, oh ye evolutionists of little faith?
In the meantime, please pardon us theists if we also happen to agree that pigs will never fly. We know, flying AH, that configuring a good FM is not easy, even with dedicated intelligent designers. And in the real world we have fish that fly, all kinds of insects that fly, all kinds of birds that fly, some mammals that fly, gliding lizards, and have even got bones of dinosaurs that fly (some with greater wingspan than many planes). Random, materialistic "Evolution" just threw boxcars in all these major phyla to give them an extraordinary locomotive capability - flight. OOookay!
The theory behind ID has value in science as a forensic tool, among others. If an array of items can be shown formally to have arisen by design vs stochastically, or stochastically vs by design, then that obviously is of value in many ways in many different areas of research, including the cracking of codes. The theorists of ID mathematically formalize probabilities and thresholds of stochastically arranged items verses by design.
Growing up a committed naturalist, I for one would have appreciated finding out in my science courses that such a leading evolutionist as the co-discoverer of the helical structure of DNA, Francis Crick, considered the conditions of early earth hostile to an abiogenic formation of life, and as a result promoted the idea of directed panspermia by intelligent beings using interstellar rockets.
directed panspermia (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/dirpans.html)
Best Regards
Cement
-
The point was whether to teach it as science, or not.
-
"Yesterday I read a book. Therefore the book is red."
- exerpt from "Teh Universe is teh LOGIKCAL!", by NUKE
-
All of the matter in the universe popped into existence one day at random
which then led to life creating itself one day, followed by it reproducing itself, then morphing into humans.
I miss the old days of the universe, back when there were no laws or physics. Seems like miracles used to happen..... and things got done!
-
Scientist: We don't know what caused the Big Bang.
NUKE: Because scientists don't know what caused the Big Bang, it must have been a super natural cause.
Wait a second where have I heard that line of reasoning before.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm
:aok
-
Originally posted by Thrawn
Scientist: We don't know what caused the Big Bang.
NUKE: Because scientists don't know what caused the Big Bang, it must have been a super natural cause.
Wait a second where have I heard that line of reasoning before.
http://www.datanation.com/fallacies/distract/ig.htm
:aok
Actually, I have said that it just as logical to consider an intelligent creator. It's actually more sensible to consider an intelligent creator as an option than it is to rule it out.
But you would know that if you have read anmy of my arguments here. I never once said that since science doesn't have an answer, that it must have been super natural.
On the other hand, the Big Bang theory relies on the super natural too. It's super natural for matter and energy to be created and explode into existence one day.
-
Nuke, what's the practical use of admitting a supernatural, and therefore unpredictable element?
Its only value is spiritual.
-
My thought on the whole debate...
Any person, who thinks that human beings and dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time, really frightens me.
Thank you, that is all.
-
Originally posted by moot
Nuke, what's the practical use of admitting a supernatural, and therefore unpredictable element?
Its only value is spiritual.
I'm not sure what you mean by admitting a supernatural. Supernatural is anything that cannot be proven as part of our "natural" world.......things that we know are "real"
I was saying that the big bang theory assumes a "supernatural" event took place. That all the matter and energy of our universe just popped into existence from nothing.
-
The big bang theory says matter came to exist out of the blue? Can you give a citation?
Anytime you add an element that you can't entirely predict in an otherwise predictable system, you end up with unpredictable output, no matter what the rational/irrational ratio is.
The scientific approach tends away from unpredictablity, slowly but surely at worst.
So can you say what the practical use of something unpredictable might be?
-
After reading the thread in its entirerity, here's a theory.
Nuke continues to say the same thing, over and over, regardless of what he's told.
As far as the discussion, I've watch Cosmos a lot. I tend to believe it because Carl Segan is a pretty smart man. I couple what I've seen there with what I learned in my science classes.
As an ignorant teenager, I fail to see why ID should be anywhere near schools.
-
Originally posted by hacksaw1
Growing up a committed naturalist, I for one would have appreciated finding out in my science courses that such a leading evolutionist as the co-discoverer of the helical structure of DNA, Francis Crick, considered the conditions of early earth hostile to an abiogenic formation of life, and as a result promoted the idea of directed panspermia by intelligent beings using interstellar rockets.
directed panspermia (http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/D/dirpans.html)
Best Regards
Cement
I don't know when Crick became a "leading evolutionist", he's always been kind of a crackpot. I found out about Crick's weirdness in freshman chemistry. Maybe you went to a lousy school?
-
I, acting upon direction from the Almighty, do declare that this thread should come to an end.
-
No, wait a minute...
I, acting upon direction from the Noble Science Committee, do declare that this thread should come to an end.
Yeah that's it.