Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Mustaine on April 20, 2008, 09:38:50 PM
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080418/cm_uc_crbbox/op_235852
I confess that when the producers of Ben Stein's new documentary "Expelled" called, offering me a private screening, I was less than excited.
ADVERTISEMENT
It is a reality of PC liberalism: There is only one credible side to an issue, and any dissent is not only rejected, it is scorned. Global warming. Gay "rights." Abortion "rights." On these and so many other issues there is enlightenment, and then there is the Idiotic Other Side. PC liberalism's power centers are the news media, the entertainment industry and academia, and all are in the clutches of an unmistakable hypocrisy: Theirs is an ideology that preaches the freedom of thought and expression at every opportunity, yet practices absolute intolerance toward dissension.
Evolution is another one of those one-sided debates. We know the concept of Intelligent Design is stifled in academic circles. An entire documentary to state the obvious? You can see my reluctance to view it.
I went into the screening bored. I came out of it stunned.
Ben Stein's extraordinary presentation documents how the worlds of science and academia not only crush debate on the origins of life, but also crush the careers of professors who dare to question the Darwinian hypothesis of evolution and natural selection.
Stein asks a simple question: What if the universe began with an intelligent designer, a designer named God? He assembles a stable of academics — experts all — who dared to question Darwinist assumptions and found themselves "expelled" from intellectual discourse as a result. They include evolutionary biologist Richard Sternberg (sandbagged at the Smithsonian), biology professor Caroline Crocker (drummed out of George Mason University), and astrophysicist Guillermo Gonzalez (blackballed at Iowa State University).
That's disturbing enough, but what Stein does next is truly shocking. He allows the principal advocates of Darwinism to speak their minds. These are experts with national reputations, regular welcomed guests on network television and the like. But the public knows them only by their careful seven-second soundbites. Stein engages them in conversation. They speak their minds. They become sputtering ranters, openly championing their sheer hatred of religion..... <read rest through link>
Anyone else really interested in seeing this film? It honestly sounds really interesting :D
wikipedia article on the film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
at least some one is doing films that counter the michael snores of this world. :aok
-
Yeah, I'm thinking about catching it. It's the only film I AM thinking about seeing.
-
Ben Stein is a practitioner of debate, something the Moore types don't quite grasp---calling your opponent a nazi, child-killer, racist, sexist, or perhaps child killer, etal and then saying "thank ypu" to Bill Mahr's or John Stewart's adoring crowds doesn't exactly qualify as debate. 90% of them can be reduced to babbling idiots if you stretch them out beyond their rehearsed sound bytes. Used to love watching William F Buckley :aok---(ok, he lost his cool ONE time :))
-
I plane on seeing it.
-
:aok :aok Those who claim to be Tolarant, often aren't.
-
Ben Stein always impressed me. I was a little sad when his game show died.
-
Sounds like crap. The review mentions the usual clueless pseudo scientific 'ID' refutals of 'regular' science. Nevermind if it also skews interviews like mentioned.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?ref=movies
-
Sounds like crap. The review mentions the usual clueless pseudo scientific 'ID' refutals of 'regular' science. Nevermind if it also skews interviews like mentioned.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?ref=movies
Sounds like someone's getting their panties in a twist.
-
Staged crowds? Deliberately misinterpreting science to push an agenda? Nah. Let's call a truce, you don't preach in my schools and I won't think in your church.
-
Staged crowds? Deliberately misinterpreting science to push an agenda? Nah. Let's call a truce, you don't preach in my schools and I won't think in your church.
a fair compromise i think.
-
Sounds like crap. The review mentions the usual clueless pseudo scientific 'ID' refutals of 'regular' science. Nevermind if it also skews interviews like mentioned.
http://movies.nytimes.com/2008/04/18/movies/18expe.html?ref=movies
LOL, yeah the New York Times will give an impartial, and unbiased review. :aok
That I'm sure of. :rolleyes:
-
"sputtering athiests" - lol! Time to take off the diapers, kids. EvC debates? Not even applicable. You cannot debate scientific method.
A little counterbalance (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NiNGK3y5Ypg)
For some education. (http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html?DCMP=ILC-hmts&nsref=top1_head_Evolution:%2024%20myths%20and%20misconceptions)
and as for the film itself:
http://richarddawkins.net/article,2394,Lying-for-Jesus,Richard-Dawkins
... The whole tone of the film is whiny, paranoid -- pathetic really. The narrator is somebody called Ben Stein. I had not heard of him, but apparently he is well known to Americans, for it is hard to see why else he would have been chosen to front the film. He certainly can't have been chosen for his knowledge of science, nor his powers of logical reasoning, nor his box office appeal (heavens, no), and his speaking voice is an irritating, nasal drawl, innocent of charm and of consonants. I suppose that makes it a good voice for conveying the whingeing paranoia that I referred to, so maybe that was qualification enough.
Now, to the film itself. What a shoddy, second-rate piece of work. ...
-
Sounds like someone's getting their panties in a twist.
You wish.
SIK1 there's some tell-tale hints that a review isn't making things up, and one of those is undebatable facts like skewed/spliced interview segments. It doesn't prove the rest of the review's true, but it does tip the scales to its benefit. This movie sounds like a stinker. No impartial documentary maker screws with evidence..
-
blah blah blah
I can find negative reviews of fat boy mm's film too if you'd like, I bet I could even google some conservative debunking viewpoints too, but do I even need to bother? :rolleyes:
-
and one of those is undebatable facts like skewed/spliced interview segments.
ROFL! even going back to roger and me mm has "skewed/spliced interview segments" even to the point of falsifying entire comments <ahem splicing 2 different Charlton Heston speeches into 1 for the anti gun movie>
pot meet kettle m00t
-
You wish.
SIK1 there's some tell-tale hints that a review isn't making things up, and one of those is undebatable facts like skewed/spliced interview segments. It doesn't prove the rest of the review's true, but it does tip the scales to its benefit. This movie sounds like a stinker. No impartial documentary maker screws with evidence..
You mean like in a Micheal Moore flick?
Mustaine you beat me to it. :aok
-
Congrats, Mustaine, on winning an argument inside your own head. Or could you point out where in either Oct's or Moot's posts they even mentioned Michael Moore?
-
life evolves :aok
-
What's amazing to me, is it seems just about everyone on either side of the debate seem to think an omnipotent being couldn't set the physical rules of the universe in the first place. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
-
Deists/Theists/Creationists/etc do think so, as far as I've seen - dunno how you could mean anyone but atheists/agnostics/scientists/etc by that.
Such a being doing that, or not, is outside the scope of science. Most of the people who get into these sorts of arguments just don't understand science in the first place. Often enough, they don't understand philosophy of religion either. Quite a few of them have a vague set of superstitions rather than religion. A real hotch potch of nonsense.
-
Making around 3 mil on over 1000 screens on the opening weekend, Expelled isn't doing too well. By compairison, MM's Sicko totaled almost 4.5 mil on under 500 screens for it's first weekend.
Dream on all you 25%ers :lol
-
Inevitably caught Shermer & co's attention:
http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-04-17.html
-
all I see is yet another purse fights between two religions. the darwinist's should go on and build some churches where the general public is allowed to enter and worship. they could use L Ron Hubbard as the paradigm for their program.
-
Science is a religion Storch?
From the Shermer article, on Stein's documentary:
Even more disturbing than these distortions is the film’s other thesis that Darwinism inexorably leads to atheism, Communism, Fascism and the Holocaust. Despite the fact that hundreds of millions of religious believers fully accept the theory of evolution, Stein claims that we are in an ideological war between a scientific natural worldview that leads to the gulag archipelago and Nazi gas chambers, and a religious supernatural worldview that leads to freedom, justice and the American way. The film’s visual motifs leave no doubt in the viewer’s emotional brain that Darwinism is leading America into an immoral quagmire. We’re going to hell in a Darwinian hand basket. Cleverly edited interview excerpts from scientists are interspersed with various black-and-white clips for guilt by association with: bullies beating up on a 98-pound weakling, Charlton Heston’s character in Planet of the Apes being blasted by a water hose, Nikita Khrushchev pounding his fist on a United Nations desk, East Germans captured trying to scale the Berlin Wall, and Nazi crematoria remains and Holocaust victims being bulldozed into mass graves. This propaganda production would make Joseph Goebbels proud.
Are you saying, Storch, that to follow protocol such as science's methodology for testing ideas with practical experiments, makes someone into a darwinist?
Not only has Creationism been mostly wrong in its predictions so far, it also provides nothing in the way of scientific or technological progress. Even if it weren't pseudoscience, it's a dead end.
-
I've said it before and I'll say it again. There is no possible debate between creationism and evolution. Creationism is a religious belief based on the infallibility of the bible. If cannot be proved or disproved. It cannot grow. It's a story in a book. Not all Christians even believe in creation. Only those who for some reason cling to the belief that every word of the Bible is from God. They are a minority, a vocal minority.
Evolution on the other hand is based on science, it changes as more information is discovered. It is not a religious experience and vitally it does not in any way disprove the existence of a God. What it does do however is prove the Bible is not accurate when it comes to describing creation thus underming the creationists entire world. Hence their intense hostility to evolution.
Creationists are ridiculous in their attempts to discredit evolution. If they had an alternative theory better than a single story in a single book written thousands of years ago. They might have more credibility.
On the other hand Intelligent design is almost as farcical. It almost acknowledges evolution but tries to add input from God at certain points.
What a joke.
-
See it...then pass judgment on it. That's what some of you leftist types demanded of the critics of Michael Moore's spliced and diced tripe. You're condemning it out-of-hand, with nothing more to go on than a short review on an internet website.
Note also in that review that one of the scientists being interviewed posited that life may have been brought to earth by aliens, without realizing that theory admits the possibility of "intelligent design."
If nothing else, Stein's film may awaken some Americans to the hypocrisy and heavy-handedness of pc academia toward opposing viewpoints.
Who would be willing to bet that Stein's "documentary" will NOT be nominated for an oscar?
-
See it...then pass judgment on it.
OK, I did and I will.
It's crap.
-
Is it really that bad? I must admit that looking at the reviews.. they are almost livid with rage.
Why is that? they didn't get mad at michell moores total crap. I mean.. the guy staged interviews and lied over and over and no one even hinted that he did in the reviews.
Albore lied through his teeth and was so sickly sweet you almost got cavities but no reviewer even hinted that you were gonna see a big lie.
But when it comes to darwin and god.. the critics are all experts.. all scientists.
I don't care about darwinism one way or the other... some of it is likely true but.... the agenda of the liberal journalists if again very clear.
lazs
-
Is it really that bad? I must admit that looking at the reviews.. they are almost livid with rage.
Why is that? they didn't get mad at michell moores total crap. I mean.. the guy staged interviews and lied over and over and no one even hinted that he did in the reviews.
Albore lied through his teeth and was so sickly sweet you almost got cavities but no reviewer even hinted that you were gonna see a big lie.
But when it comes to darwin and god.. the critics are all experts.. all scientists.
I don't care about darwinism one way or the other... some of it is likely true but.... the agenda of the liberal journalists if again very clear.
lazs
Do you think science is liberal?
-
I think journalists and professors and for the most part... academics are far more liberal than the average person. I would say that some scientists don't even know what they are politically as they don't give it much real thought.
Do you think that journalists.. film critics.. entertainers.. and professors are conservative?
lazs
-
Lazs it doesn't matter if the extremist atheist activists go foaming at the mouth because of this movie. What matters is the truth. The truth is that the movie is a shoddy piece of misleading Creationist/ID crap, just as Moore's movies were liberal wacko hack job that sent conservative extremists foaming and raving.
-
Yeah, it does sound as if Stein is following in Moore's sorry footsteps.
-
Yeah, it does sound as if Stein is following in Moore's sorry footsteps.
He better watch out for the oil slicks left by the Big Macs.
-
I think that a majority of the public is not well informed on the sciences. I think that anyone who claims that evolution is about lightning striking a mudpuddle, is severely mis-informed. I think that religion(as far as it's take on evolutionary science) does much more harm than good for the sake of mankind. I think that religion will continue to hamper mankind's progress, just as it has for the last 2000 years. I do not think being liberal or conservative has any place in science. :aok
-
does the church still think the sun revolves around the earth?
-
does the church still think the sun revolves around the earth?
Yes, they think that Copernicus started a liberal conspiracy! :rolleyes:
-
The Catholic Church has no problem with Evolution. In fact I was taught Darwin in a Catholic grade school back in the 60's.
I wonder when the rest of the USA will wake up?
-
The Catholic Church has no problem with Evolution. In fact I was taught Darwin in a Catholic grade school back in the 60's.
I wonder when the rest of the USA will wake up?
That wasn't because they agree with it.
It was a hint that maybe you're not 'Heaven Material.' :aok
-
3 pages and what, 1 or 2 have seen the movie?
-
The Catholic Church doesn't have a literal belief in the bible. It recognises it for what it is. In fact while they don't discourage Catholics from reading the bible. They don't particularly encourage it either. My parents were devout but there was never a Bible in our house.
You don't have to see the movie to know the plot. I for one never watched a Michael Moore film right through even though I sometimes agree with some of his stuff. You know the agenda before you even watch it.
-
I wonder how many creationist' have actually read the entire bible?
-
Is it really that bad?
I thought it was pretty bad. I wasn't expecting an even-handed documentary, but to give you an idea of the level of thought, there were several times when they showed Nazi concentration camp videos or Hitler, in a very clumsy attempt to tie what they kept calling "Darwinism" with killing innocent people.
Most of all though, it just seemed poorly made and worst of all, not very entertaining. Kind of like those old venereal disease films you had to watch in high school, except not as funny.
But hey, see it for yourself if you're interested. But I would try to get a free ticket like I did or you might be ticked that you paid for it.
-
delete duplicate
-
The Catholic Church has no problem with Evolution. In fact I was taught Darwin in a Catholic grade school back in the 60's.
I wonder when the rest of the USA will wake up?
Galileo had a different experience :)
-
Science is a religion Storch?
From the Shermer article, on Stein's documentary:
Are you saying, Storch, that to follow protocol such as science's methodology for testing ideas with practical experiments, makes someone into a darwinist?
Not only has Creationism been mostly wrong in its predictions so far, it also provides nothing in the way of scientific or technological progress. Even if it weren't pseudoscience, it's a dead end.
what I'm saying moot is that in the disciplines of physics and evolution science is in a quagmire of it's own making.
theoretical physics has not progessed since the late 60's early 70's quantum physics and general relativity are at odds and incompatible. there isn't a single cosmologist that has even a hint of a clue as to what caused the "big bang" or what may have preceeded it.
you don't even want to get started on the darwinists as I have covered that in previous debates.
all I'm saying is that at this juncture in time it takes an equal amount of faith to accept the biblical view on creation as does to believe what "science" offers up.
until scientific theory is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt I accept the biblical interpretation of creation. I will further state that I believe science will never have an answer to how or to why. they have stopped asking why, if indeed they ever did.
-
What's amazing to me, is it seems just about everyone on either side of the debate seem to think an omnipotent being couldn't set the physical rules of the universe in the first place. Science and religion are not mutually exclusive.
I think it's the accountability part which causes so much angst. Some want freedom without accountability and a creator might mean we have to answer for our lives.
-
Here's an interesting graph regarding the acceptance of the theory of evolution in different countries. We're in good company:
http://www.livescience.com/php/multimedia/imagedisplay/img_display.php?pic=060810_evo_rank_02.jpg
(http://images.livescience.com/images/060810_evo_rank_02.jpg)
-
what I'm saying moot is that in the disciplines of physics and evolution science is in a quagmire of it's own making.
Explain.
theoretical physics has not progessed since the late 60's early 70's quantum physics and general relativity are at odds and incompatible.
there isn't a single cosmologist that has even a hint of a clue as to what caused the "big bang" or what may have preceeded it.
This statement is wrong.
all I'm saying is that at this juncture in time it takes an equal amount of faith to accept the biblical view on creation as does to believe what "science" offers up.
It takes much more faith to believe that we are all decendants of Adam and Eve and the earth is only 6,000 years old.
until scientific theory is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt I accept the biblical interpretation of creation. I will further state that I believe science will never have an answer to how or to why. they have stopped asking why, if indeed they ever did.
Science, if left unhampered by radical religious groups, will answer more than your brain is capable of handling!
PS. It is a known fact that species evolve. It is not a theory, it is a fact.
-
Galileo had a different experience :)
Galileo was not in my grade.
Also he had nothing to do with evolution. He was censured for teaching Copurnican theory. The church has since apologized.
-
any film made by a person is therefore manipulatable by the filmmaker as to the content and "mood" of the film.
Regardless of your position on religion or evolution, a film cannot make any credible
point either way. It is simply designed to:
1. make a profit
2. sway opinion from those subject to manipulation.
-
what I'm saying moot is that in the disciplines of physics and evolution science is in a quagmire of it's own making.
No. People with a poor understanding of both are the problem.
theoretical physics has not progessed since the late 60's early 70's
Chit happens Storch. Plateaus, etc. Sitting on their arse will not get scientists anywhere. They've been working at it and whatever rut they've gotten stuck on, they'll get out of it eventualy, not by reinterpreting Nostradamus, but by reasoning their way thru their mistakes.
quantum physics and general relativity are at odds and incompatible.
As far as anyone can tell, yet. "Don't count your chickens..."
there isn't a single cosmologist that has even a hint of a clue as to what caused the "big bang" or what may have preceeded it.
There wasn't a single specialist that knew what caused countless phenomena until someone got a eureka moment...
you don't even want to get started on the darwinists as I have covered that in previous debates.
Idem. "Ever tried? Ever failed? No matter. Try again. Fail again. Fail better."
all I'm saying is that at this juncture in time it takes an equal amount of faith to accept the biblical view on creation as does to believe what "science" offers up.
No.
until scientific theory is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt I accept the biblical interpretation of creation.
Non sequitur.
I will further state that I believe science will never have an answer to how or to why.
Not specific enough.
they have stopped asking why, if indeed they ever did.
What?
When I wake up sober I'll have a thorough reply. These religion/science misunderstandings are getting old.
-
Snip
I think that religion will continue to hamper mankind's progress, just as it has for the last 2000 years.
Snip
Skyrock
I agree with this statement. Most of the wars, terrorism, and conflicts present in the world today center around religious beliefs.
theoretical physics has not progessed since the late 60's early 70's quantum physics and general relativity are at odds and incompatible. there isn't a single cosmologist that has even a hint of a clue as to what caused the "big bang" or what may have preceeded it.
Storch
The first part of the statement is absolutely false and the second nearly so. . Quantum physics and general relativity are on two vastly different scales. More and more we are proving that general relativity doesnt apply on the quatum scale. Higgs Boson and the string theory are just two examples disproving that fact. True we havent made the leaps an bounds present in the first have of the 20th century. However to say theoretical pyhsics hasnt progressed in 30 years is inaccurate.
Strip
-
I think it's the accountability part which causes so much angst. Some want freedom without accountability and a creator might mean we have to answer for our lives.
:rofl :lol :rofl
I believe the quest is for the truth, albeit belittled by religion and mocked by faith, it is the single most important endeavor for mankind!
-
"I will further state that I believe science will never have an answer to how or to why. they have stopped asking why, if indeed they ever did."
This is basically what my Biology textbook states.
It says, "Conjecturing about how life began is both fruitless and safe. One can never be proven right and it is impossible to be proven wrong. Nonetheless, it is a good intellectual exercise, and it can be useful in helping to understand scientific reasoning. So let's ignore all the problems associated with the question and tread into an arena littered with dead guesses."
Now what I'm getting from this is that scientists don't know how life began, but are guessing. Here is some more I gleaned from the text. To paraphrase:
"There are two scientific schools of thought concerning origins of life. These are Mechanism and Vitalism. Mechanism implies that life is the result of simple interactions of mindless molecules. Vitalism is based on the premise that living things are more than the result of molecular interaction, that living things inherently possess some undefinable and unmeasurable quality, a life force. Vitalists use telological reasoning. This reasoning is commonly used in reference to ideas that go beyond what is actually verifiable and generally implies some inner drive to complete a goal or some directing force operating above the laws of nature."
Now, the disagreement at Darwin's time was over how one arrives at scientific conclusions. Scientific conclusions are arrived at either by induction or deduction. With induction, empirical data is gathered and from this a generalization is induced. The deductive method arrives at a generalization through some insight or hunch. Most scientists today rely more strongly on inductive evidence in developing scientific principles.
"Due to the skeptical nature of scientists, any idea, theory, or experiment is certain to be attacked by someone. Scientists demand hard evidence. However, their rigor does nor mean that they are eminently rational people, pristine, pure of heart, unemotional, and unfettered by personal prejudice."
Biology, The World of Life Fourth Edition Robert A. Wallace Copyright 1987
What I am understanding from this is that there are differing schools of thought when it comes to science and the scientific method(s.) That there are two distinct scientific methods which are at odds depending on current trends. That philosophy is a substantial ingredient in any discussion of life's origins. That this is something which cannot be proven either way, and that "life force" is part of the Vitalism school of thought. I do not know if Vitalism is related to Intelligent Design, but apparently it is considered within the realm of science. At least by the author of this textbook.
Here is a question. Since there is no way to prove scientifically how life began, and since curiosity and seeking truth is one of the main goals of science, can any discussion of how life began deliberately leave out any possibility, including creation? I believe this question is a valid scientific question which deals with the philosophical aspect of scientific thought. It cannot be dismissed outright. Imho, the only truthful scientific answer at this point in time would be we just don't know.
Les
-
how many lifelines do I get?
-
Leslie, no supernatural answer is of any scientific use.
-
The basic building blocks of single celled organisms have been created in test tubes. Electricity, water, and prehistoric atmosphere combined to produce complex ammnio acids. Can you really ignore the fact that once this happened in the right circumstances life was inevitable?
Strip
-
:rofl :lol :rofl
I believe the quest is for the truth, albeit belittled by religion and mocked by faith, it is the single most important endeavor for mankind!
I think you'll find no shortage of mocking among atheists. Until the origin of space and time is known, no quest for truth can deny the possibility of a creator.
-
Here is a question. Since there is no way to prove scientifically how life began, and since curiosity and seeking truth is one of the main goals of science, can any discussion of how life began deliberately leave out any possibility, including creation? I believe this question is a valid scientific question which deals with the philosophical aspect of scientific thought.
It's a valid question, just not a scientific question. It's not falsifiable.
-
I think you'll find no shortage of mocking among atheists. Until the origin of space and time is known, no quest for truth can deny the possibility of a creator.
and vice-versa
no matter how much scientific evidence is provided, the faithful will never let go. they just don't have it in them. but thats OK!
-
PS. It is a known fact that species evolve. It is not a theory, it is a fact.
Do they de-evolve?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
-
The basic building blocks of single celled organisms have been created in test tubes. Electricity, water, and prehistoric atmosphere combined to produce complex ammnio acids. Can you really ignore the fact that once this happened in the right circumstances life was inevitable?
Strip
Do you happen to know the odds of "this happening in the right circumstances"?
-
On a global scale almost certain....
Temps within -60 to 220 degrees F
CO2 or O2
Water
Electricity
Possibly radiation
After you mix these its a matter of a few million years until the right wires get crossed. Radiation, mutations, evolution, and intermixing of species as led us to what you see today.
Strip
-
Is there a fossil record to support all of this evolution?
-
I think you'll find no shortage of mocking among atheists. Until the origin of space and time is known, no quest for truth can deny the possibility of a creator.
I don't know too much about the atheists, do they mock the truth also?
-
Is there a fossil record to support all of this evolution?
Yes. Read this.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
-
moot.. I have to disagree with you here.. If science will not entertain the thought of the supernatural then it is a false science. A true science may conclude that things supernatural are extremely unlikely but....
Now, I have not seen the documentary.. I do believe in a god and I do believe in creation... I am not sure how or when. How could I be?
I do find it odd tho how vitroholic and angry the reviews are.. how quick they are to discredit this movie but how fawning and blind they are about the likes of moores and albores total crap moivies they were.
It is hard to put much faith or trust in people who would have such a blind and obvious agenda.
I will go to see the movie myself. It may be crap but.. How could it be worse than an albore or moore film?
Maybe it is tho... athiests and lefties don't have a monopoly on agenda and blind faith.
lazs
-
Do they de-evolve?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
Evolving is the offspring of change over the course of time, so if it is possible to go back in time, then it is possible to de-evolve. :aok
-
Yes. Read this.
http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record_id=11876
Read what, exactly?
-
Missing link?
(http://img80.imageshack.us/img80/5/nilsencavemanmv0.png)
-
Evolving is the offspring of change over the course of time, so if it is possible to go back in time, then it is possible to de-evolve. :aok
Is adaptation the same as evolution?
-
A simple google search should saddle you up with a few weeks of reading.
Strip
-
Do they de-evolve?
If so, why?
If not, why not?
species do not de-evolve. they evolve into a different version based on many different factors over a long period of time.
evolving my take a form of something that appears de-evolved from a previous version, but is simply a reaction to environmental conditions.
-
I do find it odd tho how vitroholic and angry the reviews are..
I don't.
-
Is adaptation the same as evolution?
Thats what I was gonna say Donzo...
If I go outside and get hot but carry on by adaptation, did I just evolve?
-
Is adaptation the same as evolution?
evolution involves several aspects of change, including adaptation. Why don't you read up on it? :aok
-
Thats what I was gonna say Donzo...
If I go outside and get hot but carry on by adaptation, did I just evolve?
Hey bro, I'm trying to not be insulting, but you and Donzo are sounding not very smart. If you haven't studied science, then why try and post in this thread. It would help if you knew just a little about what you are typing about. I suggest taking Strip's advice and google some reading material. :salute
-
Read what, exactly?
That book.
-
Thats what I was gonna say Donzo...
If I go outside and get hot but carry on by adaptation, did I just evolve?
choosing to go outside and remain hot is a concious decision and not an evolutionary change. You have adapted not evolved.
-
The basic building blocks of single celled organisms have been created in test tubes. Electricity, water, and prehistoric atmosphere combined to produce complex ammnio acids. Can you really ignore the fact that once this happened in the right circumstances life was inevitable?
Strip
The Urey-Miller experiment of which you speak has been discredited for some time. The couple of amino acids that resulted were far simpler than the basic building blocks of life, and used a precursor "chemical soup" that has since been determined to be completely unrepresentative of the condition on earth at the time life is posited to have begun. That is why the OOL question is still completely open, and why virtually no hypothosis currently put forth has gained any traction or proved to be fruitful in guiding further research. Each such hypothesis results in more questions than it answers, intractable questions that continue to stymy progress in OOL research. Even if scientists managed to produce simple amino acids with the chemical compositions actually available in pre-biotic earth, this is still so far from true life that it is naive in the extreme to assume that would lead inevitably to DNA-based life. Life cannot exist without the DNA code of life, yet DNA would not exist in the absense of the basic components of cellular life. The simplest cell possible is so vastly complex and specified that the odds of it happening by chance exceed the probablistic resources of the entire universe since the moment of the Big-Bang. That is a basic tenant of intelligent design theory, not (as those wishing to label it "creationism" would like you to believe) scripture.
Why, might I ask, is it scientific to look at forensic evidence, or rock formations, or EM signals from space and ask, "Is it natural or designed?", but un-scientific to look at the incredible complexity and specificity in a single living cell, or the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants, and ask, "Is this designed?" Who the designer is may be a question not answerable by science at this time, but detecting the hallmarks of design itself certainly is not.
Anyway, the basic premise of this film is NOT whether Darwinian evolution is a correct and sufficient mechanism to explain all life on Earth, or whether ID can be persued scientifically. You missed the entire point of the film if that's all you took away from it (it's certainly the only thing most negative reviewers chose to focus on, though). The point of the film is to document a pattern of descrimination and suppression of any scientist who openly questions Darwinism's efficacy, or proposes that there is detectable and measureable evidence of design in nature.
-
The Urey-Miller experiment of which you speak has been discredited for some time. The couple of amino acids that resulted were far simpler than the basic building blocks of life, and used a precursor "chemical soup" that has since been determined to be completely unrepresentative of the condition on earth at the time life is posited to have begun. That is why the OOL question is still completely open, and why virtually no hypothosis currently put forth has gained any traction or proved to be fruitful in guiding further research. Each such hypothesis results in more questions than it answers, intractable questions that continue to stymy progress in OOL research. Even if scientists managed to produce simple amino acids with the chemical compositions actually available in pre-biotic earth, this is still so far from true life that it is naive in the extreme to assume that would lead inevitably to DNA-based life. Life cannot exist without the DNA code of life, yet DNA would not exist in the absense of the basic components of cellular life. The simplest cell possible is so vastly complex and specified that the odds of it happening by chance exceed the probablistic resources of the entire universe since the moment of the Big-Bang. That is a basic tenant of intelligent design theory, not (as those wishing to label it "creationism" would like you to believe) scripture.
Why, might I ask, is it scientific to look at forensic evidence, or rock formations, or EM signals from space and ask, "Is it natural or designed?", but un-scientific to look at the incredible complexity and specificity in a single living cell, or the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants, and ask, "Is this designed?" Who the designer is may be a question not answerable by science at this time, but detecting the hallmarks of design itself certainly is not.
Anyway, the basic premise of this film is NOT whether Darwinian evolution is a correct and sufficient mechanism to explain all life on Earth, or whether ID can be persued scientifically. You missed the entire point of the film if that's all you took away from it (it's certainly the only thing most negative reviewers chose to focus on, though). The point of the film is to document a pattern of descrimination and suppression of any scientist who openly questions Darwinism's efficacy, or proposes that there is detectable and measureable evidence of design in nature.
no mention of protobionts?
-
Hey bro, I'm trying to not be insulting, but you and Donzo are sounding not very smart. If you haven't studied science, then why try and post in this thread. It would help if you knew just a little about what you are typing about. I suggest taking Strip's advice and google some reading material. :salute
I'm not sounding very smart because I ask questions?
I suppose that you have never asked any questions...you must have just always knew everything or never questioned what you have read.
-
That book.
If I remember correctly, the fossil record goes back to a point where, BAM! , everything came into existence (see "Cambrian explosion").
So how is the fossil record complete? You must have read the book, explain please.
-
I'm not sounding very smart because I ask questions?
I suppose that you have never asked any questions...you must have just always knew everything or never questioned what you have read.
Donzo, I am all for you asking questions, but the de-evolve question did not sound very bright. I am sorry, but that was my assessment of the question. It actually sounded like you were being facetious. I do apologize if I was wrong in my assessment.
-
PS. It is a known fact that species evolve. It is not a theory, it is a fact.
Yes and no. If you mean that a species makes minor changes according to its environment, then yes, that has been replicated throughout history as anyone who has bread a dog knows. If you mean adding major changes like a dog growing gills or its hair turning to feathers then no, there has never been any scientific observation of a major DNA change of that nature.
You can modify the existing DNA in a species to your hearts content, but no scientist has ever added or subtracted DNA to create a different species. A dog is a dog and will always remain so. So far science has not come up with an explanation of how the blue print of a cell can be changed. Macro evolution is a theory that has never been observed or proven.
-
If I remember correctly, the fossil record goes back to a point where, BAM! , everything came into existence (see "Cambrian explosion").
So how is the fossil record complete? You must have read the book, explain please.
fossils pre-date the cambrian. Archean eon
-
Anyway, the basic premise of this film is NOT whether Darwinian evolution is a correct and sufficient mechanism to explain all life on Earth, or whether ID can be persued scientifically. You missed the entire point of the film if that's all you took away from it (it's certainly the only thing most negative reviewers chose to focus on, though). The point of the film is to document a pattern of descrimination and suppression of any scientist who openly questions Darwinism's efficacy, or proposes that there is detectable and measureable evidence of design in nature.
In my opinion, the film was conceived because the filmmaker felt that "creationism" is being pushed away from the mainstream educational system and he had a platform and the resources big enough to bring it back to the forefront, thereby giving away and injecting his personal feelings on the subject. I don't think he would produce a film like this without feeling that way. Therefore, it is sort of biased by nature. I personally feel that "Religion" has no place in the public school system, because it is primarily "word of mouth knowledge" but many private institutions are available for those wanting that type of education.
Lets be realistic here. Is the film critical of the evolutionary process.
I have not actually watched it yet and have only read articles on it, so I may not have the full grasp of the "PLOT" so to speak.
-
no mention of protobionts?
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Science:
"A term first used by Oparin to describe the early environmentally isolated, chemical-concentrating structures from which cells are presumed to have evolved." (emphasis added is mine)
Again, a hypothesis which has been looked at, but does not answer most of the questions regarding OOL. I also didn't mention the "RNA World" hypothesis.
-
In my opinion, the film was conceived because the filmmaker felt that "creationism" is being pushed away from the mainstream educational system and he had a platform and the resources big enough to bring it back to the forefront, thereby giving away and injecting his personal feelings on the subject. I don't think he would produce a film like this without feeling that way. Therefore, it is sort of biased by nature. I personally feel that "Religion" has no place in the public school system, because it is primarily "word of mouth knowledge" but many private institutions are available for those wanting that type of education.
Lets be realistic here. Is the film critical of the evolutionary process.
I have not actually watched it yet and have only read articles on it, so I may not have the full grasp of the "PLOT" so to speak.
The film has nothing to do with Creationism. Again, the film is about discrimination against ID scientists. Conflating creationism with ID is a common tactic of those doing the suppression.
-
fossils pre-date the cambrian. Archean eon
Fossils of what? Of the ancestors of modern day animals? Or were they fossils of things that evolved into what we see today?
Is there a fossil record that "documents" the changes?
-
Yes and no. If you mean that a species makes minor changes according to its environment, then yes, that has been replicated throughout history as anyone who has bread a dog knows.
Macro evolution is a theory that has never been observed or proven.
First, you just stated that evolution is a fact.
Second, new species would evolve to fill nitches, that is how it works, right?
Third, what degree of a "minor" change would you consider to be a major change?
Last, there are many studies that have shown gene sequences between species that are only found in those two species* or what about a fossil of a pre-cursor to bears and dogs such as amphicyonid. The way I have always concluded my belief in evolution is like a large puzzle, where there are pieces missing but you still see the picture. :aok
*
http://www.asa3.org/archive/evolution/199908/0289.html
-
The film has nothing to do with Creationism. Again, the film is about discrimination against ID scientists. Conflating creationism with ID is a common tactic of those doing the suppression.
What is the difference between creationism and ID?
I'm not being fecetious, I honestly don't know. I may have erroneously thought that it is just a different name for the same thing.
Gut feeling is Ben Stein doesn't believe in evolution and is expressing his feelings this way, which looks better expressed in this manner than saying "DARWINISM IS BULLS#&T".
-
The Urey-Miller experiment of which you speak has been discredited for some time. The couple of amino acids that resulted were far simpler than the basic building blocks of life, and used a precursor "chemical soup" that has since been determined to be completely unrepresentative of the condition on earth at the time life is posited to have begun. That is why the OOL question is still completely open, and why virtually no hypothosis currently put forth has gained any traction or proved to be fruitful in guiding further research. Each such hypothesis results in more questions than it answers, intractable questions that continue to stymy progress in OOL research. Even if scientists managed to produce simple amino acids with the chemical compositions actually available in pre-biotic earth, this is still so far from true life that it is naive in the extreme to assume that would lead inevitably to DNA-based life. Life cannot exist without the DNA code of life, yet DNA would not exist in the absense of the basic components of cellular life. The simplest cell possible is so vastly complex and specified that the odds of it happening by chance exceed the probablistic resources of the entire universe since the moment of the Big-Bang. That is a basic tenant of intelligent design theory, not (as those wishing to label it "creationism" would like you to believe) scripture.
Why, might I ask, is it scientific to look at forensic evidence, or rock formations, or EM signals from space and ask, "Is it natural or designed?", but un-scientific to look at the incredible complexity and specificity in a single living cell, or the fine-tuning of the cosmological constants, and ask, "Is this designed?" Who the designer is may be a question not answerable by science at this time, but detecting the hallmarks of design itself certainly is not.
Ooooh!. I love the irreducible complexity argument. Reeks of desperation. It's like that guy the cops are putting the screws to under the heat lamp; he keeps changing his story. First it was, "God made Everything in seven days just like the bible says." Then we have,"Ok. Ok. Seven days could mean any amount of time to The God. He just buried all those fossils and such out there to test our faith while we're surrounded by you blaspheming ape lovers." Now we have, "Just Look at the flagellum! All those little parts don't do anything on their own! They cannot have evolved individually. Jesus put them there. Now let's call it Intelligent Design (Yup, just like that with capitol letters to make it sound all official-like), and maybe we'll fool some folks that are sleeping.
You see, legitimate science is trying to figure out what happened without making any assumptions. Creationists and intelligent design enthusiasts think they already know what happened, and they are desperately looking for any way to prove it. And ruling out the possibility of a designer is not good science either. There may very well be one. If so, that doesn't change the fact that favorable gene mutations survive ,etc.,etc.
EDIT:
The simplest cell possible is so vastly complex and specified that the odds of it happening by chance exceed the probablistic resources of the entire universe since the moment of the Big-Bang.
I just read this part again, and WOW! Not only do you creationist types claim to know the odds of the first bacterium forming, you also are privy to the total potential of the entire universe! Powerful knowledge, indeed! Too bad for evolutionary proponents that this isn't being hashed out in a court of law. That info would be the first thing requested in pre-trial discovery!
-
Fossils of what?
blue-green algea
Of the ancestors of modern day animals?
blue-green algea(Cyanobacteria) still exists today
Is there a fossil record that "documents" the changes?
There is a fossil record for many of the changes, but also, no telling how many animals and plants existed that we don't have fossils for. :(
-
First, you just stated that evolution is a fact.
Yes I did, but there are two kinds of evolution.
Second, new species would evolve to fill nitches, that is how it works, right?
How does the DNA from a hair get the code for feathers? Where does that information come from? There is no evidence of how a "nitche" would form at the basic cellular level.
Third, what degree of a "minor" change would you consider to be a major change?
A minor change is called Micro Evolution. The existing DNA is manipulated and the code produces a minor change. But the descendants of the animal are still the same species.
A major change is called Macro Evolution, one species becoming another. For that to happen, the DNA in a cell would have to have material added to or subtracted from it. There has never been a scientific observation of this phenomenon happening and science has no explanation for how it might actually occur.
-
Often enough, they don't understand philosophy of religion either.
Religion was our first attempt at philosophy,geography,astronomy etc...We thought we lived on a disc,didn't know germs existed,or that we lived on a cooling planet with techtonic plates that shift.We didn't know there were marcupials(or that Austrailia even existed)...All the evidence points to religion being man-made.
And as they say about making an attempt at something.."The first is the worst".
-
blue-green algea
blue-green algea(Cyanobacteria) still exists today
There is a fossil record for many of the changes, but also, no telling how many animals and plants existed that we don't have fossils for. :(
Blue-green algea? Why are there no fossils of the things that show up in the cambrian period before the cambrian period?
-
How does the DNA from a hair get the code for feathers? Where does that information come from? There is no evidence of how a "nitche" would form at the basic cellular level.
There has never been a scientific observation of this phenomenon happening and science has no explanation for how it might actually occur.
I am aware of both, I was trying to get a clearer picture of your thoughts on the matter.
First, you have it backwards, feathers came first(hee hee). The "information" comes from mutations some deleterious and some beneficial. These mutations can be caused by a multitude of situations.
Second, let me say that it would be impossible to observe macroevolution, as it takes a great amount of time for enough mutation to take place as to arrive at a "new" species, and we haven't been around "that" long! :aok
-
Why are there no fossils of the things that show up in the cambrian period before the cambrian period?
Well, it is not known. We can only keep searching. There might be many causes, the earth was one helluva a place back then I would imagine! :aok
-
The "information" comes from mutations some deleterious and some beneficial. These mutations can be caused by a multitude of situations.
None of which have ever actually been observed.
Second, let me say that it would be impossible to observe macroevolution, as it takes a great amount of time for enough mutation to take place as to arrive at a "new" species. :aok
Hence the reason it will never be proven by the scientific method, and the reason I take issue with anyone saying species evolution is a scientific fact. There is not a single scientist that can claim it is and be honest about it.
Most people today tend to forget that it's still in the theory part of the scientific process.
-
Well, it is not known. We can only keep searching. There might be many causes, the earth was one helluva a place back then I would imagine! :aok
So a complete fossil record does not exist. Therefore there is no concrete "proof" that things have evolved from pre-Cambrian period to the Cambrian period.
Then what is the belief in evolution based on? Faith that these missing fossils will be found and complete the record? Darwin himself had a problem with the fossil record as it stood back then and it (the fossil record) has not changed significantly since his time.
-
Ooooh!. I love the irreducible complexity argument. Reeks of desperation. It's like that guy the cops are putting the screws to under the heat lamp; he keeps changing his story. First it was, "God made Everything in seven days just like the bible says." Then we have,"Ok. Ok. Seven days could mean any amount of time to The God. He just buried all those fossils and such out there to test our faith while we're surrounded by you blaspheming ape lovers." Now we have, "Just Look at the flagellum! All those little parts don't do anything on their own! They cannot have evolved individually. Jesus put them there. Now let's call it Intelligent Design (Yup, just like that with capitol letters to make it sound all official-like), and maybe we'll fool some folks that are sleeping.
You see, legitimate science is trying to figure out what happened without making any assumptions. Creationists and intelligent design enthusiasts think they already know what happened, and they are desperately looking for any way to prove it. And ruling out the possibility of a designer is not good science either. There may very well be one. If so, that doesn't change the fact that favorable gene mutations survive ,etc.,etc.
EDIT:
I just read this part again, and WOW! Not only do you creationist types claim to know the odds of the first bacterium forming, you also are privy to the total potential of the entire universe! Powerful knowledge, indeed! Too bad for evolutionary proponents that this isn't being hashed out in a court of law. That info would be the first thing requested in pre-trial discovery!
So, what is your rebuttal to the irreducible complexity argument? Do you even understand the argument? Or are you more comfortable just poking fun at it?
-
If I may, Skyrock and Donzo, there have been several observed instances of evolution (as defined as the formation of new species) in the insecta class through hybridization, both natural and human influenced. That's right: Whole new species have been formed after branching off from their ancestors. After only 150 or 200 years of observation, we have seen these new species form, and we have recorded proof of it. A few of our generations can be tens of thousands of generations for an insect species. And, yes, they are a whole new species...they can only produce fertile offspring with their own kind, and not with their closely related progenitors.
Edit: Meant chickenhawk. I believe he was the one referring to new species evolution.
-
If I may, Skyrock and Donzo, there have been several observed instances of evolution (as defined as the formation of new species) in the insecta class through hybridization, both natural and human influenced. That's right: Whole new species have been formed after branching off from their ancestors. After only 150 or 200 years of observation, we have seen these new species form, and we have recorded proof of it. A few of our generations can be tens of thousands of generations for an insect species. And, yes, they are a whole new species...they can only produce fertile offspring with their own kind, and not with their closely related progenitors.
Edit: Meant chickenhawk. I believe he was the one referring to new species evolution.
would you please name them for us?
-
and vice-versa
no matter how much scientific evidence is provided, the faithful will never let go. they just don't have it in them. but thats OK!
Never is a long time. Will only take the average person 70 years or so. I'll promise that if there is not creator or life after death I will let go of my faith in 20 years or so.
-
would you please name them for us?
Here's a few examples of observed speciation:
Dobzhansky Th. O. Pavlovsky. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292, 1971.
Mosquin T. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719, 1967.
Also fish: Mayr E.,. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348, 1970.
Mice: Stanley S. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41, 1979.
-
Ok Donzo, Rather than regurgitate some google-found irreducible complexity rebuttal to you, that you'll no doubt already know, I'm just going to cut to the heart of it. I.D. starts with the assumption that there is a creator (designer, whatever) and sets out to find evidence of he/she/it. Science starts out with the assumption that what we observe with our senses is real and that we don't know anything for sure.
If you start out assuming something is already fact, why do you need to find proof of it? You've already made up your mind. I, on the other hand, am more comfortable assuming that I don't know a damned thing. That way, I can work from the bottom up rather than the top down. If finally reaching the top leads me to the Lord, so be it. I will have earned my way there without taking any dead-end shortcuts.
-
Never is a long time. Will only take the average person 70 years or so. I'll promise that if there is not creator or life after death I will let go of my faith in 20 years or so.
I would not expect you to let go of your faith, nor would I wish you to.
Thats a personal choice that should always be retained if so chosen.
-
Then what is the belief in evolution based on? Faith that these missing fossils will be found and complete the record?
Faith? LMAO Good try son. Like I said before, to most scientist, evolution is very real and like a puzzle with missing pieces but the picture is still discernable.
You do know that the cambrian is just a classification name. Time did not switch off and on to stop cambrian and start pre-cambrian, there was 2billion years in there. Darwin was unhappy about there not being "total" evidence to completely prove the theory, but it is acceptable to most scientist that we may never get the records we need. So, we have to look at the big picture and base our knowlege on "proven" facts and how they fit together with the theory over time. It so far looks like evolution is a winner! :aok
-
Ok Donzo, Rather than regurgitate some google-found irreducible complexity rebuttal to you, that you'll no doubt already know, I'm just going to cut to the heart of it. I.D. starts with the assumption that there is a creator (designer, whatever) and sets out to find evidence of he/she/it. Science starts out with the assumption that what we observe with our senses is real and that we don't know anything for sure.
If you start out assuming something is already fact, why do you need to find proof of it? You've already made up your mind. I, on the other hand, am more comfortable assuming that I don't know a damned thing. That way, I can work from the bottom up rather than the top down. If finally reaching the top leads me to the Lord, so be it. I will have earned my way there without taking any dead-end shortcuts.
I'm sorry, but that is not a rebuttal to the irreducible complexity argument.
If you are comfortable assuming that you don't know a damned thing, then tell me what you do know about the irreducible complexity argument...besides your preconceived assumptions as to it's origins being the end all be all as to why it holds no water.
-
Faith? LMAO Good try son. Like I said before, to most scientist, evolution is very real and like a puzzle with missing pieces but the picture is still discernable.
You do know that the cambrian is just a classification name. Time did not switch off and on to stop cambrian and start pre-cambrian, there was 2billion years in there. Darwin was unhappy about there not being "total" evidence to completely prove the theory, but it is acceptable to most scientist that we may never get the records we need. So, we have to look at the big picture and base our knowlege on "proven" facts and how they fit together with the theory over time. It so far looks like evolution is a winner! :aok
So things existed before, then all of a sudden all these new things appear. That's good enough as "proof"? You mention things fitting together with a theory over time. Using this as an argument, "time" started with the appearance of the many fossils of the Cambrian period. How could it not? The fossil record shows some changes over time. It also shows fossils before that time. Using part fossil record as part of a proof and not using the entire record to support a theory is off, IMHO. It's like saying "I made a killing the stock market in my lifetime, except for those 5 years I lost everything."
-
I would not expect you to let go of your faith, nor would I wish you to.
Thats a personal choice that should always be retained if so chosen.
It'll be real hard for me to retain my faith when I die if there is no life after death.
-
It'll be real hard for me to retain my faith when I die if there is no life after death.
ya I got that
That is your belief and I respect that.
I, on the other hand don't care if my body is dumped out in the woods and the coyotes drag my parts to the four winds. When your'e dead thats it, your'e dead.
the organic matter from my deteriorating body parts will start the evolutionary process anew!!
thats just my belief.
-
I'm sorry, but that is not a rebuttal to the irreducible complexity argument.
If you are comfortable assuming that you don't know a damned thing, then tell me what you do know about the irreducible complexity argument...besides your preconceived assumptions as to it's origins being the end all be all as to why it holds no water.
I'm sorry, but I guessed you missed the part where I said I was not going to argue against the irreducible complexity argument. Plenty of people have already picked it apart, pummeled it, and revealed it as not ever having touched the scientific method with a 10 foot pole. No need for me to beat a dead paramecium.
My original intent was to point out how I.D. is yet another attempt to defend one's sacred beliefs. Beliefs that are, at the present, outside of the observability of science.
One of the points of your argument was, and I'm paraphrasing, that the odds of the simplest form of life occurring spontaneously far outweigh the potential of the entire universe. That's quite a math problem! Can you show your work?
-
I'm sorry, but I guessed you missed the part where I said I was not going to argue against the irreducible complexity argument.
No, I got that. I just took it a attempt to sidestep answering something you were quick to ridicule.
Plenty of people have already picked it apart, pummeled it, and revealed it as not ever having touched the scientific method with a 10 foot pole. No need for me to beat a dead paramecium.
myelo was kind enough at least post some links to sources when asked. Can you do the same (you later asked me for my math homework)
My original intent was to point out how I.D. is yet another attempt to defend one's sacred beliefs. Beliefs that are, at the present, outside of the observability of science.
One could argue that evolution itself is an attempt to defend one's sacred belief as well. Where is the absolute proof that evolution is real?
One of the points of your argument was, and I'm paraphrasing, that the odds of the simplest form of life occurring spontaneously far outweigh the potential of the entire universe. That's quite a math problem! Can you show your work?
Where did I make this point?
-
Here's a few examples of observed speciation:
Dobzhansky Th. O. Pavlovsky. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292, 1971.
Mosquin T. "Evidence for autopolyploidy in Epilobium angustifolium (Onaagraceae)", Evolution 21:713-719, 1967.
Also fish: Mayr E.,. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348, 1970.
Mice: Stanley S. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41, 1979.
myelo, thanks for citing these examples. regarding dobzhansky's fruit fly experiments, I believe I can respond because I have read up on these experiments. the impression that I come away with is that this series of experiments are simply an example of a laboratory induced physiological change in a specimen, even though they did involve genetic changes we must consider that the changes did not occur naturally. it proves that man deliberately created the changes and in my view sort of proves the ID point of view.
with regard to other examples cited I am unfamiliar with these but will read up on them and respond after I am better informed.
however please feel free to point out where I'm going wrong regarding dobzhansky's work.
-
then all of a sudden
I thought you were baiting, guess I was right. I have quoted the most idiotic part of your statement. :aok
-
No, I got that. I just took it a attempt to sidestep answering something you were quick to ridicule.
If ridicule Intelligent Design is what I did, then how can I answer it? I can ridicule a noun, but I cannot answer one.
myelo was kind enough at least post some links to sources when asked. Can you do the same (you later asked me for my math homework)
Go to your favorite search engine and type in something like "arguments against irreducible complexity". You can also go to your local library. They have tons of great resources there, especially in the periodicals section. (I later made a mistake and assumed you were someone else)
One could argue that evolution itself is an attempt to defend one's sacred belief as well. Where is the absolute proof that evolution is real?
That's just it. There is no absolute proof that evolution is real. I never claimed that. Once we definitively decide that something is the concrete truth, we stop learning about it. We stop investigating. With the unimaginable vastness of Truth, I find it hard to believe that anyone claims to know anything beyond all doubts.
Where did I make this point?
You didn't. It was another poster. When you replied to my original post, I wrongfully assumed that you were the person I had replied to. My mistake.
-
I thought you were baiting, guess I was right. I have quoted the most idiotic part of your statement. :aok
Explain please.
-
ya I got that
That is your belief and I respect that.
I, on the other hand don't care if my body is dumped out in the woods and the coyotes drag my parts to the four winds. When your'e dead thats it, your'e dead.
the organic matter from my deteriorating body parts will start the evolutionary process anew!!
thats just my belief.
I don't care what happens to my physical remains either. If I'm right and there is more I think we'll both be pleased that you were wrong. If you're right neither of us will be.
-
Explain please.
Well, you make a statement like, "then all of a sudden" when talking about macroevolution. Are you trying to insult people?
-
I don't care what happens to my physical remains either. If I'm right and there is more I think we'll both be pleased that you were wrong. If you're right neither of us will be.
if im right we wont know the difference.
if you are right, I may be regretful
-
Well, you make a statement like, "then all of a sudden" when talking about macroevolution. Are you trying to insult people?
Not trying to insult anyone.
"Then all of a sudden" in the context of the timespan the fossils appeared in relation to the "big picture". The point being that these fossils appear in the fossil record without any transitional fossils bridging the gap between the green algae and the more complex animal fossils found around the Cambrian period. All the major animal groups show up in the record at the same time with nothing leading up or evolving into them.
So here's another question: If things evolve, do you end up with 2 species (what was and what has evolved) or just one with the former evolving out of existence?
-
So here's another question: If things evolve, do you end up with 2 species (what was and what has evolved) or just one with the former evolving out of existence?
Evolution in the context we are discussing, occurs over millions of years. One species continually evolving over that period of time. Not two separate species. Not one evolving out of existence.
-
Evolution in the context we are discussing, occurs over millions of years. One species continually evolving over that period of time. Not two separate species. Not one evolving out of existence.
If this is true, does a species that continually evolve "leave behind" some of itself that do not evolve or do all evolve into something new?
-
If this is true, does a species that continually evolve "leave behind" some of itself that do not evolve or do all evolve into something new?
atmospheric and environmental conditions at the time of death determine what, if any remains or traces are left behind.
animal and plant matter are actually quite fragile and tend to be obliterated quite easily. It is amazing any survive longer than 100 years. none do if exposed to the elements. Only those in extreme circumstances such as tarpits as an example.
-
atmospheric and environmental conditions at the time of death determine what, if any remains or traces are left behind.
animal and plant matter are actually quite fragile and tend to be obliterated quite easily. It is amazing any survive longer than 100 years. none do if exposed to the elements. Only those in extreme circumstances such as tarpits as an example.
By left behind I meant This evolved into That...does anymore of This still roam around or do they all evolve into That leaving no more of This?
-
By left behind I meant This evolved into That...does anymore of This still roam around or do they all evolve into That leaving no more of This?
sorry I misunderstood.
I would think that would be possible, especially in cataclismic events such as the continents breaking apart, like stranding species on an island such as Australia, or even smaller scale but similar occurrences.
-
By left behind I meant This evolved into That...does anymore of This still roam around or do they all evolve into That leaving no more of This?
Species leave behind plenty of stuff. Most of it shows up in the "junk" in our DNA.
Bacteria have been "left behind" by more complex critters, but they rule the planet.
-
"Then all of a sudden" in the context of the timespan the fossils appeared in relation to the "big picture". The point being that these fossils appear in the fossil record without any transitional fossils bridging the gap between the green algae and the more complex animal fossils found around the Cambrian period.
No, the context you put it in occured over billions of years. Also, the early fossils are not "complex" organisms(Sponges and tubes) and there were some of these found in the Vendian period before the cambrian. Also the appearance of red and green algea appear early in the cambrian and blue-green algea in the pre-cambrian. There will be more evidence as more discoveries are made. Also, if a breakthrough by an animal was exploited, it could explain why the speedy evolution of so many other animals in such a short(40 million years) period of time exists. Not much unlike we see with the dinosaurs as the earth warmed rich with oxygen. The problem with discussing fossils of that period, is that they aren't easy to come by. no telling what the earth had been through during that 2.5 billion years.
All the major animal groups show up in the record at the same time with nothing leading up or evolving into them.
No, that is not a correct statement. There are even fossils of creatures that are combinations of two Phyla (ex. Wiwaxia)on record especially during the early cambrian.
So here's another question: If things evolve, do you end up with 2 species (what was and what has evolved) or just one with the former evolving out of existence?
As I posted earlier in the thread, there have been found species that have the same hereditory gene sequences found living still today. It is abundant. Not all of the former just die out, they branch. :aok
-
By left behind I meant This evolved into That...does anymore of This still roam around or do they all evolve into That leaving no more of This?
Whales and Hippos, dogs and bears, cats and coons, tapirs and horses, is what you are looking for. They don't just die out in most cases they branch. Look at the primates...... :D
-
Donzo. Stop. You're not very good at debating anything. Your argument has been settled in the very first page of this thread.
-
It is generaly accepted that the human race is around 200,000 years old.If there is a God,you mean to tell me he sat around for 197,000 years with folded arms and only 3,000 years ago decided"hey,it's time to intervene!?..And in the bronze age Middle East?.the news of this reaching China about a thousand years later?
And the whole notion that there cannot be morality without some sort of "supervisory celestial bully" is immoral in itself..That Moses and his followers didn't already know as they climbed up that mountain that murder,adultry,false witness and coveting thy neighbour's sheep was immoral?..it was only when God appeared and said "You gotta cut that stuff out now!" that we as a species had morality?
-
It is generaly accepted that the human race is around 200,000 years old.
As long as you are generally not a southern baptist.
-
Donzo. Stop. You're not very good at debating anything. Your argument has been settled in the very first page of this thread.
Where?
-
myelo, thanks for citing these examples. regarding dobzhansky's fruit fly experiments, I believe I can respond because I have read up on these experiments. the impression that I come away with is that this series of experiments are simply an example of a laboratory induced physiological change in a specimen, even though they did involve genetic changes we must consider that the changes did not occur naturally. it proves that man deliberately created the changes and in my view sort of proves the ID point of view.
In a nutshell, what they did was start with just one species of fly. Then to simulate what happens in the wild when groups of a species become separated by geography and can no longer breed with each other, they controlled which flies mated. They ended up with two types of fruitfly that couldn't interbreed, which is the one definition of a new species.
Although they used artificial selection instead of natural selection, the principles are exactly the same. Up to that point, some had argued that artificial selection could create changes within a species -- for example, chihuahuas and great danes are still the same species -- but could not not create a new species.
-
so you guys are saying that it is not only possible but... a law of evolution that races of man would evolve differently and have different characteristics both physical and mental.. that those left behind would be different than those who left... like the monkeys and such?
I believe in god.. I believe he created everything. It is sorta like a big bang theory I suppose. I have no proof either. I believe a creator made us all and that he knew exactly how we would turn out. I have seen monkeys and I have seen men.. I have seen old bones for both.. I have not seen the bones of the monkey men who would have had to have existed for a long time if evolution was absolutely correct.
I will also repeat that any science that will not recognize the possibility of the supernatural is no science at all. What do you say to a person who has seen ghosts for instance? I don't know if they have or not. I have not..and.. I sure as hell don't believe someone who has not who says that his science says they do not exist.
I have spent a lifetime watching "scientists" explain everything in the world and.. be completely wrong.. change their minds 180 degrees. I don't worship science.. it is interesting and it is valid so far as it goes but it is not the be all and end all.
lazs
-
I have spent a lifetime watching "scientists" explain everything in the world and.. be completely wrong.. change their minds 180 degrees. I don't worship science.. it is interesting and it is valid so far as it goes but it is not the be all and end all.
lazs
Now lazs has made the greatest arguement possible to ensure that religion is never allowed in the science classroom. Assuming scientists have changed their views 180 degrees in lazs lifetime... the important point is that they changed their minds 180 degrees! Can you name a religion that has disavowed a dogma completely based on physical evidence?
-
When measuring the age of fossils, those who measure assume that the means they use to measure has remained constant.
The best objection is "what exists to suggest that is not so?" I don't know the answer to that question.
I also know that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence.
I'm not knowed-up on this. What little I've heard 1st hand came from a geology professor stating a record of evolving species exists and a record of man exists. The link between the two -- for those who say man evolved from lower species -- does not exist.
Has that changed since my 1993 - '94 stint in geology?
Mysteries exist. And I say will always continue to exist. Can't prove that last one at all.
I made the flip comment 7 pages ago that 2+ have seen the movie. Anyone with more time on their hand than I care to tally those who say they have?
Hasn't made its way to Wyoming yet.
-
http://www.expelledthemovie.com/enterflash.php
Lazs, just caught the 1st few seconds of the trailer. But I immediately, for good or ill, thought of you.
:)
-
mt.. I do not subscribe to any organized religion. I am not a part of their dogma.. just as I do not subscribe to the dogma of scientists who are "90% sure" of whatever their agenda is this week.
I have heard them talk of creation plenty.. like how oil was created.. why would they be right about the monkey men?
lazs
-
Science is made of questions that must be questioned. Philosophy is questions that cannot be answered, and religion are answers that cannot be questioned.
The three are mutually incompatible and deserve their own discussions. Trying to mix them together serves only to weaken each.
-
so you guys are saying that it is not only possible but... a law of evolution that races of man would evolve differently and have different characteristics both physical and mental.. that those left behind would be different than those who left... like the monkeys and such?
I believe in god.. I believe he created everything. It is sorta like a big bang theory I suppose. I have no proof either. I believe a creator made us all and that he knew exactly how we would turn out. I have seen monkeys and I have seen men.. I have seen old bones for both.. I have not seen the bones of the monkey men who would have had to have existed for a long time if evolution was absolutely correct.
I will also repeat that any science that will not recognize the possibility of the supernatural is no science at all. What do you say to a person who has seen ghosts for instance? I don't know if they have or not. I have not..and.. I sure as hell don't believe someone who has not who says that his science says they do not exist.
I have spent a lifetime watching "scientists" explain everything in the world and.. be completely wrong.. change their minds 180 degrees. I don't worship science.. it is interesting and it is valid so far as it goes but it is not the be all and end all.
lazs
Lazs,you sound like Gov Huckabee in stating you don't believe we evolved from monkeys.The theory of evolution does not demand that..We evolved from other primates(Neandrathals etc.)..If we decended from monkeys,we'd all look a bit like Gov Huckabee.
Then you say you believe in God but there is no proof to back this up..That is the definition of faith.Are you a Deist or a Theist?Do you beleive in a creator that made us(and that was the end of it) or a creator who intervenes in human affairs,watches over us 24/7,listens & answers prayers etc..?
You say science will not recognize a "creator"..I disagree.It says that there is not one shred of evidence to form a theory like ID..You can scour the Earth all you want for Moses's burning bush(or Noah's Ark) .The rest of us will dig the Earth for fossils & look upwards with the Hubble telescope.
As for scientists changing their minds,that is the beauty of science.It is ever changing..the evidence is pouring in and we look for patterns(DNA,astronomy etc) because we are "pattern seeking mammals"..a good human trait.We also have an inate sence of superstition..that we prefer a conspiracy(or junk) theory to no theory at all..a bad human trait.
Explainations that explain everything explain nothing(religion)..Science forms theories based on the newest evidence.Evolution is a theory.When tested it always works.When there is a new fossil discovery,it never points to the direction of an almighty creator.
If you want to prove the existance of God,you have all your work still ahead of you.
-
We must except that their are people on these boards still going through the evolutionary process.You know who you are.
As an intolerant liberal,I suspect this film is tendentious pap,but since i have not seen it yet I'll reserve judgment..now where's that Bannana. ;)
-
If you want to prove the existance of God,you have all your work still ahead of you.
Or, just wait and see. You and I could know the answer this very day. I bet you think it won't be you but no one has any guarantees of tomorrow.
-
Laz - I believed that purple, celestial goats crapped out the universe after eating some bad grass. These goats are the creators. You can not prove this did not happen, so I would like this theory taught in our classrooms.
-
I have spent a lifetime watching "scientists" explain everything in the world and.. be completely wrong.. change their minds 180 degrees. I don't worship science.. it is interesting and it is valid so far as it goes but it is not the be all and end all.
Lazs, that is scientific method you used. There's science the process, and science the data that (e.g.) satellites out in space produce.
Science isn't concerned with what it can't prove. If you see a 'scientist' claiming anything about the supernatural, he isn't doing science. Science isn't some mystical force, it's a process. It's a discipline that's only applied as well as the person who intends to follow it.
Science and religion have no overlap. They don't operate in the same jurisdiction, not even the same legal system or the same planet nor dimensions. There can be no conflict between the two.
As far as evolution is concerned.. Evolution is a very extensive theory, with lots of competing variants to explain it (as any studied but as yet unexplained (completely) phenomena studied scientificaly usualy is), and TBH I never really gave it much attention because it was just boring. But the link I posted earlier, on the skeptic.com website, has some general pointers on refutals of ID and/or creationism. They're very extensive and I welcome any comprehensive refutals of them from any of the ID/Creationism posters here on the forum... If you really believe Darwinist/Evolutionary scientists are unduely discrediting your "science", you should easily be able to debunk those refutals I linked to.
My opinion of those two things is that they're not propoer science. Sabre recommended two books which I haven't gotten the chance to read yet, but as far as I can tell, all the ID/Creationism researchers I've seen are people out to plant religious flags in scientific territory. They claim they've got evidence of some godly footprints, but regardless of where their theories go from there, it just reeks of Deus Ex Machina bias.
When you seek to solve a problem, you don't go into it pre-emptively choosing which evidence to ignore and which to favor.. What you're looking for is the answer to your query. If some possible explanation for the problem seems likely, you try and see if it's right or not, either playing it out in your mind ('mental experiment') or trying it out in practice. You don't tell yourself, "I know god's mind and can see thru his 'impenetrable ways' and recognize his footprint', deducing from that what the solution to the problem is. That's the scientific flaw with ID/Creationism.
There is no scientific value in supernatural explanations (tentative as they might be) because they can't be TESTED.
-
Believing in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. But when you examine the very foundation of Christian thinking, for example Proverbs 35-6: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." you come to realise that "faith" is just another synonym of "irrationality"; lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence; not governed by or according to reason. Thus trying to appeal to a person's reason when that person's very core being is unreasonable is an exercise in futility.
-
Or, just wait and see. You and I could know the answer this very day. I bet you think it won't be you but no one has any guarantees of tomorrow.
Hi Iron..No i don't expect to die today,but if i did, i would want the Earth to close over me and that be the end of it.(like in the Old Testament & the Jewish Bible)
But no...With the New Testament and the advent of gentle Jesus meek & mild..we get the notion of Hell (eternal fire).The most horrible concept in ALL of scripture..Punishment of the dead.Telling mothers for centuries that because their baby died before being Baptized,their dead baby is to spend eternity in everlasting fire.Telling me that i am in debt to Jesus for other people's sins from before i was born.I never asked for that loan ty.
I would rather live in North Korea than a Christian theocratic state.NK is the most totalitarian state in the world.The current leader is the head of the army and party(& reincarnation of his father).The president(his father) has been dead for 17 years..Yes,NK has a sitting dead president.The whole country is set up for his 24/7 worship..You can be executed for thought crime at any moment etc...But at least with North Korea,you can die and escape from it.Once you are dead the leader is done with you.
Not so with Christianity.
Btw,the NK state was founded the same year George Orwell published "1984"..It's almost as if someone handed him a copy and asked "do you think you could make this fly?"
-
Believing in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. But when you examine the very foundation of Christian thinking, for example Proverbs 35-6: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." you come to realise that "faith" is just another synonym of "irrationality"; lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence; not governed by or according to reason. Thus trying to appeal to a person's reason when that person's very core being is unreasonable is an exercise in futility.
And so you have to wonder.. What do people like Stein hope to accomplish by appealing to people's reason on matters of faith?
-
Remember Stein isn't being rational.
-
http://news.yahoo.com/s/uc/20080418/cm_uc_crbbox/op_235852
Anyone else really interested in seeing this film? It honestly sounds really interesting :D
wikipedia article on the film:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expelled:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
at least some one is doing films that counter the michael snores of this world. :aok
I'm very anxious to see it. It's not currently playing in the town I live in and the closest is over an hour and a half away. I may wait for it come out on dvd.
Lambo
-
Why are you anxious to see it?
-
Why are you anxious to see it?
He liked "Ferris Bueller's Day Off"!
-
I'm sorry, but that is not a rebuttal to the irreducible complexity argument.
Heres a way to look at the funny math associated with the "complexity" argument:
What are the chances of you talking to me on line. Now intuitively we know that they are pretty good since we are talking. But if I were to calculate the odds of you talking to someone named midnight target they would be something like 1 in 64,509,974,703,297,150,976
So it is impossible for us to be talking.
-
Believing in something for which there is no evidence is irrational. But when you examine the very foundation of Christian thinking, for example Proverbs 35-6: "Trust in the Lord with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding." you come to realise that "faith" is just another synonym of "irrationality"; lacking usual or normal mental clarity or coherence; not governed by or according to reason. Thus trying to appeal to a person's reason when that person's very core being is unreasonable is an exercise in futility.
Wouldn't that be true for Jewish and Muslim faiths also?
-
It is true for all belief systems based on "faith" (even some secular ones). I just used Christianity as an example most people here are intimately familiar with.
-
Remember Stein isn't being rational.
If only.
People believe in all sorts of crazy stuff. For example, Lazs believes in ghosts. Doesn't bother me, it's harmless.
But ID is a calculated political movement in response to Edwards v. Aguillard that seeks political and popular support for teaching a particular religious belief in public schools. Their strategy involves renaming creationism, otherwise know as putting lipstick on a pig, and scientific-sounding attacks on biologic evolution in an attempt to create controversy on matters that have been long settled on a scientific basis. Stein's movie is just another part of the whole ID political movement.
Personal belief is a personal matter. But when political groups try to push their personal beliefs into the classroom it affects everybody.
-
Wouldn't that be true for Jewish and Muslim faiths also?
Yup! Hinduism, Rastafarianism, you name it. Same goes for a stalwart belief that it is impossible for there to be a creator. Just as the inarguable belief that evolution did not occur.
-
It is arguable.. All there'd need to be is something like a whole eon with no evolution, or something. Only there's been no such evidence so far.
-
Why are you anxious to see it?
I'm a creationist Christian so naturally I would like to see it. But all the fuss it's making with the evolutionist makes it even more interesting.
Lambo
-
<puts on hip waders>
The following comes with the caveat that science cannot explain "why we are here" or "what came before the big bang" which really are the big questions that everyone is going after. As much comfort as I'd like to find in the afterlife, I cannot honestly convince myself that there is one. That said, I can't see any reason why there can't be a creator.
As for evolution, creationism, ID, etc:
I would humbly suggest that folks who don't believe in evolution head to the library and pick up a copy of a genetics textbook (molecular genetics, genomics, etc.). The Darwinian version of events is almost not needed once you appreciate the molecular background for life, evolution, regulation of metabolism, etc. This branch of science only really got going after Watson and Crick gave us the structure of DNA (although Mendel might disagree). As such, most of this doesn't make it into textbooks until the 80's and after.
To say that evolution cannot occur is to completely dismiss the mechanisms that provide diabetics with insulin, give us the flu shot, yield drug resistant bacteria, cause cancer or give us the latest generation of cancer therapies. I suppose we could just chalk it up to the devil and god battling it out in our bodies.
In some sense, our genome is the "Bible" of modern science. It is a recorded history of our ancestry. We can observe (in real time) the small changes that occur all the time.
Take it or leave it, science got us to where we are. You could argue we're no happier, lead no more fulfilling lives and I would not disagree. The fact is, though, we live 2x as long as we did 200 years ago and have a crapload of toys to play with during our short, miserable lives. IMO, to cherry pick scientific results to suit your belief system is a bit disingenuous. We could all just pray that we get better and not go see the doctor.
-
Heres a way to look at the funny math associated with the "complexity" argument:
What are the chances of you talking to me on line. Now intuitively we know that they are pretty good since we are talking. But if I were to calculate the odds of you talking to someone named midnight target they would be something like 1 in 64,509,974,703,297,150,976
So it is impossible for us to be talking.
You're going to have to explain this logic a little better.
Are you saying that there is a chance that the person I am responding to right now is not you...the person that chose midnight Target as their ID on this message board? Short of the software running this board not working as intended, the chance that I am responding to someone named midnight Target on this board is 100%. So I do not understand your logic with the example you gave.
-
Lambo anyone who doesn't account for the skewed interview segments is after something else than the truth in their report/apreciation of the movie, christian creationist or not.
-
Personal belief is a personal matter. But when political groups try to push their personal beliefs into the classroom it affects everybody.
Exactly..When a religious person tells me that his belief in God gives him a warm feeling inside and makes him happy,he's usually lying...He's not happy until i believe it too.
-
Sorry Moot, I haven't been convinced any of the interviews have been skewed. I read Michael Sherner's article and he strikes me as a skeptic using ridicule as a means to convince people not to see the movie. I would rather judge for myself :)
Lambo
-
myelo.. where did I say I believed in ghosts? I said that I knew people who claimed to have seen them and I can't disprove it.. science can't either.
I agree that the beauty of science is that it can change 180 degrees and does. I also feel that there are things that science can't explain and never will.. like god.
I just can't help but feel that those who have science as their god are the angry ones here. Look at all the angry responses.. "how dare someone question my god science!!"
Science is a useful tool for now. It has given us a lot and it has also ruined the lives of many. I simply believe that there are some things that are above our science.
Like I said..it is a useful tool it can be abused.. it can be used to scare people into unwise actions it has been used as such in the past and is being used as such right now by all sorts of alarmists.
I am not gonna call the people who see ghosts or bigfoot or aliens a liar.. for one thing.. It doesn't affect me in any case and.. mostly.. I can't prove it one way or the other. I am not gonna call scientists a liar either unless they are clearly using science for an agenda and fudging.. well fudging the data and worse.. the amount they really know.
And.. I am still looking for the evolved human set.. you know... from the apes to us. the half monkey men if you will.. not saying it is impossible.. just like I didn't say the hundreds of other BS things they had to eventually recant were impossible.. I am just saying that.. at least with the ghost believers.. they have seen something.. the scientists are making it up out of nothing. just a guess...
Like I said tho.. it doesn't hurt me any so go ahead and believe it.
I just can't see why any talk of god gets so many people angry on the side that claims to not believe in a god. Why not just say "oh.. that's nice" and be done with it? Why not say at the schools that we.. the scientists.. have no frigging clue as to how the universe or we were created but that they have some theories.. then say.. others believe that science can never explain it because it is the work of god.
lazs
-
I just can't see why any talk of god gets so many people angry on the side that claims to not believe in a god. Why not just say "oh.. that's nice" and be done with it? Why not say at the schools that we.. the scientists.. have no frigging clue as to how the universe or we were created but that they have some theories.. then say.. others believe that science can never explain it because it is the work of god.
lazs
If it's physics class and you're talking about the creation of the universe, okay. Doesn't really bother me one way or the other.
If you start saying scientists have some theories about how bacteria work, but really don't get it, it's not okay. That's why evolution is such a bugger. It deals with life. Biology, medicine, chemistry also deal with life. Religion deals with life.
I don't want people at Genetech praying that they find the next cancer therapy, same way I don't want the doctor praying over me when looking for tumors. That would bother me. And it's not a huge jump or comparing apples and oranges. Either you accept that our machinery makes mistakes every once in a while, or you don't.
Discussions like these quickly devolve (pun intended) into both sides demonstrating their entrenched beliefs, with no one changing their minds. They're pretty much pointless, and honestly I don't care who believes what, so long as it doesn't make it into the classroom or affect public policy. Which I guess means that I do have to care at some level.
There's no anger in my words and I certainly recognize the delicateness of life's situations and belief in the meaning of life. I hope I never have to deal with a situation where I find myself looking at my kid in a hospital bed dying of some rare genetic disease.
"Daddy, why am I dying?" or "Daddy, what will happen to me after this?"
are questions I hope I never have to answer. However someone answers those questions and whatever comfort they find in them is entirely their own business. I dare not go there.
-
Lazs, I don't get angry with the thought of a God, I actually have not made up my mind about it yet. I tend to lean towards there being "something"out their that knows more than I do about what all this "universe" is about. I do however get frustrated with the intentions of most religous people. The blatant holier than thou attitudes that is common amoung the religions. The fighting and attempts to dominate all others by changing the laws to fit their religion. The countless wars over religious differences.
I'll give you an example of something that infuriated me recently. I have a 6 yo and a 10 yo that I have full custody of and the ex took me back to court to try and get custody back. Although for 10 years me and the ex believed the same about religion, we would go to church on occasions and talk about how we both agreed how the children should be raised to have options to make up their own mind without our shoving our beliefs down their throats. We never believed every word of the bible should be taken literally. Then, on the court day, she claims that I am an atheist and that she has been a member of the local baptist church now for 3 months. her lawyer tore into me about what I tell the children about the bible. I explained that I thought I would leave it open for them to decide when the time comes. He comes back with the question, "So you tell them that the bible isn't true?" Now, you must understand this is a court in New Albany, Mississippi, and the judge is the deacon of the largest church in corinth, Mississippi. He looks at me with this look, hard to explain other than a look of "sin". What infuriates me about this, is the hypocracy involved not only in my situation, but many christians who do this to other people. Her lawyer was a friend of mine in college, and I walked away from countless conversations he started with us back in the day about "the bad word for black people", "spics", and "chinks" and he's dragging me through the mud over how I raise my children? My ex is a compulsive liar, a thief, and a drug addict(crystal meth her drug of choice after hydrocodene), and she can go to church for 3 months and get brownie points on her parenting because the judge is a christian? What is wrong with this picture?
Overall, I believe that one's faith is a private matter between oneself and God. It should not be brought into government, schools, courts, or any other public power. Faith in knowing the origins of the universe is unprovable, just as the scientific theories of the origins of the universe are unprovable(we simply cannot go back in time and observe what really happened), with one big difference.......religions claim to already "know" the truth based on faith, and science is an objective method to actually find the real "truth" based on facts.
I will agree that with all studies, theories should be subjected to the highest scrutiny before being accepted as a truth, and in the case of evolution, it has passed those criteria. :aok
-
Heres a way to look at the funny math associated with the "complexity" argument:
What are the chances of you talking to me on line. Now intuitively we know that they are pretty good since we are talking. But if I were to calculate the odds of you talking to someone named midnight target they would be something like 1 in 64,509,974,703,297,150,976
So it is impossible for us to be talking.
You're going to have to explain this logic a little better.
Are you saying that there is a chance that the person I am responding to right now is not you...the person that chose midnight Target as their ID on this message board? Short of the software running this board not working as intended, the chance that I am responding to someone named midnight Target on this board is 100%. So I do not understand your logic with the example you gave.
Here you go, Donzo. I think you can think this through.
What were the odds, in 1922, of you responding to a Midnight Target on these forums? What about in 11,238 B.C.? Pretty long odds I'd say. One Creationist argument that I've heard is that 2 billion years before life existed on this planet, the odds of life spontaneously forming were insurmountable, therefore it could not have happened. They say there must have been a divine snot-rocket blown into the primordial soup.
He is saying that just because the odds of something are astronomical, it is not eliminated from possibility.
Just what are your views on evolution and creation, Donzo? So far, I've seen you point out to me that I didn't give a rebuttal for something I did not intend to refute, question people's logic as not clear enough for you, and continue to ask for more in depth explanations. I think we've laid our cards on the table. What do you have to show? Oh, and if you could, please tell me what I left out.
-
myelo.. where did I say I believed in ghosts? I said that I knew people who claimed to have seen them and I can't disprove it.. science can't either.
Sorry, maybe you said you believe in God. I sometimes get my mythical supernatural beings confused.
-
Lazs, I don't get angry with the thought of a God, I actually have not made up my mind about it yet. I tend to lean towards there being "something"out their that knows more than I do about what all this "universe" is about. I do however get frustrated with the intentions of most religous people. The blatant holier than thou attitudes that is common amoung the religions. The fighting and attempts to dominate all others by changing the laws to fit their religion. The countless wars over religious differences.
I'll give you an example of something that infuriated me recently. I have a 6 yo and a 10 yo that I have full custody of and the ex took me back to court to try and get custody back. Although for 10 years me and the ex believed the same about religion, we would go to church on occasions and talk about how we both agreed how the children should be raised to have options to make up their own mind without our shoving our beliefs down their throats. We never believed every word of the bible should be taken literally. Then, on the court day, she claims that I am an atheist and that she has been a member of the local baptist church now for 3 months. her lawyer tore into me about what I tell the children about the bible. I explained that I thought I would leave it open for them to decide when the time comes. He comes back with the question, "So you tell them that the bible isn't true?" Now, you must understand this is a court in New Albany, Mississippi, and the judge is the deacon of the largest church in corinth, Mississippi. He looks at me with this look, hard to explain other than a look of "sin". What infuriates me about this, is the hypocracy involved not only in my situation, but many christians who do this to other people. Her lawyer was a friend of mine in college, and I walked away from countless conversations he started with us back in the day about "the bad word for black people", "spics", and "chinks" and he's dragging me through the mud over how I raise my children? My ex is a compulsive liar, a thief, and a drug addict(crystal meth her drug of choice after hydrocodene), and she can go to church for 3 months and get brownie points on her parenting because the judge is a christian? What is wrong with this picture?
Overall, I believe that one's faith is a private matter between oneself and God. It should not be brought into government, schools, courts, or any other public power. Faith in knowing the origins of the universe is unprovable, just as the scientific theories of the origins of the universe are unprovable(we simply cannot go back in time and observe what really happened), with one big difference.......religions claim to already "know" the truth based on faith, and science is an objective method to actually find the real "truth" based on facts.
I will agree that with all studies, theories should be subjected to the highest scrutiny before being accepted as a truth, and in the case of evolution, it has passed those criteria. :aok
While we may disagree on the limits of natural biology and the origin of the universe, I think we can agree that there is no small shortage of hypocrites professing righteousness by religious association while paying scant attention to the tenants of their professed faith. If that judge issues a verdict based on his own personal feelings rather than the evidence, then he is also a hypocrite.
I wish you the best of luck in your custody battle with your ex.
-
Science is a useful tool for now. It has given us a lot and it has also ruined the lives of many. I simply believe that there are some things that are above our science.
Let's compare the death toll of science to the death toll of religion. Lowest score wins. That would be a fun game. I'll go first - The Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. Score so far: Science- 0, Religion 2. Your turn.
Like I said..it is a useful tool it can be abused.. it can be used to scare people into unwise actions it has been used as such in the past and is being used as such right now by all sorts of alarmists.
I just drove past a Planned Parenthood on my way home. There was a big protest there in front of the building. I saw several signs that said, "Abortions lead to Hell". It was today in Yakima, WA. A news crew was there. Check it out. That kind of seems like using religion to scare people into the, what some may think, unwise decision of not having an abortion. I heard you mention a illegitimate birthrate of 68% among one of the poorest demographics. I also heard you say there may be a link between that and that same demographic's over-representation in the prison system. I think you may be right. I think that being born into a family that can't take care of you will lead many to a life of crime. I think they should encourage abortion in order to prevent the future sins of these fetuses.
I just can't see why any talk of god gets so many people angry on the side that claims to not believe in a god. Why not just say "oh.. that's nice" and be done with it? Why not say at the schools that we.. the scientists.. have no frigging clue as to how the universe or we were created but that they have some theories.. then say.. others believe that science can never explain it because it is the work of god.
lazs
It is implicit and inherent in all scientific theories that they are not the irrefutable truth. We learn that on day one of science class. It is just easier to say, "When this branch of mammals evolved into primates..." rather than, "When this branch of mammals evolved into primates, if the theory of evolution is true, and if radiocarbon dating is accurate, and if I'm not really in a loony bin right now imagining all of this,....".
Just because I say that gravity is the force keeping us on earth does not mean that I am summarily excluding the possibility that one day we will discover that it is actually a new force called "the glue of the gods." It is just easier than saying, "Gravity is the force keeping us on the earth, to the best of our knowledge." Qualifying everything we say with "as far as we know" would get old. It is just assumed when talking about scientific theories.
Why don't they talk about people believing the earth was created by god in science class? Because that idea was not arrived at by way of the scientific method. If they start offering a religion class in public schools, then that would be the place to discuss such ideas. If that class is started in the U.S. it's going to have to contain teachings not only of the Christian view of Creation, but that of Hindus, Buddhists, Native Americans, Australian Aborigines, and Islam,etc. How would you feel about that? A public school teacher telling our impressionable youth about Allah? :O I bet you wouldn't like that at all, would you?
-
You're going to have to explain this logic a little better.
Are you saying that there is a chance that the person I am responding to right now is not you...the person that chose midnight Target as their ID on this message board? Short of the software running this board not working as intended, the chance that I am responding to someone named midnight Target on this board is 100%. So I do not understand your logic with the example you gave.
My online name has 14 letters. Each of those letters could be 1 of 26 possible choices. 26^14 is a VERY large number. This is something like the silly math used to calculate the "impossible" odds of evolution.
-
I am amazed that some people would not understand that if lions keep eating the slow gazelles, that gazelles would tend to get faster.
As gazelles get faster, lions would have to develop new ways to catch faster gazelles.
If there is an isolated herd of gazelles that have to outrun cheetahs, after several generations, that herd would be much faster than the herd outrunning lions.
-
Let's compare the death toll of science to the death toll of religion. Lowest score wins. That would be a fun game. I'll go first - The Crusades. The Spanish Inquisition. Score so far: Science- 0, Religion 2. Your turn.
science...
every single person and animal killed with a weapon or in a accident involving any product of science.
its a silly argument, but then so is thinking theres isnt/wasnt a more important political motivation for 99% of anything that could be blamed on religion. and the small number whack jobs who do kill people because the religion demands it would found another reason to kill people.
-
science...
every single person and animal killed with a weapon or in a accident involving any product of science.
Science is the method by which our darker urges do evil just as it is the method our higher motives use to do good.
i.e. Guns don't kill people... people kill people.
-
Lazs I don't mean to answer for myelo, but science was never about proving or disproving supernatural things like ghosts or god. If you see a 'scientist' or anyone pretending that they've got some scientific proof or disproof of those things, what you have in front of you is a liar.. Science isn't good or bad, it's not an ethical thing. It's a method for learning, and what people use it to learn isn't science's doing, any more than it's guns' doing when one person shoots another with a gun.
The missing evolutionary link between men and apes, if there is one, will eventualy be found. It's a bit like a tide rising through dry land: if the land is uneven, there might be peaks that are only submerged some time after the water rose above everything else. Eventualy the 'missing link' will be surrounded by data, and it'll only be a matter of narrowing things down to some irreducible possibility, or to some evidence that things just don't add up. At that point it would be scientific to start with a fresh map and raise the tide of data over unknown territory again.
Fudging the data isn't science.. The problem isn't with science, it's with people and their agendas, like you say. Teaching that something was made by god is no good scientificaly because it provides no understanding. It gives nowhere rational to go from there.
-
moot.. thanks but.. as you see.. now we have the same angry people telling me in angry terms that they are not angry and giving examples of why god really makes em angry. Myelo does not agree with you at all.. all things not explained by science are laughable to him.. ghosts.. god.. all the same to him.
I have asked my god for strength when I had none and I got it. I have felt his presence.. that or I have a tumor... but.. I see god all around me. I honestly feel sorry for those who do not. I believe in a creator.. I do not believe in a literal interpretation of the bible or any religion. I believe that we are not meant to understand god. I believe in a creator.. that does not leave out evolution. Not all of it.
I do have a hard time with man from monkey.. just like I had a hard time with oil from the flintstones pet dino... the reason we haven't found the missing link is because the theory is bad. The rest of gods creatures are not gonna evolve into humans no matter what or how long.
The other thing is that skyrock, walrus and others are getting religion mixed up with a belief in god.. belief in god (or none) is indeed a religion but you do not need to belong to an organized religion with set piece beliefs and taboos to believe in god.
I also notice that those who get the angriest.. when you scratch the surface.. either are angry because they feel god let them down or.. some person from some religion or another annoys them or interferes in their life.
I can think of no religion that I would want to run my life or the country. I can think of nothing but good tho coming from a belief in our creator. The evil comes when people try to claim special insight into what god wants for others.
lazs
-
and moot.. just because something is not "good scientifically" is no reason to not "teach" it.. I did not say that you had to say that there is a god.. I would only want that the facts of the matter be brought out.
That is the problem with the religion of science. There is where you and I diverge.. you seem to be claiming that if science can't understand it then it can't be mentioned.
On creation.. one could and should say that evolution can't prove most things and is a theory.. That many people believe in a divine theory of creation that has not been proven or disproven.. that the creation of the universe is not understood and that there of many who believe in a god who created it and other who believe... well.. pick a year and a theory.
I think science and the supernatural can exist together. I think it is obvious to anyone who ever went outdoors or needed strength in a time of crisis.
lazs
-
A quick note, the repeated assertion that evolution suggests that humans came from monkeys isn't true. Scientists believe that monkeys and humans share a common genetic ancestor. This doesn't mean we're descended from monkeys, that'd be like saying Joe is his daughter's son.
-
A quick note, the repeated assertion that evolution suggests that humans came from monkeys isn't true. Scientists believe that monkeys and humans share a common genetic ancestor. This doesn't mean we're descended from monkeys, that'd be like saying Joe is his daughter's son.
That'd be no stranger than saying something came from nothing of it's own volition.
-
noted.. I admit that I used the term for sensationalism.. still.. the theory suggest a missing link where the monkeys and the men were once the same but went off in different directions.. some proof is needed before I believe that.
just like fred flinstones pet didn't make the gas in my tank.
lazs
-
Back to the movie. When it comes this way or when it comes out on DVD, I'm looking forward to watching it. Anyone else?
Did look at a review from April 20th http://www.reuters.com/article/reviewsNews/idUSN2036189120080421 in which the author says the movie is bad. Aww, you know, he didn't like it, this that and the other thing.
The reviewer states The film's main thesis is that scientists and educators are being persecuted, in some cases fired from their positions, because they had the effrontery to challenge their institutions' scientific orientation toward the theory of evolution.
If the coupling of images and music be badly done or wrongly done, reviewer's assessment, there's no peep from the reviewer whether or not the film's thesis be so or not.
Will have to watch it I guess then see if the claims match up to what is so.
-
That'd be no stranger than saying something came from nothing of it's own volition.
Which is less strange than pretending to detect and decrypt a signal your instrument is insensitive to.
Hap, a lot of people will watch it if someone refutes the accusations of screwing with interview material. Otherwise it's like taking history lessons from propaganda reels.
-
That'd be no stranger than saying something came from nothing of it's own volition.
And what is that?
-
I like the fact that evolution can explain everything for the simple reason that it is a framework that includes all explanations, whether true or false, real or imaginary. Yes, it can explain the relationship between any set of fossils. It can also explain the relationship between orcs and elves. Fiction has amazing explanatory powers!
-
Which is less strange than pretending to detect and decrypt a signal your instrument is insensitive to.
Hap, a lot of people will watch it if someone refutes the accusations of screwing with interview material. Otherwise it's like taking history lessons from propaganda reels.
Sounds pretty judgemental to me. If I can't do it then no one can. Is that what you're saying?
-
And what is that?
The theory of Evolution without intelligent design or influence.
-
I'm reading other stuff for next semester, so I don't have time to read all of these thoroughly.. But just in case some of you guys are after pitting all the theories and hypothesies against one another and seeing which one comes out on top, here's a list of some rights and wrongs about the theory of evolution:
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn13620-evolution-24-myths-and-misconceptions.html
Iron first of all I'll be as judgemental as possible.. The only way not to be judgemental is to know nothing. Being anything less than as judgemental as possible is foolish.
What I meant by that post is that saying anything about the supernatural couldn't be tested, and so, is indistinguishable from something false about something supernatural - whether that's only one iota off from the truth or entirely false. You can't "penetrate the ways of god", you can't know what god's mind is, you can't make any sort of statement about the supernatural with any certainty, because there's nothing to back you up. The supernatural is taken only on faith, not reason.
If there was some supernatural fingerprint on the universe that we could detect, it'd be something less than infinite that'd have left it. If it's not infinite, it's no more godly than the mechanics of nature that we've figured out so far. You can't perceive the supernatural, and if you can, there's no way to understand it or make concrete, specific predictions about it.
-
The film's main thesis is that scientists and educators are being persecuted, in some cases fired from their positions, because they had the effrontery to challenge their institutions' scientific orientation toward the theory of evolution.
sounds reasonable to me. if a med school lecturer insisted on teaching the importance of green vs yellow bile and the use of leeches I would expect them to be fired, and then struck off.
I've only started looking into this recently because, incredibly, there is some fundamentalist christian organisation lobbying parliament to include this pseudoscience BS in science curricula in the UK.
-
The theory of Evolution without intelligent design or influence.
Life didn't come from "nothing". Given that the building blocks of life exists, and given near infinite time, the "accidental" self-creation of life is inevitable.
-
noted.. I admit that I used the term for sensationalism.. still.. the theory suggest a missing link where the monkeys and the men were once the same but went off in different directions.. some proof is needed before I believe that.
just like fred flinstones pet didn't make the gas in my tank.
lazs
jsut because a puzzle piece is missing doesnt mean we can't tell what the picture is. Humans are smart that way! :aok
-
jsut because a puzzle piece is missing doesnt mean we can't tell what the picture is. Humans are smart that way! :aok
What else proves what the picture is?
-
What else proves what the picture is?
what proves what "real" is?
-
Deus Ex, guaranteed by Donzo's infallible perception of it.
-
Was a big fan of Ben Stein's money game show. With this new information, I can only conclude that I was the fan of an idiot, and I am no longer a fan.
Flexibility of thinking, the ability to change ones view in light of new evidence is the hallmark of a scientific mind. Even if you dont like where the evidence takes you, you go there anyway.
Sorry Ben Stein, but I cant be the fan of an idiot, I have had to change my mind in light of new evidence, despite my disapointment.
-
Life didn't come from "nothing". Given that the building blocks of life exists, and given near infinite time, the "accidental" self-creation of life is inevitable.
"Life" is a human definition which may prove to be too limited in scope. Where did you get this "near infinite time" you speak of?
-
Now, to stick my nose into a silly debate where it doesn't belong...
A lot of the evolution deniers seem to be stuck on the 17th century principle of sufficient reason: "everything must have a cause or reason sufficient to explain it."
Hume's skepticism destroyed the principle of sufficient reason in the 18th century, and since then it's become very hard for a serious student of philosophy to believe in its objective validity. Yes, let's be clear on that, all of this evolution denial is bad philosophy... not science.
-
I posted this article a couple of years ago on the bbs after reading it. No, I'm not the author. With the way some people here are attacking others, calling them idiots, just because their beliefs differ I think it'll fit.
Article:
Evidence
Creationists and evolutionists, Christians and non-Christians all have the same evidence—the same facts. Think about it: we all have the same earth, the same fossil layers, the same animals and plants, the same stars—the facts are all the same.
The difference is in the way we all interpret the facts. And why do we interpret facts differently? Because we start with different presuppositions. These are things that are assumed to be true, without being able to prove them. These then become the basis for other conclusions. All reasoning is based on presuppositions (also called axioms). This becomes especially relevant when dealing with past events.
Past and present
We all exist in the present—and the facts all exist in the present. When one is trying to understand how the evidence came about (Where did the animals come from? How did the fossil layers form? etc.), what we are actually trying to do is to connect the past to the present.
However, if we weren’t there in the past to observe events, how can we know what happened so we can explain the present? It would be great to have a time machine so we could know for sure about past events.
Christians of course claim they do, in a sense, have a ‘time machine’. They have a book called the Bible which claims to be the Word of God who has always been there, and has revealed to us the major events of the past about which we need to know.
On the basis of these events (Creation, Fall, Flood, Babel, etc.), we have a set of presuppositions to build a way of thinking which enables us to interpret the evidence of the present.
Evolutionists have certain beliefs about the past/present that they presuppose, e.g. no God (or at least none who performed acts of special creation), so they build a different way of thinking to interpret the evidence of the present.
Thus, when Christians and non-Christians argue about the evidence, in reality they are arguing about their interpretations based on their presuppositions.
That’s why the argument often turns into something like:
‘Can’t you see what I’m talking about?’
‘No, I can’t. Don’t you see how wrong you are?’
‘No, I’m not wrong. It’s obvious that I’m right.’
‘No, it’s not obvious.’ And so on.
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
It’s not until these two people recognize the argument is really about the presuppositions they have to start with, that they will begin to deal with the foundational reasons for their different beliefs. A person will not interpret the evidence differently until they put on a different set of glasses—which means to change one’s presuppositions.
I’ve found that a Christian who understands these things can actually put on the evolutionist’s glasses (without accepting the presuppositions as true) and understand how they look at evidence. However, for a number of reasons, including spiritual ones, a non-Christian usually can’t put on the Christian’s glasses—unless they recognize the presuppositional nature of the battle and are thus beginning to question their own presuppositions.
It is of course sometimes possible that just by presenting ‘evidence’, you can convince a person that a particular scientific argument for creation makes sense ‘on the facts’. But usually, if that person then hears a different interpretation of the same evidence that seems better than yours, that person will swing away from your argument, thinking they have found ‘stronger facts’.
However, if you had helped the person to understand this issue of presuppositions, then they will be better able to recognize this for what it is—a different interpretation based on differing presuppositions—i.e. starting beliefs.
Full article can be found here http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v22/i1/creation.asp
Lambo
-
"Life" is a human definition which may prove to be too limited in scope. Where did you get this "near infinite time" you speak of?
Do you know when or if the universe will end?
-
Yes... 2 weeks!
-
Doh!
-
These two people are arguing about the same evidence, but they are looking at the evidence through different glasses.
A book supposed to be written by God is no evidence.
People aren't calling others idiots for their different beliefs, they're doing it (whether it's excessive or not) because they're adding 2 and 2 and getting something else than 4. You saying you find Shermer's article as ridiculing Stein's movie is at least fishy. There's no ad hominem, only evidence that Stein screwed with the interview material and did used some pretty corny devices to appeal to the audience's emotions (and probably faith - my guess) rather than reason.
There's some paradigm paralysis and it's not Shermer's.
-
skyrock.. when you "get the picture" from incomplete data.. you are not being "smart" you are taking a shot in the dark.. you often end up with a picture that says man will warm the globe enough to have a rise in the sea of 30' by 2020 or that all petroleum came from fred flintstones pets.
But.. at least in my understanding of my god.. after all this.. I don't see how science and god..or even the supernatural can't just co-exist. science should be able to say... "just because we can't measure it does not make it impossible"
Those who believe in a creator should be able to say that just because we believe in god is no reason to say that evolution can't exist to a great extent.
lazs
-
A book supposed to be written by God is no evidence.
People aren't calling others idiots for their different beliefs, they're doing it (whether it's excessive or not) because they're adding 2 and 2 and getting something else than 4. You saying you find Shermer's article as ridiculing Stein's movie is at least fishy. There's no ad hominem, only evidence that Stein screwed with the interview material and did used some pretty corny devices to appeal to the audience's emotions (and probably faith - my guess) rather than reason.
There's some paradigm paralysis and it's not Shermer's.
I was simply trying to show why people might have differing views of how the Earth was created. I believe the Bible, yes. And if a person doesn't believe in God then ofcourse the Bible wouldn't make sense to that person. Infact, the Bible even say's this ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
The thing about Shermer is I wasn't there to hear the conversation he had with Stein. How do I know he's telling every thing? or what he's telling is the truth? There's always 2 sides to a story. Rather than take his word on faith I'll watch the movie and decide for myself. And other than hearing Stein screwed with the film I haven't seen the proof. If I did even then it would just change my view of Stein.
Lambo
-
Do you know when or if the universe will end?
Of course, when time ceases. Do I know how long it will be 'til that occurs? Certainly not, nor do I know how long since time began. I do believe that time and space as we understand it is not all that there is.
-
I will also repeat that any science that will not recognize the possibility of the supernatural is no science at all. What do you say to a person who has seen ghosts for instance? I don't know if they have or not. I have not..and.. I sure as hell don't believe someone who has not who says that his science says they do not exist.
As usual, the majority of this debate revolves around a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is and isn't. This is a non-sequitor statement, lazs, because BY DEFINITION science is concerned with the natural world. As soon as you include the supernatural, it's not science anymore.
Why?
All you IDers pay close attention (as if there's any hope of comprehension on this point):
The scientific method is about being able to make and test predictions where the ultimate test is direct observation or measurement. Introducing the supernatural eliminates the ability to make direct observation and measurement and therefore has no standing in science. If you do have the ability to make predictions and test them by observation or measurement then, again by definition, it's not supernatural any more - rather it's quite natural.
There are many mysteries in our universe, yet unexplained by science. You can claim that they are supernatural. But this is only true up to the point where we figure out how to make accurate predictions about them that hold up to testing and measurement. Then it's no longer a mystery and it cannot be called supernatural.
Religion is a non-starter here, because not only is it filled with supernatural explanations, but it declares itself unexplainable in any other way than supernatural. I'm not making a value statement about religion here, just that any notion that ID is in any way shape or form science is ridiculous on the face of it because it abolishes the very practice of predicting, testing and measuring. Note that I haven't said that it's not true, it's just not science. ID says "magic happened, it isn't understandable in any way other than a magical force, just be happy". Fundamentally, that is NOT SCIENCE.
On a further note:
I think it's been said a hundred times, but IDers - and many others - never seem to actually understand this point:
A scientific theory IS NOT a conjecture. A theory as defined by science is a formal description of some system or phenomena against which predictions can be made and outcomes can be measured.
A weak scientific theory is one where, based on the theory, few predictions that can be made have been tested or where some predictions turn out not to be true. When a prediction turns out not to be true, it may involve "tuning" the theory if it is complex. It doesn't necessarily mean the whole theory is moot.
A strong theory is one where many, many predictions have been made where outcomes have supported the predictions. The more, the stronger. Science is then built by gaining confidence in a theory's ability to support more and more predictions to the point where the theory is essentially a set of accepted truths.
Evolution is a strong theory. Perhaps the strongest of all scientific theories. It is supported by an insurmountable amount of evidence - an IDer saying "there's no fossil/DNA evidence" does not negate the fact that there is so much evidence only complete ignorance excuses such statements - and the lifestyles you all lead today is a direct result of it being this way. The antibiotics you take when you are ill, the flu vaccine you take so you don't get ill, the dog you walk, the food you eat, the lawn you mow, the fertilizer you use to kill the weeds in the lawn you mow, are all evidence that our understanding of the way life works, adapts and evolves is accurate and no "magic happens" explanation is needed.
-
As usual, the majority of this debate revolves around a fundamental misunderstanding about what science is and isn't. This is a non-sequitor statement, lazs, because BY DEFINITION science is concerned with the natural world. As soon as you include the supernatural, it's not science anymore.
Why?
All you IDers pay close attention (as if there's any hope of comprehension on this point):
The scientific method is about being able to make and test predictions where the ultimate test is direct observation or measurement. Introducing the supernatural eliminates the ability to make direct observation and measurement and therefore has no standing in science. If you do have the ability to make predictions and test them by observation or measurement then, again by definition, it's not supernatural any more - rather it's quite natural.
There are many mysteries in our universe, yet unexplained by science. You can claim that they are supernatural. But this is only true up to the point where we figure out how to make accurate predictions about them that hold up to testing and measurement. Then it's no longer a mystery and it cannot be called supernatural.
Religion is a non-starter here, because not only is it filled with supernatural explanations, but it declares itself unexplainable in any other way than supernatural. I'm not making a value statement about religion here, just that any notion that ID is in any way shape or form science is ridiculous on the face of it because it abolishes the very practice of predicting, testing and measuring. Note that I haven't said that it's not true, it's just not science. ID says "magic happened, it isn't understandable in any way other than a magical force, just be happy". Fundamentally, that is NOT SCIENCE.
On a further note:
I think it's been said a hundred times, but IDers - and many others - never seem to actually understand this point:
A scientific theory IS NOT a conjecture. A theory as defined by science is a formal description of some system or phenomena against which predictions can be made and outcomes can be measured.
A weak scientific theory is one where, based on the theory, few predictions that can be made have been tested or where some predictions turn out not to be true. When a prediction turns out not to be true, it may involve "tuning" the theory if it is complex. It doesn't necessarily mean the whole theory is moot.
A strong theory is one where many, many predictions have been made where outcomes have supported the predictions. The more, the stronger. Science is then built by gaining confidence in a theory's ability to support more and more predictions to the point where the theory is essentially a set of accepted truths.
Evolution is a strong theory. Perhaps the strongest of all scientific theories. It is supported by an insurmountable amount of evidence - an IDer saying "there's no fossil/DNA evidence" does not negate the fact that there is so much evidence only complete ignorance excuses such statements - and the lifestyles you all lead today is a direct result of it being this way. The antibiotics you take when you are ill, the flu vaccine you take so you don't get ill, the dog you walk, the food you eat, the lawn you mow, the fertilizer you use to kill the weeds in the lawn you mow, are all evidence that our understanding of the way life works, adapts and evolves is accurate and no "magic happens" explanation is needed.
The "supernatural" is by definition greater than or beyond the natural. I will argue that this is only because of our inability to perceive or understand it. That does not mean it is disconnected or otherwise separate from our "natural" realm. If science were limited to our current understanding of the natural realm the world would still be flat.
-
skyrock.. when you "get the picture" from incomplete data.. you are not being "smart" you are taking a shot in the dark.. you often end up with a picture that says man will warm the globe enough to have a rise in the sea of 30' by 2020 or that all petroleum came from fred flintstones pets.
lazs
I'd hate to take this thing off on another tangent, but I have to ask this quick question. Do you think that crude oil is being formed at a rate that will sustain our supplies with our current usage? If the answer is "yes" than I probably won't be bothering you again. It would be unsporting to have a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
-
Evolution is a strong theory. Perhaps the strongest of all scientific theories. It is supported by an insurmountable amount of evidence - an IDer saying "there's no fossil/DNA evidence" does not negate the fact that there is so much evidence only complete ignorance excuses such statements - and the lifestyles you all lead today is a direct result of it being this way. The antibiotics you take when you are ill, the flu vaccine you take so you don't get ill, the dog you walk, the food you eat, the lawn you mow, the fertilizer you use to kill the weeds in the lawn you mow, are all evidence that our understanding of the way life works, adapts and evolves is accurate and no "magic happens" explanation is needed.
What is all of this insurmountable evidence you speak of? Can you give general examples?
You say the theory of evolution is a strong theory....why? Does it not predict that the missing fossils should be there?
-
It was six men of Indostan, to learning much inclined,
who went to see the elephant (Though all of them were blind),
that each by observation, might satisfy his mind.
The first approached the elephant, and, happening to fall,
against his broad and sturdy side, at once began to bawl:
"God bless me! but the elephant, is nothing but a wall!"
The second feeling of the tusk, cried: "Ho! what have we here,
so very round and smooth and sharp? To me tis mighty clear,
this wonder of an elephant, is very like a spear!"
The third approached the animal, and, happening to take,
the squirming trunk within his hands, "I see," quoth he,
the elephant is very like a snake!"
The fourth reached out his eager hand, and felt about the knee:
"What most this wondrous beast is like, is mighty plain," quoth he;
"Tis clear enough the elephant is very like a tree."
The fifth, who chanced to touch the ear, Said; "E'en the blindest man
can tell what this resembles most; Deny the fact who can,
This marvel of an elephant, is very like a fan!"
The sixth no sooner had begun, about the beast to grope,
than, seizing on the swinging tail, that fell within his scope,
"I see," quothe he, "the elephant is very like a rope!"
And so these men of Indostan, disputed loud and long,
each in his own opinion, exceeding stiff and strong,
Though each was partly in the right, and all were in the wrong!
So, oft in theologic wars, the disputants, I ween,
tread on in utter ignorance, of what each other mean,
and prate about the elephant, not one of them has seen!
John Godfrey Saxe (1816 - 1887)
-
Of course, when time ceases. Do I know how long it will be 'til that occurs? Certainly not, nor do I know how long since time began. I do believe that time and space as we understand it is not all that there is.
While all answers are replies, unfortunately not all replies are answers. You basically say "it ends when it ends", which is circular and doesn't really say anything. The fact of the matter is that we don't know if or when the universe ends; if there was anything before the big bang; if there is a god entity; exactly how life started; et cetera ad infinitum.
We simply don't know. And likely never will.
However, I refuse to let ancient superstitions designed to comfort and control primitive people play on my ignorance and dictate how I should live my life.
-
skyrock.. when you "get the picture" from incomplete data.. you are not being "smart" you are taking a shot in the dark.. you often end up with a picture that says man will warm the globe enough to have a rise in the sea of 30' by 2020 or that all petroleum came from fred flintstones pets.
It is not a "shot in the dark" if the picture is clearly viewable. We can see evolution happening, we can actually do it ourselves. As far as global warming and petroleum is concerned, I put less weight in the fringe theories that have risen from scientist' egos. Gold was an egotist that wanted recognition before truth.
Those who believe in a creator should be able to say that just because we believe in god is no reason to say that evolution can't exist to a great extent.
lazs
I agree with this statement, and as I have stated before, no matter how life got started on this planet, there is much room for God in the universe! :aok
-
What is all of this insurmountable evidence you speak of? Can you give general examples?
You say the theory of evolution is a strong theory....why? Does it not predict that the missing fossils should be there?
If you're trying to prove it isn't the truth, a missing fossil here or there is a big deal I guess. Try looking at the big picture. Also it might help to have a greater understanding of what special circumstances are needed for a fossil to survive 2 billion years. :aok
-
However, I refuse to let ancient superstitions designed to comfort and control primitive people play on my ignorance and dictate how I should live my life.
I wouldn't have it any other way, free will, free country and all. No man should have to answer to any other man for his beliefs/faith.
-
it's quite simple... either you believe in all of the gods or you believe in none of them.
those that pick and choose only one god and dismiss the other gods are just dishonest atheists.... something like slave owners declaring all men are created equal.
the snooty religious zealots have always been a ball and chain to the progress of mankind tho.
-
I wouldn't have it any other way, free will, free country and all. No man should have to answer to any other man for his beliefs/faith.
I completely agree. (Been a while since I last could say that to you.)
-
the snooty religious zealots have always been a ball and chain to the progress of mankind tho.
Progress huh? Guess you need a goal to determine progress. Your goal for mankind may not be the same as mine. Care to share what your goal for mankind is?
-
Progress huh? Guess you need a goal to determine progress. Your goal for mankind may not be the same as mine. Care to share what your goal for mankind is?
I hate to want to pull away from topic, but this would be interesting to hear.
-
What is all of this insurmountable evidence you speak of? Can you give general examples?
You say the theory of evolution is a strong theory....why? Does it not predict that the missing fossils should be there?
It's a strong theory because the predictions are overwhelmingly being validated.
Here's a very recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm).
The prediction from evolution theory is that snakes evolved from legged creatures at some point and if this is true, we should find fossil evidence of snake-like creatures with remnant legs. Guess what - we've found such fossil evidence. This one even has ankle bones. No magic. A strong theory tells us what we should expect, and our expectations are born out. That's called science.
This is also an excellent example of debate within the theory. There are two different hypotheses about how snakes evolved. One suggests that burrowing land lizards stopped needing legs, the other that they came from marine reptiles. The fact that this debate exists in no way undermines the theory of evolution. It is about some specific details. This discovery supports the first hypothesis. The wonder of science is that evidence may be found that supports both: some snakes may have an evolutional origin on land, others may be more closely related to sea reptiles. If predictions from both interests turn out to be true, that may further our understanding of how two origins may adapt similarly producing very similar special outcomes.
Now, on the creationist side - if we want to apply the scientific method - we predict that, because the serpent in the Garden of Eden talked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and thereafter God cursed it to slithering on its belly, we should find fossil evidence of a snakelike creature with fully formed legs and a fully functioning larynx. I guess we're still waiting on that one.
Furthermore, because God smote the legs off of the creature and all its offspring in an act of spite, we should NOT find fossil evidence of any transitional creatures. Oops.
-
It's a strong theory because the predictions are overwhelmingly being validated.
Here's a very recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm).
The prediction from evolution theory is that snakes evolved from legged creatures at some point and if this is true, we should find fossil evidence of snake-like creatures with remnant legs. Guess what - we've found such fossil evidence. This one even has ankle bones. No magic. A strong theory tells us what we should expect, and our expectations are born out. That's called science.
This is also an excellent example of debate within the theory. There are two different hypotheses about how snakes evolved. One suggests that burrowing land lizards stopped needing legs, the other that they came from marine reptiles. The fact that this debate exists in no way undermines the theory of evolution. It is about some specific details. This discovery supports the first hypothesis. The wonder of science is that evidence may be found that supports both: some snakes may have an evolutional origin on land, others may be more closely related to sea reptiles. If predictions from both interests turn out to be true, that may further our understanding of how two origins may adapt similarly producing very similar special outcomes.
Now, on the creationist side - if we want to apply the scientific method - we predict that, because the serpent in the Garden of Eden talked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and thereafter God cursed it to slithering on its belly, we should find fossil evidence of a snakelike creature with fully formed legs and a fully functioning larynx. I guess we're still waiting on that one.
Furthermore, because God smote the legs off of the creature and all its offspring in an act of spite, we should NOT find fossil evidence of any transitional creatures. Oops.
I was going to respond but have run out of time. I'll try to later.
Lambo
-
Progress huh? Guess you need a goal to determine progress. Your goal for mankind may not be the same as mine. Care to share what your goal for mankind is?
"If God meant man to fly, he'd have given us wings."
That we can fly is progress against a closed minded religious based argument.
-
"If God meant man to fly, he'd have given us wings."
That we can fly is progress against a closed minded religious based argument.
I like flying but an argument might be made that flying hasn't necessarily improved life for mankind or increased our chances for survival. How many have been killed because of flying bombers? How many might be killed in another world war?
-
If you're trying to prove it isn't the truth, a missing fossil here or there is a big deal I guess. Try looking at the big picture. Also it might help to have a greater understanding of what special circumstances are needed for a fossil to survive 2 billion years. :aok
Fossils of soft-celled organisms from before, during, and after the Cambrian period survived yet fossils of predecessors to animals that show up in the Cambrian period do not survive?
-
How many have been killed because of flying bombers?
Not one as far as I can tell. They were killed by exploding bombs or bombers that quit flying.
-
:lol
-
It's a strong theory because the predictions are overwhelmingly being validated.
Here's a very recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm).
The prediction from evolution theory is that snakes evolved from legged creatures at some point and if this is true, we should find fossil evidence of snake-like creatures with remnant legs. Guess what - we've found such fossil evidence. This one even has ankle bones. No magic. A strong theory tells us what we should expect, and our expectations are born out. That's called science.
This is also an excellent example of debate within the theory. There are two different hypotheses about how snakes evolved. One suggests that burrowing land lizards stopped needing legs, the other that they came from marine reptiles. The fact that this debate exists in no way undermines the theory of evolution. It is about some specific details. This discovery supports the first hypothesis. The wonder of science is that evidence may be found that supports both: some snakes may have an evolutional origin on land, others may be more closely related to sea reptiles. If predictions from both interests turn out to be true, that may further our understanding of how two origins may adapt similarly producing very similar special outcomes.
Now, on the creationist side - if we want to apply the scientific method - we predict that, because the serpent in the Garden of Eden talked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and thereafter God cursed it to slithering on its belly, we should find fossil evidence of a snakelike creature with fully formed legs and a fully functioning larynx. I guess we're still waiting on that one.
Furthermore, because God smote the legs off of the creature and all its offspring in an act of spite, we should NOT find fossil evidence of any transitional creatures. Oops.
I am astounded by this. Thumbs up! :aok
-
Fossils of soft-celled organisms from before, during, and after the Cambrian period survived yet fossils of predecessors to animals that show up in the Cambrian period do not survive?
There are are fossils predating the the Cambrian period (~500 million years ago). There is an entire scientific field called precambrian paleobiology that, in part, dedicates itself to the study of the extensive Precambrian fossil record. We have discovered fossils that range from 3.5 Billion years old right up the the beginning of the Cambrian period.
Now if you're referring specifically to multicellular forms of life, there are those as well. Ediacara biota were such life, and they are found in the Precambrian fossil record well before the "Cambrian Explosion".
Many Creationists use the rapid emergence of complex animals during the Cambrian period to pinpoint the "divine creation of life where there previously was none". It is interesting to note that no such "explosion" takes place in the plant kingdom. There is a clear and steady emergence of plant species, with a wealth of transitional fossils, throughout the fossil record.
Wouldn't an explosion of plant life occur as well? I mean, they were designed too, right?
-
It's a strong theory because the predictions are overwhelmingly being validated.
Here's a very recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm).
The prediction from evolution theory is that snakes evolved from legged creatures at some point and if this is true, we should find fossil evidence of snake-like creatures with remnant legs. Guess what - we've found such fossil evidence. This one even has ankle bones. No magic. A strong theory tells us what we should expect, and our expectations are born out. That's called science.
This is also an excellent example of debate within the theory. There are two different hypotheses about how snakes evolved. One suggests that burrowing land lizards stopped needing legs, the other that they came from marine reptiles. The fact that this debate exists in no way undermines the theory of evolution. It is about some specific details. This discovery supports the first hypothesis. The wonder of science is that evidence may be found that supports both: some snakes may have an evolutional origin on land, others may be more closely related to sea reptiles. If predictions from both interests turn out to be true, that may further our understanding of how two origins may adapt similarly producing very similar special outcomes.
Now, on the creationist side - if we want to apply the scientific method - we predict that, because the serpent in the Garden of Eden talked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and thereafter God cursed it to slithering on its belly, we should find fossil evidence of a snakelike creature with fully formed legs and a fully functioning larynx. I guess we're still waiting on that one.
Furthermore, because God smote the legs off of the creature and all its offspring in an act of spite, we should NOT find fossil evidence of any transitional creatures. Oops.
Green eggs and ham for me too please. :aok
-
Donzo just give in and admit you can't help but tend to use scientific method, however misplaced in a religious errand...
-
As a matter of fact, it's a distinct trait of religious conditioning to single out and focus on one truth trumping all others, in this case "Darwinisms" as the one and only target amidst all of science... If science was so bad, why, it's the scientific, empirical, rational, methods all together that'd be targeted.. Instead, it's one poor bloke who happened to hit so near to a bullseye that for probably a century, his name is still ringing.
Yesterday Galileo, today Darwin, tomorrow who knows.. With each recant of superstition and each partial retreat of exactly what the parables of religion refer to materialy, crackpots and loonies get less and less cred. There's no fooling nature or reason.
-
leslie..your poem says it well.
those of you who say that science can't admit the possibility of the supernatural are admitting that, at least in that respect, science is flawed. science can't measure beauty or love... even tho they have their theories.. science doesn't know how the universe came about yet they claim to.. science can't tell us how much oil is on the planet or where it comes from or even... what the global temp will be next year on this day.. or next month for that matter.
science may someday be able to measure what is now called the supernatural.. at that point they will except it... I am just jumping ahead of them a bit because.. I have watched them be wrong so many times just in my short lifetime.
I am grateful to science for what it has given us and forgive it for the evil it has wrought. I bet there were snakes with legs.. that doesn't mean there were soulless monkey men. Them being 99% sure of anything doesn't impress me in the big picture stuff that they don't have the ability to measure or understand.
those who say that they have the only god.. may be right.. I don't think so but... Who am I to call em a liar? those who say there is no god.. well.. they simply can't be right.. they fail to see around them or are angry with god or.. have never needed god. Most will find their god.
If someone sees ghosts.. I find it facinating. I don't see em but I can't say they don't If religion makes you happy.. if your god makes you happy.. it is good.. if not.. it is bad.. just as..
If your science makes you tremble in fear at every turn.. if doom and gloom are all your science has to offer then it is a bad thing.
I believe that god comes to us in a personal way.. that we can all feel his presence if we are open to it. Science seeks to close us up to it..or at least the science that the angry people here on this board want.. they want science to give them a chance to crush god... to make fun of those who have faith.. to get some sort of revenge for real or imagined slights to them by religious people or god himself. It is sad and pathetic IMO.
Why not simply be happy a fellow human has found comfort in his god? why not allow what most people feel in their hearts.. they existence of a creator.. to be not taught, but at least mentioned with respect in schools? I certainly would not feel harmed.. why would you?
lazs
-
those of you who say that science can't admit the possibility of the supernatural are admitting that, at least in that respect, science is flawed.
No, Lazs. It's not science that's flawed, it's the people that pretend science says that -- but it doesn't. Science is a method that, just like I said earlier, can be followed only as well as the person attempting to. If they stray from its path, it's not science that they're doing anymore.
Science makes nothing of the supernatural. It doesn't say it exists or not. That's beyond science's scope.. Like I said, if someone pretends otherwise, he's a crook. Just as politicians will pledge to be true to the Constitution, so can 'scientists' pledge to be true to science, and doctors true to the Hippocratic oath, and Christians true to God's word, and yet go astray from 'the path'.
-
Lazs, it's not a matter of science admitting the possibility of the supernatural. Science simply IGNORES the supernatural because it does not apply - by DEFINITION. For this discussion, there's not even a judgment call over right or wrong, just that the supernatural excludes science because it is not concerned with predictable, observable, measurable results. Again, as soon as you can predict, observe, test, and measure something, by definition it is no longer supernatural.
Where we get hung up, mostly, is not whether there are supernatural explanations to phenomena that are true, but whether we introduce those explanations into the realm of science and even go so far as to include supernatural explanations in our science curriculum.
The supernatural excludes science. Science excludes the supernatural. This by definition, not by bias or arbitrariness.
Let's say we go ahead and REDEFINE science to include the supernatural, and accept this redefined science as school curriculum and a basis for higher research:
Now, I want a more effective treatment for cancer. Or, I want a faster graphics card. We call on this redefined science to help. Do we establish a research group to pray for the treatment and expect it to appear in our pharmacies one day? Do create a laboratory to light incense near computers and rub them with special oils and expect them to get faster? Do we publish journals on how special dances with ceremonial headdresses increase the throughput of fiber optic networks? Those are now valid scientific approaches.
At some point, if we wish to advance our understanding of the natural universe and make medical breakthroughs and have faster computers and networks, we need to have a discipline that IGNORES the supernatural and seeks to find predictable, observable, measurable, testable explanations wherever we can. Now that we've redefined science to be something else, we need to give this discipline a new name. But whatever we call it, it is necessary AND it BY DEFINITION ignores supernatural explanations.
I suppose we can argue that it's not necessary to have this disciple that ignores the supernatural and that having this discipline creates a soulless society. I think there are plenty of examples of cultures who have made that choice (Afghanistan under the Taliban) and I'm quite glad that the western world and particularly the U.S. (so far) has not.
What I don't quite understand is how the strongly pious can't appreciate the huge rewards they've reaped by living in a society where some do have the discipline to ignore the supernatural in pursuit of a scientific understanding of the world. I, for one, am glad that science has figured out how to create drought and disease resistant grains so I don't have to fear my daughter being sacrificed on the altar to ensure a good wheat crop this year.
-
samiam.. I am content with science ignoring the supernatural.. just as I ignore ghosts say.
That is not what they are doing tho. they are declaring war on it. Just as some people enjoy making fun of those who have seen ghosts or bigfoot or auras or whatever.. they are not "ignoring".
Why does science have to be the only thing taught? is there no room for the mention of ID in schools? Is it so impossible that it needs to be censored? certainly in our schools that waste so much time.. a few sentences about the fact that many.. if not most.. people here believe in ID would be appropriate.
It just makes science look bad if they are so protective of themselves that they forbid any other theory outside of science.
lazs
-
There is room for ID, but not in science curiculums. Not unless we stray from the definition of science, the same way people stray from it when they pretend to have scientific proof that god doesn't exist.
'Theory' is an element of science, you can't have one outside of it :)
-
Lazs, some of us may think that the war declaration is the other way around...
(Personally, I'm not making fun of supernatural beliefs per se. But I confess to making of those beliefs being represented as science.)
When Ben Stein claims that IDers are ostracized in the scientific community, he's not really wrong. But they are not being ostracized for their beliefs. They are being ostracized for representing those beliefs as good science, which - are you getting sick of reading this - BY DEFINITION they aren't. Complaining about someone who doesn't believe in the theory of evolution not having status in the scientific community is like complaining about a jewish person not being allowed into the Catholic priesthood.
Does it make the Catholics look bad that a muslim who does not believe in the resurrection of Christ cannot become pope?
I'm not at all against teaching ID in schools. BUT IT IS NOT SCIENCE. You CANNOT teach ID as part of a science discipline. It's a supernatural explanation. Teach it as such under religious studies, or something. In science class you can say: "We are going to learn about the theory of evolution, which is well supported and explains a lot about our world. There are NON SCIENTIFIC explanations to the same phenomena that you can learn about elsewhere, but since they deal with the supernatural, we don't cover them in this SCIENCE class."
-
I never said teach it. I only said that it needed to be put out there as a theory. Any science that does not recognize the possibility of things it can't measure or comprehend is simply a bad...or.. limited disipline.
Of course it is impossible to teach ID using the restricted and limited scientific method. I am asking science to step outside their narrow confines and simply recognize that there are things.. or at least the possibility of things that it can not measure or understand... at the very least.. at this time. I am not asking them to spend a great deal of time on it.. how could they since it is not really understood? I am merely asking them to admit that many believe in things supernatural.. that it is a theory that they can neither prove not disprove with their current limits.
certainly.. a few minutes spent on this would not be a "waste" considering all the other waste at schools?
lazs
-
I'm not at all against teaching ID in schools. BUT IT IS NOT SCIENCE. You CANNOT teach ID as part of a science discipline. It's a supernatural explanation. Teach it as such under religious studies, or something. In science class you can say: "We are going to learn about the theory of evolution, which is well supported and explains a lot about our world. There are NON SCIENTIFIC explanations to the same phenomena that you can learn about elsewhere, but since they deal with the supernatural, we don't cover them in this SCIENCE class."
This is very close to how I approached the evolution curriculum when I was teaching science. I always started the studies with something like this, "We are going to be studying the theory of evolution. You may have a different belief that is in contrast to what we are going to study. You may have religious beliefs that are different from what we are going to study. This is a science class and we will study only the science. If something you learn in here is discomforting to your beliefs, you should talk with your parents about it or your religious leader. We will be studying only the science."
-
I never said teach it. I only said that it needed to be put out there as a theory. Any science that does not recognize the possibility of things it can't measure or comprehend is simply a bad...or.. limited disipline.
Of course it is impossible to teach ID using the restricted and limited scientific method. I am asking science to step outside their narrow confines and simply recognize that there are things.. or at least the possibility of things that it can not measure or understand... at the very least.. at this time. I am not asking them to spend a great deal of time on it.. how could they since it is not really understood? I am merely asking them to admit that many believe in things supernatural.. that it is a theory that they can neither prove not disprove with their current limits.
certainly.. a few minutes spent on this would not be a "waste" considering all the other waste at schools?
lazs
religious theories should never enter the science classroom. There has been too much wasted time and sacrafice getting the church out of science in the past to open those gates again. :aok
-
Plenty of dogmatism in both religion and science. Few practice purely either religion or science. Arrogance is definitely a learning inhibitor.
-
sure people use religion as a crutch to get by in life... just like people use alcohol and drugs to get by as well...it doesn't mean they can't be called out on it tho.
but like i said before... religion is just selective atheism by dishonest people... and they can't admit to the existence of more than one god or their pious fraud gets exposed.
then you have those wacko elitists types that think their own personal god created the whole universe just for them... and their god has a special plan all just for them.
i have more faith in my fellow man that i deal with everyday than any of these numerous gods the religious paparazzi tout on about... to think humans are born inherently evil and need an invisible friend to set them on a morale path is just santa claus nonsense.
besides all these gods sound like rather vain lonely creatures... their sole purpose in creating mankind on a tiny spit of dirt in the vast universe precariously living on a knife's edge... is so they themselves could all be adored loved and worshiped.
-
It's a strong theory because the predictions are overwhelmingly being validated.
Here's a very recent example: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7339508.stm).
The prediction from evolution theory is that snakes evolved from legged creatures at some point and if this is true, we should find fossil evidence of snake-like creatures with remnant legs. Guess what - we've found such fossil evidence. This one even has ankle bones. No magic. A strong theory tells us what we should expect, and our expectations are born out. That's called science.
This is also an excellent example of debate within the theory. There are two different hypotheses about how snakes evolved. One suggests that burrowing land lizards stopped needing legs, the other that they came from marine reptiles. The fact that this debate exists in no way undermines the theory of evolution. It is about some specific details. This discovery supports the first hypothesis. The wonder of science is that evidence may be found that supports both: some snakes may have an evolutional origin on land, others may be more closely related to sea reptiles. If predictions from both interests turn out to be true, that may further our understanding of how two origins may adapt similarly producing very similar special outcomes.
Now, on the creationist side - if we want to apply the scientific method - we predict that, because the serpent in the Garden of Eden talked Eve into eating the forbidden fruit, and thereafter God cursed it to slithering on its belly, we should find fossil evidence of a snakelike creature with fully formed legs and a fully functioning larynx. I guess we're still waiting on that one.
Furthermore, because God smote the legs off of the creature and all its offspring in an act of spite, we should NOT find fossil evidence of any transitional creatures. Oops.
That fossil is an awesome find and imho shows God's creativity even more as if we didn't have enough already. I think assuming it was a transitional fossil to the modern snake is a bit hasty, but could very well be.
Quoting from another board: "Vestigials, when they occur, are the loss of structures or the functions of structures. Creation says God created everything "very good" in the beginning. It has all been going downhill since, due to man's rebellion. The loss of many things, including parts and functions, is part of that downhill slide, and it is perfectly consistent with creation. In fact it would be predicted by creation as being in concordance with Romans 8:20-22."
And it could just be a type of snake with legs, imagine if the Boa died out as little as a 5000 years ago and we found a fossil of it. I bet the same things would be said about it.
Lambo
-
torque.. you sound pretty arrogant.. able to understand what god is or thinks.. how are you different from a fundamentalist?
I will accept the possiblility of all gods being the true god.. who am I to say god does not manifest himself in different ways to different people.. who am I to claim to know his intent?
Skyrock.. I think that is the best explanation I have heard yet.. that it took you so long to get religion out of science that you fear letting it get it's nose under the tent. I understand the fear of science... it struggles to act like it understands or that at least, all things can be measured and weighed and disected.. all things are simply waiting to have their mysteries solved by science.. it is understandable that fear would be the result of such a way of thinking.
To me.. if someone says they believe in god and a creator of all things.. that should not mean that science is left out or even evolution.. science is very important... so far as it goes...
When it claims to have the only answer.. that is where I see the weakness.
Someone claimed that somehow.. science and the supernatural could not coexist.. that you couldn't cure cancer or help people if you prayed instead of did the science... that is silly.. you can do both.. the person who is doing the science need only note one more factor that happening.. this has been done before.. tests (with various results) on healing with and without prayer.. not sure god would play this game but... there have been scientific tests.. they have even tried to weigh the soul... so...
Scientists have not ignored the supernatural.. they simply have admitted defeat in most cases. The defeat causes them to be frustrated and fearful and the kind of censorship we see in the pitiful academics.. and lets admit it.. these are not well adjusted or moral people... they are spiteful and arrogant and fearful.. very few professors are worth a damn as people.
lazs
-
"I never said teach it. I only said that it needed to be put out there as a theory."
Lazs it can't be a theory because there's nothing to say about it, not scientificaly. Not anymore than you can have a theory of God. There's no such thing as an unscientific theory. Science can't step out of the bounds of reason and logic and remain science at the same time.
It's not that science doesn't recognize religion, it's that science doesn't apply to the supernatural. The only value of scientific data is scientific. You can't have science backing religious theology :)
Lambo, you're mixing religion and science.
-
Skyrock.. I think that is the best explanation I have heard yet.. that it took you so long to get religion out of science that you fear letting it get it's nose under the tent. I understand the fear of science... it struggles to act like it understands or that at least, all things can be measured and weighed and disected.. all things are simply waiting to have their mysteries solved by science.. it is understandable that fear would be the result of such a way of thinking.
lazs
Lazs, so you think I am afraid of religion? Is this your explanation of why I'm afraid of religion? :rofl
I don't fear religion at all, just as I dont fear the afterlife! History teaches us about the negative effects that an all powerful church can have on mankind. There are too many instances to list of how the ignorance of religion has held back progress of the human race. I understand the benefits of religion and even try to live my life by the words of jesus on the sermon on the mount, but it has no place in Science. Science is a different bird altogether.
I think you are jealous of smart people.
PS Here is a passage from the bible on how to deal with your kids if they are disobediant:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21
"If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, (19) his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. (20) They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." (21) Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death."
God's word.
-
"I never said teach it. I only said that it needed to be put out there as a theory."
Lazs it can't be a theory because there's nothing to say about it, not scientificaly. Not anymore than you can have a theory of God. There's no such thing as an unscientific theory. Science can't step out of the bounds of reason and logic and remain science at the same time.
It's not that science doesn't recognize religion, it's that science doesn't apply to the supernatural. The only value of scientific data is scientific. You can't have science backing religious theology :)
Lambo, you're mixing religion and science.
No, I didn't. God did, I just believe him :) Look again at the article I posted several posts back on presuppositions. You see, I believe science confirms the Bible.
edit: article is on page 14 of this thread
Lambo
-
No, I didn't. God did, I just believe him
You did. You don't know God's word. Muslims have a book too, and so do other religions. They all say the same thing. 'Our book/artifact is evidence of God's will'. What is your proof for being the one religion that's right, out of all religions? You don't have one.
What is the proof that any of these religions have it right? There isn't any. It's all faith.
In you article, you say Evolutionists have beliefs about God. They don't. Science doesn't make any supposition whatsoever about God (*). The premise for your article is false, but let's run thru another bit of it anyway:
'Glasses': What glasses? The only glasses 'evolutionists' look through is science. Science is logic, reason. Religion is faith. There's no common ground for these two optics to compare observations because one looks at the rational, empirical aspects, the other looks at the religious, supernatural aspects. What is there to compare?
Another thing, you say 'evolutionists' like it's some sort of breed of men. It's not. Evolution is a theory, an idea that's for the time being is the best fitting model to data. There's no other reason for any special relationship between the distribution of religion and scientific ideas in this population of people (people who harbor an idea of Darwinist Evolution as the best model of natural evolution), other than maybe some mistaken understanding that the two are mutualy exclusive.
The two ideas are independent.
I don't have the patience to read the rest of the article. The logical aberrance in your post is bad enough. You believe science backs up the bible. You don't have proof. There's no scientific proof of anything supernatural, can you understand that?
* It doesn't say it exists, nor does it say that it doesn't exist. The people who Lazs says won't admit that there's something beyond science or that 'admit defeat' against religious ideas aren't representative of science.
In the first case, refusing to admit that there's something beyond science is not a matter of science, it's a matter of faith. That's not science talking when they say refuse to admit the possibility of something supernatural, that's faith.
Second, to admit defeat in front of religious ideas, you need a conflict. There's no such thing between:
The systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities
and
The belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.
Systematic study, and belief and worship. No conflict.
-
There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
-Hamlet
-
None of em will pass for much more than fancies of the mind upon study.
-
The religion of evolution is based on assumptions that are suported by so relatively few datapoints that calling it science is laughable. That is not to say that science is not a part of the evolutionary argument, but it is used in much the same manner that any religion would choose to use it... only when it suits them. I've noticed this with several fossil discoveries... a fossile is fit into an intermediate filling position based on preconceived notions rather than science. There's no real proof that the "intermediary creature" was anything more than a deformed lizard, but it can help support someone's view, so you make it fit the model. Now... a whole colony of intermediate creatures would be something akin to scientific data. At least... that's how the absolute science that people seem to be saying evolution is based on works. The sad thing is... that's not what evolution is based on. It's based on assumptions that were never proven that must be disproven to be thrown out. Many call that faith.
-
You did. You don't know God's word. Muslims have a book too, and so do other religions. They all say the same thing. 'Our book/artifact is evidence of God's will'. What is your proof for being the one religion that's right, out of all religions? You don't have one.
What is the proof that any of these religions have it right? There isn't any. It's all faith.
In you article, you say Evolutionists have beliefs about God. They don't. Science doesn't make any supposition whatsoever about God (*). The premise for your article is false, but let's run thru another bit of it anyway:
'Glasses': What glasses? The only glasses 'evolutionists' look through is science. Science is logic, reason. Religion is faith. There's no common ground for these two optics to compare observations because one looks at the rational, empirical aspects, the other looks at the religious, supernatural aspects. What is there to compare?
Another thing, you say 'evolutionists' like it's some sort of breed of men. It's not. Evolution is a theory, an idea that's for the time being is the best fitting model to data. There's no other reason for any special relationship between the distribution of religion and scientific ideas in this population of people (people who harbor an idea of Darwinist Evolution as the best model of natural evolution), other than maybe some mistaken understanding that the two are mutualy exclusive.
The two ideas are independent.
I don't have the patience to read the rest of the article. The logical aberrance in your post is bad enough. You believe science backs up the bible. You don't have proof. There's no scientific proof of anything supernatural, can you understand that?
* It doesn't say it exists, nor does it say that it doesn't exist. The people who Lazs says won't admit that there's something beyond science or that 'admit defeat' against religious ideas aren't representative of science.
In the first case, refusing to admit that there's something beyond science is not a matter of science, it's a matter of faith. That's not science talking when they say refuse to admit the possibility of something supernatural, that's faith.
Second, to admit defeat in front of religious ideas, you need a conflict. There's no such thing between:
The systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical world, especially by observing, measuring and experimenting, and the development of theories to describe the results of these activities
and
The belief in and worship of a god or gods, or any such system of belief and worship.
Systematic study, and belief and worship. No conflict.
Ofcourse I know God's word, I study it and try to live by it. 2 Tim. 3:16-17 says, "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." The word "inspired" is literally "God-breathed." This is an interesting phrase, since it implies that the Scriptures are from the mouth of God.
And I didn't write the article, which I state at the top of it. I even posted a link to the full article. It's a shame you couldn't finish it but I do understand. There's been many science classes I've sat threw and had to endure the evolution theory and I felt the same way.
I disagree that there's no proof of the Supernatural, the discoveries of science shows me proof. The complexity in every thing from the cell to the human mind are my evidence. But for some one that doesn't believe in God it is imposible for them to see the proof. I've already posted this once, but here it is again, ‘But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; neither can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned’ (1 Corinthians 2:14).
I'm ok with the fact you see things different than I do and I respect it.
<S>
Lambo
-
thanks for proving my point about how easily the pious fraud comes apart laz... don't know what could be more arrogant and elitist then to think that your own personal god created the universe just for you.
thanks fer play'n.
-
Wow... talk about ironic. You can't really sound much more arrogant and elitist than that torque.
-
The religion of evolution is based on assumptions that are suported by so relatively few datapoints that calling it science is laughable. That is not to say that science is not a part of the evolutionary argument, but it is used in much the same manner that any religion would choose to use it... only when it suits them. I've noticed this with several fossil discoveries... a fossile is fit into an intermediate filling position based on preconceived notions rather than science. There's no real proof that the "intermediary creature" was anything more than a deformed lizard, but it can help support someone's view, so you make it fit the model. Now... a whole colony of intermediate creatures would be something akin to scientific data. At least... that's how the absolute science that people seem to be saying evolution is based on works. The sad thing is... that's not what evolution is based on. It's based on assumptions that were never proven that must be disproven to be thrown out. Many call that faith.
Well said. :aok
-
But wrong
-
But wrong
Elaborate please.
-
Aside ftom the fact that there are more "data points" than we could possibly list in this thread, and aside from the attempt to twist the hypothesis of the scientific method into some kind of "preconceived notion", the attempt to compare a dogma that is irrevocable no matter what the evidence to a process that requires evidence is the definition of silly.
-
Aside ftom the fact that there are more "data points" than we could possibly list in this thread, and aside from the attempt to twist the hypothesis of the scientific method into some kind of "preconceived notion", the attempt to compare a dogma that is irrevocable no matter what the evidence to a process that requires evidence is the definition of silly.
As Mini D pointed out some of these data points could be nothing more than deformed animals. If there were many of these found then it would show that there were in fact intermediate creatures filling the gaps. This is not the case. So the point is that when just one of something is found that fits what is expected to be found, it is believed to be fact. There is no proof. It just fits so it's accepted. If someone took Joseph Merrick's bones and buried them in some remote space when he died and someone stumbled upon them in 2008, would they be thought to be the bones of a modern day human?
-
I'm no specialist on evolution. MiniD, it sounds like you've studied the matter, so you could probably point out how all the points and counter-points in favor of evolution on the articles at the skeptic and newscientist websites I linked to don't stand up to reason.
I can imagine that some people break the rules of science by putting faith into it, but I really doubt that there's some sort of vast conspiracy across a field so varied as evolutionary theory (as varied as the churches of christianity probably) to prevent scientificaly correct data to be published because it somehow breaks some status quo. That's the whole point of science, to keep making new status quos and testing them till they fall apart and provide better "status quos".
If someone doesn't follow that systematic, he's not representative of science. There is no "religion" of science. There might be people who act like it, but science itself has nothing wrong with it, nor does it refute or support religion in any way.
Lambo, you don't know God's word. You know what you suppose is God's word, and that's no more credible than what Ahmed supposes he knows about Allah's word, or what Mokombu ideates about Brahman.
I doubt you felt the same way sitting thru those classes as I do reading that article and your posts. I have a thing about consistency, about logic, and when I read something that's full of bumps and holes like a bad road, it makes my eyes swim and I get pissed off making efforts to resolve the logical aberrance just so I can be sure of what the author is trying to say. I can't stand irrationality, and you quoting a religious book like it's got any scientific authority just pokes my eyes out. You didn't notice inconsistencies in the science classes' material itself. You felt like it was all wrong because it didn't fit with whatever you thought was supposed to fit between science and religion. There's no such thing.
You could easily leave the religion and science separate, where they belong, but instead mix it together undiscriminately, and that's aberrant nonsense. I don't have a problem with you, it's not a matter of respect. I'm ok with you or anyone else seeing some things differently than I do, but not with nonsense being passed off as sense. That's insanity.
Good luck,
<S>
-
Donzo you need to find some specialist and see what he has to say. There's some good value to philosophical debate on a text forum like this, because its medium is well adapted to the subject matter (ideas), but what you're saying about evolutionary theory is basicaly armchair expertise.
-
when just one of something is found that fits what is expected to be found, it is believed to be fact. There is no proof. It just fits so it's accepted.
Back this up with evidence.
-
...but what you're saying about evolutionary theory is basicaly armchair expertise.
And you base this on what? Would you be one of those specialist you recommend I find?
-
Back this up with evidence.
Archaeopteryx was believed to be the "missing link" between reptiles and birds and accepted as such. This turns out not to be case.
-
I base it on the fact that you blanket state all scientists as following the pattern you described.
I'm suggesting you find a specialist that's done more than argue practical science on an abstract forum, that actualy has studied the subject matter. I'm saying there's probably enough material on the net from outreach-like organisations (if you could call em that) and/or publications like skeptic and newscientist mag (both of which I linked, knock yourself out refuting it all, shouldn't be hard if they're as numbskulled as you suggest they are) which have a lot of the meat and potatoes of evolutionary theory that's debated.
That dino never was something I took for granted as the missing link. The first thing I learned about science was that nothing is for sure, there's only the best fitting hypothesies that sometimes have a small enough degree of uncertainty to warrant continuing down the road they propose. If I thought so, quite a lot of other people did too.
And that's just one case. You need to show that this pattern was widespread enough in all of the peer reviewing of all hypothesies and theories in all of science's domains to suggest there's something wrong with scientific process. One small fart doesn't mean you you've got gangrene in the plumbing.
-
The religion of evolution is based on assumptions that are suported by so relatively few datapoints that calling it science is laughable. That is not to say that science is not a part of the evolutionary argument, but it is used in much the same manner that any religion would choose to use it... only when it suits them. I've noticed this with several fossil discoveries... a fossile is fit into an intermediate filling position based on preconceived notions rather than science. There's no real proof that the "intermediary creature" was anything more than a deformed lizard, but it can help support someone's view, so you make it fit the model. Now... a whole colony of intermediate creatures would be something akin to scientific data. At least... that's how the absolute science that people seem to be saying evolution is based on works. The sad thing is... that's not what evolution is based on. It's based on assumptions that were never proven that must be disproven to be thrown out. Many call that faith.
Which science have you been studying? You're so far off base, that it is weird! You are totally discounting soo much evidence in disputing the fringes of the discoveries. There is a world of evidence for evolution, that is why even in "christian rich" Mississippi, they teach it. Don't be fooled by the quest to find "reason" for faith, faith is a conscript to ignorance!
I imagine that many on this BBS are loyal to the christian faith, and that for :aok most of the thinking world, is like being loyal to the Cubs.....yes there is a possiblity that they might win the pennant, but in reality, we know different! hee heee
-
I do however get frustrated with the intentions of most religous people. The blatant holier than thou attitudes that is common amoung the religions.
I imagine that many on this BBS are loyal to the christian faith, and that for :aok most of the thinking world, is like being loyal to the Cubs.....yes there is a possiblity that they might win the pennant, but in reality, we know different! hee heee
Sounds like the "we" (the thinking people) know better than the religious people. Right, SkyRock?
Talk about blatant attitudes :rolleyes:
-
I'm sorry that you feel I'm discounting evidence. I never said any such thing. I do believe that the amount of data needed to prove simple theories greatly outweighs the data collected to prove the origin of the universe, our species and every living creature. Yet to watch you guys go, any questioning of that is met with accusations of ignorance. I have collected more data in my 15 year reasearch career than most biologists, botanists and paleantologists will ever collect... all to prove things much less significant than the origins of life. There's a reason they're called "soft sciences".
All you have to look at is how wrong they've been shown to be, then "adjusted". All you have to look at are the conlcusions that are drawn from finding a jawbone with 3 teeth in tact.
There is one thing that the professor got right when he was talking about one of the professors that were fired: He was fired because he didn't get enough grant money. This is the principle job of professors when they are working for a company (colleges are companies). They need to do what is needed to bring in grants. Their research needs to be seen as something important enough to invest in. They'll tell whatever lies, cherry pick whatever data and defend it until the end (at risk of being exposed). If you don't recognize these traits in professors, you haven't worked with them.
Science as we see it now is politics in disguise. Scientific method is being used as a shield for people with agendas. I cannot believe how prevelent the "All scientists agree, so it's now scientific fact..." is thrown out when there is no such thing. Science is not an absolute. Science is a tool of humans. It is used in whatever manner someone sees fit. With some things, there can be conclusive results, but with many others it is just a method of supporting an argument (if you know where to pick the data) despite having no real proof.
Hell... they can't even predict the weather and you think they understand the origins of life, the universe and everything.
-
I guess it's just odd that people professing to be advocates of science are the most prone to scream herassy these days.
-
Scream bunk, you mean.
-
Talk about blatant attitudes :rolleyes:
Yes, it is that way. Our mind, as humans, is more prone to intelligent thought, but fear interrupts, and leads us down the religous path. Sorry! :aok
-
Science as we see it now is politics in disguise. Scientific method is being used as a shield for people with agendas. I cannot believe how prevelent the "All scientists agree, so it's now scientific fact..." is thrown out when there is no such thing. Science is not an absolute. Science is a tool of humans. It is used in whatever manner someone sees fit. With some things, there can be conclusive results, but with many others it is just a method of supporting an argument (if you know where to pick the data) despite having no real proof.
Hell... they can't even predict the weather and you think they understand the origins of life, the universe and everything.
Although your views are swayed, I appreciate your argument. :aok
-
I have collected more data in my 15 year reasearch career than most biologists, botanists and paleantologists will ever collect... all to prove things much less significant than the origins of life. There's a reason they're called "soft sciences".
All you have to look at is how wrong they've been shown to be, then "adjusted". All you have to look at are the conlcusions that are drawn from finding a jawbone with 3 teeth in tact.
Usually, I find that those with a career in said area, like RESEARCH... can usually spell it correctly. I'm one of those pidly marine biologists you speak of, who has a research career, that is obviously, a much less noble endeavor than the pseudo soft science you possess.
I never knew a jawbone could have tact, either.
Oh well. I'm staying far outside of this roundabout. I'll let Moot carry on this rather interesting conversation with much more tact than what I could muster, for all this idiotic conjecture I see typed up here. It becomes more obvious that the greater we become as a species, intellectually, the more people will be left behind. It will be our ultimate undoing.
-
Usually, I find that those with a career in said area, like RESEARCH... can usually spell it correctly. I'm one of those pidly marine biologists you speak of, who has a research career, that is obviously, a much less noble endeavor than the pseudo soft science you possess.
I never knew a jawbone could have tact, either.
Oh well. I'm staying far outside of this roundabout. I'll let Moot carry on this rather interesting conversation with much more tact than what I could muster, for all this idiotic conjecture I see typed up here. It becomes more obvious that the greater we become as a species, intellectually, the more people will be left behind. It will be our ultimate undoing.
Kinda weird the way you put it, but I agree, ignorance is evil! :aok
-
There's something I teach all of the new scientists that work with me: Be carefull of the way you fingerprint something. Once it is accepted, no matter how incorrect it is, disproving it will be much more work than getting it accepted (even if it was accepted without proof) ever was. Evolution has been accepted and is being taught as fact. It's not going to be "disproven" or "debunked" to anyone that has that ingrained in their psyche. The same is true of creationism. But I've met more "evolutionists" that think their theory is fact than Christians who believe creationism happened exactly the way Genesis describes it.
I'll stick to my belief that order does not evolve from disorder. It is the other way around. Evolution is backwards.
-
Usually, I find that those with a career in said area, like RESEARCH... can usually spell it correctly. I'm one of those pidly marine biologists you speak of, who has a research career, that is obviously, a much less noble endeavor than the pseudo soft science you possess.
I never knew a jawbone could have tact, either.
Oh well. I'm staying far outside of this roundabout. I'll let Moot carry on this rather interesting conversation with much more tact than what I could muster, for all this idiotic conjecture I see typed up here. It becomes more obvious that the greater we become as a species, intellectually, the more people will be left behind. It will be our ultimate undoing.
Says the "scientist" who can't do simple math. We're not talking typos here either but concepts based on significant errors that even us stupid layman can spot.
-
There's something I teach all of the new scientists that work with me: Be carefull of the way you fingerprint something. Once it is accepted, no matter how incorrect it is, disproving it will be much more work than getting it accepted (even if it was accepted without proof) ever was. Evolution has been accepted and is being taught as fact. It's not going to be "disproven" or "debunked" to anyone that has that ingrained in their psyche. The same is true of creationism. But I've met more "evolutionists" that think their theory is fact than Christians who believe creationism happened exactly the way Genesis describes it.
I'll stick to my belief that order does not evolve from disorder. It is the other way around. Evolution is backwards.
Order doesn't evolve from disorder?
Astrophysics really has issues then. We have watched bodies in the solar system, including our own, gain more mass from the outside. Order from disorder.
Embryology... there's no way a human comes from two cells. It's impossible by your theory. That would be order from disorder.
Chemistry.... bunk to you. The entire science is devoted to making order (compounds) from disorder (elements).
Biochemistry... Same... but with much more complicated organic compounds. Serious order from disorder there.
I could go on, but what's the point. According to you, basically all science is wrong, simply because you advocate a "Chaos bound universe" You, by your own admission, begin the argument with a pre-conceived notion which, is EXACTLY what you espouse that everyone else does. Entropy is related to energy, something you are missing in your ideology. Ours is not a closed system, and energy is pumped in from the outside, therefore allowing the system to lower it's entropy. Of course, without E, the system would devolve naturally and entropy would increase.... your theory of devolution would be adequately descriptive here, and there would never have been organic molecules around long enough to make a splash.
But, since, with my own eyes, I can see things walking, swimming, flying and running.... I say you are quite wrong, sir, in your assertions.
-
Says the "scientist" who can't do simple math. We're not talking typos here either but concepts based on significant errors that even us stupid layman can spot.
Wow, long memory of one instance from a 6am post, before i left for work. Lemme know when you're ready to keep up with some Chi-square tests, I'll be glad to rip you up when that happens. C U Next Tuesday!
-
There's something I teach all of the new scientists that work with me: Be carefull of the way you fingerprint something. Once it is accepted, no matter how incorrect it is, disproving it will be much more work than getting it accepted (even if it was accepted without proof) ever was. Evolution has been accepted and is being taught as fact. It's not going to be "disproven" or "debunked" to anyone that has that ingrained in their psyche. The same is true of creationism. But I've met more "evolutionists" that think their theory is fact than Christians who believe creationism happened exactly the way Genesis describes it.
I'll stick to my belief that order does not evolve from disorder. It is the other way around. Evolution is backwards.
God help you! :salute
-
Irreversible complexity is a sound scientific theory that can answer questions logically stronger than evolution can. For instance consider the fact that there are no transitional fossil evidence, if there was the theory of evolution would be called something else. Just think how many failed mutated fossil species that should be around along with subsequent successful mutated fossil evidence. Any one ever hear of the bombardier beetle, though not. Within this creature are organs that contain chemicals that when combined produce an explosive reaction. It uses this as a defense by expelling them at such a precise manner that no harm is done to itself. If any of its mechanism did not function perfectly it would destroy itself and its prodigy. There have been attempts to explain this by evolutionary mutations but this creature raises so many questions and counter arguments to provoke Inquiry. Steins movie demonstrates the true institutional cult of evolution stifling honest investigation. Of course it considers a creator, so does our countries founding documents which would be listed under political science.
God made everything for its contemplated end, and also the wicked for the day of evil (proverbs16:4)
-
ID people should be trampled, then shot.
-
Hell... they can't even predict the weather and you think they understand the origins of life, the universe and everything.
Biologic evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life or the origins of the universe. It's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you can't even get the basic definitions correct.
-
ID people should be trampled, then shot.
Wow! Why is that? Do they pose a threat to you and yours?
Thanks for the contribution to the discussion.
Would this be your example of evolution of the human species?
-
ID people should be trampled, then shot.
shaddap francois
-
accusations of screwing with interview material.
Moot, tell me what you know about that.
-
Aside ftom the fact that there are more "data points" than we could possibly list in this thread, and aside from the attempt to twist the hypothesis of the scientific method into some kind of "preconceived notion", the attempt to compare a dogma that is irrevocable no matter what the evidence to a process that requires evidence is the definition of silly.
work has prevented me from posting these last few days and have not been able to keep up with this thread I will attempt to read every post tomorrow. in the interim I would like to point out these observances and to state my opinion that until science can provide answers that aren't patronizing to or dismissive of people such as myself I will maintain my view that evolutionists are merely pagans with a wishful twist.
evolution has never been observed and there is zero evidence of evolution ever having occured in the fossil record. there are no transitional fossils, not a shred of evidence, nothing, zip, goose eggs, nada.
the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
-
Irreversible complexity is a sound scientific theory that can answer questions logically stronger than evolution can. For instance consider the fact that there are no transitional fossil evidence, if there was the theory of evolution would be called something else. Just think how many failed mutated fossil species that should be around along with subsequent successful mutated fossil evidence. Any one ever hear of the bombardier beetle, though not. Within this creature are organs that contain chemicals that when combined produce an explosive reaction. It uses this as a defense by expelling them at such a precise manner that no harm is done to itself. If any of its mechanism did not function perfectly it would destroy itself and its prodigy. There have been attempts to explain this by evolutionary mutations but this creature raises so many questions and counter arguments to provoke Inquiry. Steins movie demonstrates the true institutional cult of evolution stifling honest investigation. Of course it considers a creator, so does our countries founding documents which would be listed under political science.
God made everything for its contemplated end, and also the wicked for the day of evil (proverbs16:4)
God may be the creator, but animals evolved on this planet! You failed to mention the other 1000's of insect species that use chemical defense. :rofl
-
evolution has never been observed
This statement is untrue, we actually manipulate evolution to create many things useful to humans on a daily basis.
and there is zero evidence of evolution ever having occured in the fossil record. there are no transitional fossils, not a shred of evidence, nothing, zip, goose eggs, nada.
This is untrue as well.
the theory of evolution violates the second law of thermodynamics.
This is untrue and not applicable.
-
Looks like I'm going to join in this thread too.
Storch, evolution has been observed, many times in fact. I spent 13 weeks in a lab driving evolution in bacteria i had isolated from households to acquire resistance to EDTA.
I think myelo has a point too. Evolution does not necessarily point to the origin of life, the scientific literature is unclear how this occured. I do find it difficult to understand why people find it so challenging to accept evolution. Simplified, it is is simply the change in traits in a given population over time, due to selective pressures.
-
Biologic evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life or the origins of the universe. It's really hard to take anything you say seriously when you can't even get the basic definitions correct.
Has nothing to do with it?
The weather is one of the more simplistic examples of cause and effect, yet we cannot understand it well enough to predict it. Something as complex as the origin of life is assumed and you're all gung ho on believing it. The only difference is that with the weather, the next day tells just how ignorant the scientists predicting it are in the grand scheme of things. With evolution, you simply assume the path and claim existance as proof you were right. It's like trying to say "I knew it was going to rain today" without having said it was going to rain the day before.
I find it difficult to believe that anyone versed in scientific method does not see the gaping holes in evolution. Anyone versed in natural order does not see the incredible leaps of logic based on nothing more than the belief that "it must have happend this way". Evolution is too much of an attempt to disprove the existance of god than it is to explain the existance of man to be considered sound science.
-
BTW... I have no plans to see this movie. Those saying it's no different than a MM movie are correct. I wonder if they'll say the same thing after the next MM movie.
-
Evolution is too much of an attempt to disprove the existance of god than it is to explain the existance of man to be considered sound science.
Why even post this crap, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with proving/dis-proving God.
-
Wow, long memory of one instance from a 6am post, before i left for work. Lemme know when you're ready to keep up with some Chi-square tests, I'll be glad to rip you up when that happens. C U Next Tuesday!
Well, it wasn't all that long ago but I will admit to harboring a grudge against people who claim to be scientists spouting gloom and doom based on half assed science. Especially when those dire predictions have side effects that could affect me and my family in a very negative way. I belive we're seeing the beginning of those effects even now. Yeah, I take it kinda personally.
-
wow.. now skyrock is saying that ID people or people who believe in god are jealous of smart people? Bet you can't win Ben Steins money skyrock.
Look.. science is needed.. It can't create us and it can't give us immortality. As was pointed out.. it can't even predict the weather or the climate of the globe a month from now. Yet.. in it's arrogance.. well.. the arrogance of the worst of the scientists.. it tells us we must tithe to this god because we will be drown and burned by co2 in 50 years or that a great quake shall come upon us if we do not tithe to them.
Science today has become just one more flim flam man out for it's share of your buck.
Like preachers.. the academics sit around and talk in their churches/classrooms doing no real work. They must put the fear into us that only they can save us lest they have to get a real job or get paid what they are worth or.. god forbid.. compete.
It is not science that is evil.. just as it is not god that is evil.. it is the aholes that pervert both that is evil
They can coexist.. if the big bang theory can be mentioned as to creation of the universe then god as the creator can be mentioned. Only the scientists who pray to a jealous god could get upset.
lazs
-
wow.. now skyrock is saying that ID people or people who believe in god are jealous of smart people?
lazs
No, I am saying YOU are jealous of smart people.
-
well... maybe.. point one out and I will see. Moot is pretty smart.. Don't think I am jealous. I admire a lot of smart people.. I often wonder how they can be so smart tho and not be able to function in some situations. I have read the stuff you write and.. if you consider yourself to be smart then...
I can say with certainty that I am not jealous of smart people.
lazs
-
Staged crowds? Deliberately misinterpreting science to push an agenda? Nah. Let's call a truce, you don't preach in my schools and I won't think in your church.
Good signature material for someone who is going to Hell.
-
I have read the stuff you write and.. if you consider yourself to be smart then..
lazs
I don't have to consider myself smart, I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses.
From what you have written, it reads that you seem threatened by scientists and knowledge. Also, the fact that you pick and choose what knowledge to believe based on your political affiliation, tells much about your capacity to be "smart"!
I remember you stating that it took no "skill" to play a video game, obviously you weren't smart enough to look up the defintion of skill. Yet you kept coming back with "proof" that it took no skill, blatantly denying the definition of skill. It is this type of behavior that would tell me that you are not the brightest bulb on the tree. :aok
-
evolution has never been observed and there is zero evidence of evolution ever having occured in the fossil record. there are no transitional fossils, not a shred of evidence, nothing, zip, goose eggs, nada.
Then you clearly don't understand the definition of evolution -- heritable changes within a population over time. More technically, it's a change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Some contemporary examples of evolution: antibiotic resistant bacteria, disease-resistant tomatoes, Jack Russell terriers.
Are you denying that bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics? Or is your position that an "intelligent designer" decided a few years ago to create a new methcillin-resistant staph that kills 100's of people a year?
As for your other points:
Well documented transitional fossils in evolution of the horse http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html).
Why evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html)
-
Good signature material for someone who is going to Hell.
Can't go to a place that only exists in fantasy.
-
Oh... I don't know.. seems we are all quite capable of creating our own hell.
lazs
-
Oh... I don't know.. seems we are all quite capable of creating our own hell.
lazs
Oh we definately create some crapholes... but the biblical version of hell? That'd take CGI.
-
indy.. who said anything about the bible? or cgi for that matter...
Hell is within us.. science didn't put it there nor can science make it go away.
lazs
-
indy.. who said anything about the bible? or cgi for that matter...
Hell is within us.. science didn't put it there nor can science make it go away.
lazs
The line I originally quoted is pretty obviously referring to biblical hell, or I just haven't had enough coffee yet.
hell Audio Help /hɛl/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[hel] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. the place or state of punishment of the wicked after death; the abode of evil and condemned spirits; Gehenna or Tartarus.
What you're referring to I believe is just people being sweetheartbags. That, like the golden rule, transcends religion.
-
Why even post this crap, evolution has absolutely nothing to do with proving/dis-proving God.
Uh huh. Oh yeah, you're absolutely right Skyrock. Absolutely. No way around it, when you're right, you're right.
Because you, as a teacher, know that evolutionists throughout history have NEVER tried to disprove God or anything wacky like that. Much less many of them. Uh huh. That's right.
-
I hate too get in too this late (hate to get into it at all) but i have one question, has science explained morality or evolution of the spirit? does it explain the feeling of good and evil inside us all (or most of us)? I have not read all the post's on this thread so I may be asking questions that have already been answered. I still havent got too see the movie yet but i am planning on going soon!
-
I don't have to consider myself smart, I am aware of my strengths and weaknesses.
I think one of your greatest strengths is your subtlety and humility.
Well, actually that's two, but then again your humility is sooo subtle it really should only count as one.
-
hmm
-
Some contemporary examples of evolution: antibiotic resistant bacteria, disease-resistant tomatoes, Jack Russell terriers.
Are these things that have evolved from one species to another?
Does evolution not predict that everything came from one common ancestor?
Antibotic resistant bacteria and bacteria that is not resistant to antibotics are both still bacteria.
A Jack Russell terrier and Great Dane are distinctively different but they are both still dogs...one is not a dog and the other a cat.
-
It's ok myelo... confusing cross breeding with evolution is a common mistake. Evolution is not about cross-breeding to make a different breed. It is about one breed morphing into a seperate species.
Of course, some would argue that antibiotic resistant bacteria is not a result of mutation, but rather proliferation of a less dominant bacteria. This has been substantiated by the discovery of antibiotic resistant bacteria in soil in remote parts of the world where antibiotic resistance could not have occured. You kill one antibody and another proliferates.
-
Then you clearly don't understand the definition of evolution -- heritable changes within a population over time. More technically, it's a change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Some contemporary examples of evolution: antibiotic resistant bacteria, disease-resistant tomatoes, Jack Russell terriers.
Are you denying that bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics? Or is your position that an "intelligent designer" decided a few years ago to create a new methcillin-resistant staph that kills 100's of people a year?
As for your other points:
Well documented transitional fossils in evolution of the horse http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html).
Why evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html)
Antibiotic Resistance of Bacteria: An Example of Evolution in Action?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/am/v2/n3/antibiotic-resistance-of-bacteria
disease-resistant tomatoes?? --- I can’t find any information on these other than their hybrid tomatoes. I searched Talkorigins.org as well as other websites that deal with Evolution and Creationism. Can you elaborate on your using it?
Jack Russell terriers???--- same as tomatoes
Evolution of the Horse??
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i3/horse.asp
-
Does evolution not predict that everything came from one common ancestor?
Strong thread read.
I was referring to Storch's contention that evolution has never been observed. I defined the term for him then cited several examples of evolution.
As for the development of new species, I also cited several examples about 10 or so pages ago of observed speciation. And in the post to Storch I provided a link of the well documented transitional forms in horse evolution.
-
Of course, some would argue that antibiotic resistant bacteria is not a result of mutation, but rather proliferation of a less dominant bacteria.
It's both. Bacterial genes, as all genes do, will randomly mutate. In some cases this mutation confers resistance to an antibiotic. This trait is heritable since it is based on a change in the genes. This mutation was not caused by the antibiotic and would occur without antibiotics. But with no antibiotic, the trait is not useful.
But in the presence of antibiotics, this mutation now provides an advantage. The bacteria with this mutation are more likely to survive and reproduce more bacteria that also inherit this trait. Over time, the frequency of this heritable trait increases in the population, which is, for those paying attention, precisely the definition of evolution.
Of course those that deny evolution will need to come up with a different explanation. I'm waiting to read if this is because an Intelligent Designer decided we needed some antibiotic resistant bugs for some reason.
-
Uh huh. Oh yeah, you're absolutely right Skyrock. Absolutely. No way around it, when you're right, you're right.
Because you, as a teacher, know that evolutionists throughout history have NEVER tried to disprove God or anything wacky like that. Much less many of them. Uh huh. That's right.
Come on Drunky, you're doing the same mistake:
You quote Skyrock saying: " evolution has absolutely nothing to do with proving/dis-proving God. "
And follow it up with: "you [...] know that evolutionists throughout history have NEVER tried to disprove God or anything wacky like that"
It's not evolution that makes evolutionists try to prove/disprove religion, it's the evolutionist. And at that point "evolutionist" isn't his first name anymore.
I'll answer the rest of the replies to me a bit later.
-
I hate too get in too this late (hate to get into it at all) but i have one question, has science explained morality or evolution of the spirit? does it explain the feeling of good and evil inside us all (or most of us)? I have not read all the post's on this thread so I may be asking questions that have already been answered. I still havent got too see the movie yet but i am planning on going soon!
You have to appreciate the best-guess quality of Science. It's not about a 100% certainty, it's about producing explanations and putting them to the test like some industrial assembly line of a certain object, where at the end of the assembly line is an assessment test of the object's fitness to satisfy certain criteria.
The criteria is reproducing the characteristics of some phenomena that's being studied, and the assembly line is science's iteration of any and all imaginable explanations, commonly called hypothesies and theories. The assembly line is running at full output, trying to come up with the best possible "object".
Does this pattern sound familiar? It is, because it's analogous to evolution. Survival of the fittest.
The best answer to your question I have is that the nearest thing to what you describe that I've heard of are a sort of "evolutionary" (I forget what they called it exactly, sorry) robots, or software, that will (much like 1000 chimps at 1000 typewritters) sort of crank out random solutions to the problem they're presented, and be designed to keep track of which traits of the software are most efficient to accomplish their purpose.
I think it was some guy's pet project, made in his garage, called an "invention machine", or something like that.
Back to your question though, you could read up on "memes" or "memetics", or just general psychology, or pretty much any and all of epistemology or maybe even metaphysics. The problem you're going to run into is the same that some people are running into here: indiscriminate mixing of actual science and abstract philosophy, or even religion.
"has science explained morality or evolution of the spirit? does it explain the feeling of good and evil inside us all (or most of us)?"
"Morality" is pretty subjective, "spirit" is pretty much undefined, and "good and evil" too.
-
It is the other way around. Evolution is backwards.
Religion is backwards...God did not make Mankind.
It's the other way around.
-
That's ambiguous. Man may have made the idea of God, but if there were some true God, man wouldn't know about it on his own. It's beyond man's reason to ascertain whether there is a God or not, whether his idea of God is man's own fabrication or if it was placed there by God.
There's a lot of literature on the subject. Many of the posters in here look like they never read any of it.
e.g. Descartes' notes on whether everything perceived is merely an illusion played on him by God. Whether God or anything else, it's a fork in the road between solipsist denial of everything, and assumption that everything is real - assumption which some people abuse, confusing the root (in assumption) of a consistent trail of reason and that trail of reason's consistency "above" its root.
In another thread, Arlo and a few others were questioning the value of teaching a very strong base of concise philosophy, logic, and math, as early as possible. The huge lack of clarity and abundance of misunderstandings in debates like these (not the forums but out among freaking adult, experienced professionals) is evidence enough, I think.
Of course those that deny evolution will need to come up with a different explanation. I'm waiting to read if this is because an Intelligent Designer decided we needed some antibiotic resistant bugs for some reason.
There's no end to confounding parable and reality. Not before a whole lot of chlorine gets into the meme pool.
-
Uh huh. Oh yeah, you're absolutely right Skyrock. Absolutely. No way around it, when you're right, you're right.
Because you, as a teacher, know that evolutionists throughout history have NEVER tried to disprove God or anything wacky like that. Much less many of them. Uh huh. That's right.
Do you think the purpose of the theory of evolution is to dis-prove God?
-
thanx Moot
:aok
-
Then you clearly don't understand the definition of evolution -- heritable changes within a population over time. More technically, it's a change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next. Some contemporary examples of evolution: antibiotic resistant bacteria, disease-resistant tomatoes, Jack Russell terriers.
Are you denying that bacteria have evolved resistance to antibiotics? Or is your position that an "intelligent designer" decided a few years ago to create a new methcillin-resistant staph that kills 100's of people a year?
As for your other points:
Well documented transitional fossils in evolution of the horse http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/horses/horse_evol.html).
Why evolution doesn't violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo/probability.html)
thank you for your response myelo,
in response I will again state that there is no evidence of any living thing evolving into a completely different life form. there are no fossils in the fossil record indicating that there ever was. there is no missing link, hehehehe you guys need to find the missing, missing link. the theory of evolution is a hopelessly flawed but dogmatically adhered to religion by some people in the same manner others follow different religions. evolutionary science is a lockstep dogmatic religion and nothing more.
in response to the link you kindly provided on the subject of entropy the author went to some great machinations to twist definitions to prove his point. this is consistent with dogmatic believers on both sides of this debate. the important point to me is that the presense of a system either organizational or mechanical does not , hell cannot guarantee continous enhancement. one the contrary (in keeping with the classical definition of entropy) it is subject to continual degradation if it is not kept to a predetermined standard defined in it's original design. your boy up in that link forgot this principal or just ignored it despite the fact that it is a deeply and empirically recognized and established scientific fact.
-
"the important point to me is that the presense of a system either organizational or mechanical does not , hell cannot guarantee continous enhancement"
Where is this ever the case, in evolutionary theory? The overall entropy of the universe is increasing. One small freak instance in a very limited space for a very small lapse of time is nothing more than a fluke in that respect.
A refined adaptation to environment such as that proposed by evolutionary theory doesn't contradict entropy: the organism that's not well adapted enough, dies. The one that's adapted more or less well, survives. The one that's very well adapted thrives because it's an efficient solution to the problem posed by its environment.
Efficient means simple, it means reduced energy and matter expense, given a same task of Work as less efficient solutions.
Evolutionary theory doesn't suggest increasing complexity. That's just what I remember off the top of my head, because animal biology was boring to me, so I can't recall the specifics. What I'm sure of though, is that we're nearing the point where we'll have an orbital point of view of evolution (in the literal sense), and some people are going to have foot in their mouth like flat earthers did a few centuries back.
"Science is religion".
Can you repeat this Storch? Just to be sure it's not some freak typo.
"the author went to some great machinations to twist definitions to prove his point."
Supporting evidence?
-
sure thing moot, evolutionary science is a religion not unlike islam. how's that?
-
Ok, then you're either BSing or out of your mind. Science isn't religion.
You need to back up your dismissal of the 2nd law of TD argument with supporting evidence.
-
Ok, then you're either BSing or out of your mind. Science isn't religion.
You need to back up your dismissal of the 2nd law of TD argument with supporting evidence.
ok allow me to quote isaac asimov "another way of stating the 2nd law then is the universe is constantly getting more disorderly! viewed that way, we can see the 2nd law all about us. we have to work hard to straighten a room, but left to itself it becomes a mess again very quickly and very easily. even if we never enter it, it becomes dusty and musty. how difficult to maintain houses, machinery and our bodies in perfect working order, how easy to let them deteriorate. in fact all we have to do is nothing, everything deteriorates, collapses, breaks down wears out, all by its self. this is what the 2nd law is all about"
-
How does that support your argument that all evolutionary theories pretend that Evolution guarantees continuous enhancement, and/or violate the 2nd TD law?
It's an analogy for the whole universe. One room isn't the whole universe. One fraction of a planet's mass neither. We could very well have a full nuke war and our tiny fraction of time and space in the universe would fall back in line with the universe's average entropy.
A geneticaly ill-adapted organism dies, that's entropy. A more or less well adapted organism will survive maybe 50% of 100% of physicaly possible scenarios, that's entropy too, and some statistical randomness tiping in its favor the other half of the time. A well adapted organism will tend towards being an efficient solution to the "problem" that its environment presents itself as. I said this already but you didn't show how it's wrong.
Efficiency will tend towards simplicity. Simplicity means a relatively low energy state. So again it doesn't oppose entropy by principle.
-
What?
-
How does that support your argument that all evolutionary theories pretend that Evolution guarantees continuous enhancement, and/or violate the 2nd TD law?
my dear moot, you are confused it doesn't dispute evolution. what the 2nd law clearly demonstrates is that it is impossible for an orderly universe to be the result of an explosion. do you see?
-
sure thing moot, evolutionary science is a religion not unlike islam. how's that?
Wow!
Religion Definition
A religion is a set of beliefs and practices, often centered upon specific supernatural and moral claims about reality, the cosmos, and human nature, and often codified as prayer, ritual, and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.
Science Definition
The word science comes from the Latin "scientia," meaning knowledge.
How do we define science? According to Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, the definition of science is "knowledge attained through study or practice," or "knowledge covering general truths of the operation of general laws, esp. as obtained and tested through scientific method [and] concerned with the physical world."
What does that really mean? Science refers to a system of acquiring knowledge. This system uses observation and experimentation to describe and explain natural phenomena. The term science also refers to the organized body of knowledge people have gained using that system. Less formally, the word science often describes any systematic field of study or the knowledge gained from it.
On different ends of the spectrum if you ask me. :aok
-
my dear moot, you are confused it doesn't dispute evolution. what the 2nd law clearly demonstrates is that it is impossible for an orderly universe to be the result of an explosion. do you see?
Well I have to admit your argument is nonsense, how am I supposed to read your mind and figure out which of the infinite number of nonsense reasons you had for getting such an idea? No, I don't see what the heck you're thinking to say stuff like "science is religion".
You mean you're now talking about the big bang theory? You mean your perception of what order is, dictates whether the universe, as we see it and understand it, does or doesn't break the 2nd TD law?
-
Well I have to admit your argument is nonsense, how am I supposed to read your mind and figure out which of the infinite number of nonsense reasons you had for getting such an idea?
You mean you're now talking about the big bang theory? No I don't see what the heck you're thinking to say stuff like "science is religion".
no need to read my mind moot, I type it and speak it daily. my point is this. science should be dispassionate. scientists are people, very highly educated and often highly opinionated people with colossal egos. many in the disciplines of cosmology geology and biology are militantly anti ID. so much so that they absolute refuse to entertain the remotest possibility of ID. in fact they passionately oppose the idea. now what do we say science should be?
-
what the 2nd law clearly demonstrates is that it is impossible for an orderly universe to be the result of an explosion.
It is my opinion that either you don't understand the second law of thermodynamics, or you assume others don't. Either way, it definitely does not "clearly demonstrate" the impossibility. :aok
-
no need to read my mind moot, I type it and speak it daily. my point is this. science should be dispassionate. scientists are people, very highly educated and often highly opinionated people with colossal egos. many in the disciplines of cosmology geology and biology are militantly anti ID. so much so that they absolute refuse to entertain the remotest possibility of ID. in fact they passionately oppose the idea. now what do we say science should be?
Instead of using the term ID, why not inform us of your belief so that we might understand exactly where you're ideas coming from.
From my experiences, most who believe in intelligent design aren't going to settle on it being incorporated into the science classroom, they want it taught as the only truth. They want evolution to be thrown out completely. It is why you get the negative reactions from scientist who spend their lifetimes working for the truth to have people try and throw a theory in the works that has no scientific basis. Why don't the ID folks just leave science alone, and go for the religious classes? Science is science and religion is religion, they are two different beasts.
I agree with moot that eventually, folks who argue that evolution is not happening, will be trying to get their foot out of their mouth.
-
Storch,
I say science is science. Guns are guns. Guns don't kill people any more than science is religion.
It's not like I don't know what ID is supposed to be going through. I almost went for a biochemistry career, to research anti-senescence. A good part (if not the majority) of that research's field is up in arms, calling it pseudoscience and counter productive to the cause by giving people false hope. I also read this other forum, where a lot of richly fed brains go on and on about various theories.. One of em is Electrical Universe theory of cosmology, and that too gets more than just a cold shoulder.
The problem with ID is that it's a Deus Ex. That's not science. Not the least of its flaws is that, in practice, it's a dead end for progress: It runs into the Deus Ex wall, and then what? Nothing. There's nothing to gain from a black box phenomena that you can't open and peek inside, you can't shake it to hear if the insides rattle, you can't even feed it input to see what it outputs directly, you can't even reach out and touch the edge of the black box. You can't read the mind of God, it's not science to pretend you can or do; ID and creationism aren't science.
While Senescence engineering and Electrical Universe theory follow scientific method, and fall short of support either because one's trying to bite off more than people think it can chew and other because it just doesn't match enough practical data to give it credence, ID and Creationism are both flawed by principle. They don't even satisfy the criteria of science.
Which only leaves me and a lot of others to wonder just what the intent is, in people pushing ID and Creationism as a science. Are they out to asphyxiate science? Are they merely misguided and want to see their religious ideas find a reflection in science? Are they just mistakenly out to plant a flag in what they perceive as the necessarily atheist territory of science? Are they actualy so confused as to expect science to detect something Godly out in our natural and finite world? How dispassionate is that?
I'll admit that some people's agendas seem suspiciously passionate, like say Dawkins. My problem with Dawkins is that he's too rabbidly activist. I'll agree to that. But being so far out beyond properness doesn't void any truth he might hit on in his atheist stride.
I was going to say more, but I need to think about it first.
In the mean time I don't mean to be an amazinhunk, but unless you've got a reason to say that the popular notion of 'order' isn't an anthropomorphism of physics, your assertion that the universe as we see it is too orderly to have come from an explosion is wrong.
-
thank you for your response myelo,
in response I will again state that there is no evidence of any living thing evolving into a completely different life form.
You're welcome.
OK, you're going to dismiss the evidence I presented of observed speciation, observed evolution, and the fossil record of transitional forms. Fair enough. I'd get into the even more compelling DNA evidence but I'll just save you the effort in ignoring that too.
But let me ask you this. If scientists are as egotistical as you say, don't you think there are scientists who would give their left nut to have their theory replace the current theory of evolution? It would be an automatic Nobel prize.
In fact, when Darwin's work was published in 1859, the theory was immediately attacked, not just by religious leaders but by scientists. But every subsequent discovery that tested the theory -- Mendel's genetics, subsequent paleontology findings, Watson and Crick's DNA, genetic and molecular biology -- failed to discredit the theory and in fact has confirmed it.
For example, evolutionary theory predicts that human's closest extant relative is the chimpanzee and human and chimp DNA should be more similar than, say human and dog DNA. But we didn't know for sure. That is, until the genomes of these species were recently mapped. If human and dog DNA was more similar it would have been a serious maybe even fatal blow to evolutionary theory. But once again, evolutionary theory was confirmed.
People who know a lot more about this stuff and work a lot harder at it than you or Ben Stein have been trying like hell to disprove evolutionary theory. They have uniformly failed.
-
In fact, when Darwin's work was published in 1859, the theory was immediately attacked, not just by religious leaders but by scientists. But every subsequent discovery that tested the theory -- Mendel's genetics, subsequent paleontology findings, Watson and Crick's DNA, genetic and molecular biology -- failed to discredit the theory and in fact has confirmed it.
People who know a lot more about this stuff and work a lot harder at it than you or Ben Stein have been trying like hell to disprove evolutionary theory. They have uniformly failed.
That doesn't sound like religion, or does it Storch?
-
You're welcome.
OK, you're going to dismiss the evidence I presented of observed speciation, observed evolution, and the fossil record of transitional forms. Fair enough. I'd get into the even more compelling DNA evidence but I'll just save you the effort in ignoring that too.
But let me ask you this. If scientists are as egotistical as you say, don't you think there are scientists who would give their left nut to have their theory replace the current theory of evolution? It would be an automatic Nobel prize.
In fact, when Darwin's work was published in 1859, the theory was immediately attacked, not just by religious leaders but by scientists. But every subsequent discovery that tested the theory -- Mendel's genetics, subsequent paleontology findings, Watson and Crick's DNA, genetic and molecular biology -- failed to discredit the theory and in fact has confirmed it.
For example, evolutionary theory predicts that human's closest extant relative is the chimpanzee and human and chimp DNA should be more similar than, say human and dog DNA. But we didn't know for sure. That is, until the genomes of these species were recently mapped. If human and dog DNA was more similar it would have been a serious maybe even fatal blow to evolutionary theory. But once again, evolutionary theory was confirmed.
People who know a lot more about this stuff and work a lot harder at it than you or Ben Stein have been trying like hell to disprove evolutionary theory. They have uniformly failed.
myelo, I'm not ignoring or dismissing your examples. I plan to read up on it over the coming week. I have been setting up a polo pitch on the beach all week and after this weekend's events we have to tear it down again, I have been working 18 hour days. after that it will be business as usual and I'll be able to suck off all I want and pursue these ideas a bit.
by the same token myelo, science has been busily trying to prove the theory for the last one hundred and fourty nine years and is equally stalled. let me note here that the concept of natural selection was first published in the observations of edward blyth in 1835 a quarter century before the publication of origin of species, suggesting that perhaps charles darwin borrowed these ideas from blyth. blyth, a creationist scientist is reponsible for the work that leads up to the predictions you mention. many of blyths concepts have been falsely attributed to darwin and cited as evidence of evolution. there is a movement within the evolutionist camp which is departing from the highly imaginative work of charles darwin and moving more towards the blyth's far more valid work.
-
That doesn't sound like religion, or does it Storch?
I'm beginning to wonder if myelo is a priest and you a deacon. :D
-
amazing that an issue which was effectively settled over a hundred years ago can generate over 300 replies.
I personally have no desire to argue against a theory as desperate, lazy, pointless and flawed as ID, in the same way as I have less trivial things to think about than arguments against the flat earth theory. moot I applaud your patience and clear reasoning in this topic. :salute
btw go to disagree with Dawkins being rabid, the guy is a model of critical detachment, perspective and rationality. he is, however, aggressive in his pursuit of reason, and I like him all the more for it :)
-
Storch just show evidence for your assertions, please.
RTH, I thought so too, until I saw his TED talk about activist atheism. If those aren't tremors of passion, something's wrong with my eyeballs.
-
o yeah he is passionate about his beliefs, but as long as that doesnt cloud his thinking (no evidence so far) it has to be a good thing. the TED lecture was great, a call to reason, and a very brave thing to do even for an english academic. if he looked a little nervous you can understand.
-
so...can matter travel as fast as light? is light matter? does it really matter?
Whats the matter?
-
It's both. Bacterial genes, as all genes do, will randomly mutate. In some cases this mutation confers resistance to an antibiotic. This trait is heritable since it is based on a change in the genes. This mutation was not caused by the antibiotic and would occur without antibiotics. But with no antibiotic, the trait is not useful.
It is an inherant trait that is genetic. It provides survivability for certain bacteria, but not others. That is natural order, not evolution. Evolution can't explain how that trait came into existance. It insists that the bacteria sensed danger and simply changed it's makeup to avoid it. Science does not support this in any form. Evolution, as supported by science, is subtractive, not additive. A new bacteria was not generated, it was discovered. It's exisitance has been seen both in the presence of antibiotics and in undisturbed soil. The antibiotics do nothing but make it a big fish in a small pond.
-
amazing that an issue which was effectively settled over a hundred years ago can generate over 300 replies.
I personally have no desire to argue against a theory as desperate, lazy, pointless and flawed as ID, in the same way as I have less trivial things to think about than arguments against the flat earth theory. moot I applaud your patience and clear reasoning in this topic. :salute
btw go to disagree with Dawkins being rabid, the guy is a model of critical detachment, perspective and rationality. he is, however, aggressive in his pursuit of reason, and I like him all the more for it :)
it's amazing that you think the matter is settled but then again there is no accounting for faith.
-
It is an inherant trait that is genetic. It provides survivability for certain bacteria, but not others. That is natural order, not evolution. Evolution can't explain how that trait came into existance. It insists that the bacteria sensed danger and simply changed it's makeup to avoid it. Science does not support this in any form. Evolution, as supported by science, is subtractive, not additive. A new bacteria was not generated, it was discovered. It's exisitance has been seen both in the presence of antibiotics and in undisturbed soil. The antibiotics do nothing but make it a big fish in a small pond.
Are you saying that evolution says: bacteria sensed the trait and adapted? or is that your opinion. Either way it is wrong. The trait came into existance from random mutation alone- polymerases involved in replication are prone to errors, to so some degree or another, whether it be an RNA or DNA polymerase. This causes variation in genotypes in a population naturally, one conferring resistance to an antibiotic is a result of this variation. Evolution is the change in the traits of a population over time- and if there was a selective pressure due an antibiotic, it is natural that the bacteria with resistance to the said antibiotic would become dominant. Evolution has never been said to create new traits- it is from random mutation. It is evolution due to selective pressures that amplifies this in a given population.
It is worth noting that 70% of out antimicrobials in use are derived from Streptomyces, which are soil dwelling bacteria. It is of no surprise to anyone in the scientific community that resistance to antimicrobials occurs in soil bacteria because they are routinely exposed to them. It must also be noted that mutations may also confer an advantage for more than 1 selective pressure. For instance in my research the protein OprH enabled Gram-negative bacteria to grow in the absence of magnesium. This also confers resistance to EDTA because EDTA chelates di- and tri-valent cations e.g magensium. This is a personal example to show that adaption to one environmental condition can also confer an advantage to an unrelated environmental condition.
P.S. i believe in god, but i don't have any trouble with evolution what so ever.
-
I'm beginning to wonder if myelo is a priest and you a deacon. :D
I see data, you see intent.
RTHolmes, I just think he enflamed things more than was needed with the atheist call to arms.
-
Quote from: potsNpans on Yesterday at 01:28:50 AM
Irreversible complexity is a sound scientific theory that can answer questions logically stronger than evolution can. For instance consider the fact that there are no transitional fossil evidence, if there was the theory of evolution would be called something else. Just think how many failed mutated fossil species that should be around along with subsequent successful mutated fossil evidence. Any one ever hear of the bombardier beetle, though not. Within this creature are organs that contain chemicals that when combined produce an explosive reaction. It uses this as a defense by expelling them at such a precise manner that no harm is done to itself. If any of its mechanism did not function perfectly it would destroy itself and its prodigy. There have been attempts to explain this by evolutionary mutations but this creature raises so many questions and counter arguments to provoke Inquiry. Steins movie demonstrates the true institutional cult of evolution stifling honest investigation. Of course it considers a creator, so does our countries founding documents which would be listed under political science.
God made everything for its contemplated end, and also the wicked for the day of evil (proverbs16:4)
Quote fromSkyRock: "God may be the creator, but animals evolved on this planet! You failed to mention the other 1000's of insect species that use chemical defense."
You should have stopped with just God the creator or whatever higher power you've imagined. Animals evolved, of course. Micro evolution as certain traits within a species either amplify or wane within the DNA threshold. Macro evolution which is the transitory leap to a higher functioning specie which has not been evidenced to date. If your honestly trying to prove a point, failure to mention 1000's of particular insect traits does not demonstrate support of your position, only your false argument.
In regard to resistant bacteria,seems they are developing within a threshold of DNA tolerance, or maybe they will observably change into hydra and then eat those pesky resistant bacteria. Thereby proving evolution and saving lives
-
science is peeling the non-fiction wrapper off of the bible... so they have to come up with a new contemporary twist like ID...yet still they get torn down on every point it seems.
funny tho.... if they broke a bone or got cancer the first people they all run to are those egotistical scientists and their evil medical procedures.
-
by the same token myelo, science has been busily trying to prove the theory for the last one hundred and fourty nine years and is equally stalled.
True science does not try to prove evolution. True science just attempts to explain observable phenomenon.
If evolution were not a strong explanation of observable phenomenon, it would have been discarded long ago.
-
you are correct. I should have stated that disciples of the religion masquerading as scientists have been busily chasing every lead, performing a myriad of hypothetical experimentation, jumping to conclusions or stretching and twisting data to arrive at their foregone conclusions. at this point in time they are grasping at straws. given the advances in science, technology, unlimited funding and carte blanch permission to dig anywhere launch anything into deep space in order to find even a shred of evidence that will disprove a creator and yet they still fail.
I will maintain an open mind but I get great entertainment value reading about fools and their follies in their endless quest in the different publications and on the web.
here's an idea, why not set off an explosion in a printing shop and see if the result of said explosion is not a complete and current edition of the encyclopaedia brittanica bound and boxed with a label addressed to yours truly. feel free to perform this experiment until you are successful. once the package arrives at my residence I'll cry uncle and admit my error.
-
given the advances in science, technology, unlimited funding and carte blanch permission to dig anywhere launch anything into deep space in order to find even a shred of evidence that will disprove a creator and yet they still fail.
Of course. It is impossible to prove a negative. You try: Disprove that evolution exists.
here's an idea, why not set off an explosion in a printing shop and see if the result of said explosion is not a complete and current edition of the encyclopaedia brittanica bound and boxed with a label addressed to yours truly. feel free to perform this experiment until you are successful. once the package arrives at my residence I'll cry uncle and admit my error.
A "complete and current edition of the encyclopaedia brittanica bound and boxed with a label addressed to yours truly" is a far more complex structure than the first lifeforms that were formed in the Archean period 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago. Simple electrochemical processes creating organic macromolecules.
-
Of course. It is impossible to prove a negative. You try: Disprove that evolution exists.
A "complete and current edition of the encyclopaedia brittanica bound and boxed with a label addressed to yours truly" is a far more complex structure than the first lifeforms that were formed in the Archean period 3.8 to 2.5 billion years ago. Simple electrochemical processes creating organic macromolecules.
but far less complex than our universe including all possible life forms on how many yet to be discovered systems. think things through son, don't just accept what you read or hear at face value. you religionists are so bound by dogma it's frightening.
-
The universe is made up of extremely simple things. There are just so many extremely simple things that it becomes incredibly complex for our feeble minds to comprehend.
-
I'm beginning to wonder if myelo is a priest and you a deacon. :D
Don't go into the lab with him, he just wants to touch your genes in the name of science.
-
You should have stopped with just God the creator or whatever higher power you've imagined. Animals evolved, of course. Micro evolution as certain traits within a species either amplify or wane within the DNA threshold. Macro evolution which is the transitory leap to a higher functioning specie which has not been evidenced to date. If your honestly trying to prove a point, failure to mention 1000's of particular insect traits does not demonstrate support of your position, only your false argument.
In regard to resistant bacteria,seems they are developing within a threshold of DNA tolerance, or maybe they will observably change into hydra and then eat those pesky resistant bacteria. Thereby proving evolution and saving lives
You wanted me to mention 1000 insects by name? Let me mention 4 animals that use chemical defense by mixing 2 chemicals. He mentioned the bombadier beetle, which is a great example of chemical defense(it uses 2 tubes to secrete 2 different chemicals, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). But the use of chemicals as a defense is not unique at all and appears to have evolved in many different species. So lets look at another animal which uses 2 chemicals from 2 glands the Aplysia (Aplysia californica) sea slug. It uses the chemicals hydrogen peroxide and an amonia acid mix. The opilionid's(daddy long legs) also use a 2 chemical defense, methyl and benzoquinone. The skunk also uses a 2 chemical defense system with methyl and butyl thiols. So we have this occuring in insects, mollusks, arthropods, and mammals. Where are these species found? Bombadier beetle/Africa, the skunk/the Americas(except for 2 species found in indonesia and phillipines, sea slugs/the oceans, and opilionids/the americas. I see diversity from evolution.
the fossil record is far from being finished, but I feel there is enough evidence out to support evolution. Don't have time right now to debate, but will be back on Sunday night
-
storch, you seem to be under the impression that the worldwide scientific community is engaged in an ongoing campaign to disprove the existence of god.
i'm not up to date with the literature, so perhaps you can tell me roughly how many papers were submitted for peer review arguing the hypothesis "god does not exist" in the last year?
-
True science does not try to prove evolution. True science just attempts to explain observable phenomenon.
If evolution were not a strong explanation of observable phenomenon, it would have been discarded long ago.
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. Lewontin illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31.
Lambo
-
You wanted me to mention 1000 insects by name? Let me mention 4 animals that use chemical defense by mixing 2 chemicals. He mentioned the bombadier beetle, which is a great example of chemical defense(it uses 2 tubes to secrete 2 different chemicals, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). But the use of chemicals as a defense is not unique at all and appears to have evolved in many different species. So lets look at another animal which uses 2 chemicals from 2 glands the Aplysia (Aplysia californica) sea slug. It uses the chemicals hydrogen peroxide and an amonia acid mix. The opilionid's(daddy long legs) also use a 2 chemical defense, methyl and benzoquinone. The skunk also uses a 2 chemical defense system with methyl and butyl thiols. So we have this occuring in insects, mollusks, arthropods, and mammals. Where are these species found? Bombadier beetle/Africa, the skunk/the Americas(except for 2 species found in indonesia and phillipines, sea slugs/the oceans, and opilionids/the americas. I see diversity from evolution.
the fossil record is far from being finished, but I feel there is enough evidence out to support evolution. Don't have time right now to debate, but will be back on Sunday night
Take your time SkyRock. Can you give some examples of this evidence you speak of in the fossil record that supports evolution...that is one species changing to another?
-
You wanted me to mention 1000 insects by name? Let me mention 4 animals that use chemical defense by mixing 2 chemicals. He mentioned the bombadier beetle, which is a great example of chemical defense(it uses 2 tubes to secrete 2 different chemicals, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). But the use of chemicals as a defense is not unique at all and appears to have evolved in many different species. So lets look at another animal which uses 2 chemicals from 2 glands the Aplysia (Aplysia californica) sea slug. It uses the chemicals hydrogen peroxide and an amonia acid mix. The opilionid's(daddy long legs) also use a 2 chemical defense, methyl and benzoquinone. The skunk also uses a 2 chemical defense system with methyl and butyl thiols. So we have this occuring in insects, mollusks, arthropods, and mammals. Where are these species found? Bombadier beetle/Africa, the skunk/the Americas(except for 2 species found in indonesia and phillipines, sea slugs/the oceans, and opilionids/the americas. I see diversity from evolution.
the fossil record is far from being finished, but I feel there is enough evidence out to support evolution. Don't have time right now to debate, but will be back on Sunday night
I have a question on this. How many chemical variations did these animals try before they got the "right" stuff that they wanted to keep? Or did they get it right the first time? In order for them to have survived it must have been the first time, I guess. Wonder how they knew which concoction would work? I think God made them that way from the get go, sounds far better to me :).
Lambo
-
the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it:
implicit philosophical bias lol. no, just basic application of the scientific method:
hypothesis: adam and eve were created about 6500 years ago, all of humanity is descended from them.
test: is there any evidence for humans before 6500 years ago?
evidence: yup, lots and lots
result: hypothesis rejected
next...
-
Ever had a dog? All domesticated dog breeds are the result of selectively breeding wolves. Selectively bred by humans to promote whatever traits their masters desired; survival of the cutest. That's how evolution works in nature too ... selectively breeding to promote survival. I.e. survival of the fittest.
(http://content.screencast.com/media/327185d7-9225-4046-a463-001a780f406d_0832dde7-2cf2-4139-ab83-fa16132bb135_static_0_0_2008-04-26_1549.png)
-
you are correct. I should have stated that disciples of the religion masquerading as scientists have been busily chasing every lead, performing a myriad of hypothetical experimentation, jumping to conclusions or stretching and twisting data to arrive at their foregone conclusions. at this point in time they are grasping at straws. given the advances in science, technology, unlimited funding and carte blanch permission to dig anywhere launch anything into deep space in order to find even a shred of evidence that will disprove a creator and yet they still fail.
Supporting evidence?
I will maintain an open mind but I get great entertainment value reading about fools and their follies in their endless quest in the different publications and on the web.
This isn't about entertainment Storch, where's your dispassionate approach? BTW if you can't back up what you say, you should admit you're making things up and dispassionately retract it all.
here's an idea, why not set off an explosion in a printing shop and see if the result of said explosion is not a complete and current edition of the encyclopaedia brittanica bound and boxed with a label addressed to yours truly. feel free to perform this experiment until you are successful. once the package arrives at my residence I'll cry uncle and admit my error.
That's such a myopic way to put it, I don't know what to say. You think the universe crunched down in size is comparable in matter and energy to a printing shop?
but far less complex than our universe including all possible life forms on how many yet to be discovered systems.
So you're saying your sense of what complexity and order are sets the universal standard? Should we rename the Hubble constant the Storch constant too?
Professor Richard Lewontin, a geneticist (and self-proclaimed Marxist), is a renowned champion of neo-Darwinism, and certainly one of the world’s leaders in promoting evolutionary biology. Lewontin illustrates the implicit philosophical bias against Genesis creation regardless of whether or not the facts support it:
"We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfil many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Richard Lewontin, Billions and Billions of Demons, The New York Review, 9 January 1997, p. 31.
Lambo
And?
I have a question on this. How many chemical variations did these animals try before they got the "right" stuff that they wanted to keep? Or did they get it right the first time? In order for them to have survived it must have been the first time, I guess. Wonder how they knew which concoction would work? I think God made them that way from the get go, sounds far better to me :).
Lambo
You're kidding right? It sounding better to you is the criteria for reality now? Will you be quoting Nostradamus next?
-
Take your time SkyRock. Can you give some examples of this evidence you speak of in the fossil record that supports evolution...that is one species changing to another?
Species are a man made category. How can you argue against something that you don't even understand? Is that an agenda in your pants?
-
so lumpy... any of you breeders ever change a dog into something other than another dog?
This whole thing is pretty silly. I believe that the universe was created by god. I believe that he made rules for it to work by. We need to understand these rules but.. there are some that we can never understand.
That does not mean we should not try but.. Science has become arrogant. claiming they know how the global climate works when they don't understand a fifth of it. claiming man is the cause of climate change and using computer models to predict with "90% certainty" that man is the most significant impact on global climate and a myriad of disasters for the year 2100... when.. they can't even predict climate change for next year.
Science is more political now than at any time in it's history... more perverted. ever more shrill and fantastic visions of looming disaster by flood, fire or earthquake or disease and famine.. all using data that is incomplete or made up and all to fill the coffers of their "research facilities" the end justifies the means... Karl Marxs.. meet science..
Science takes theory and studies it and puts it forth.. that is fine.. what it has done in my lifetime tho is to use a few data points to make some snake oil pitch at a carnival of journalisim.
Fred flinstones pets made the gasoline in your tank.. the world was gonna be in an ice age cause of the smog. Billions would die by 1990 from overpopulation.. the populations of your-up would be elbow to elbow by 2000... we would run out of dozens of essential items by now.. earthquakes would shear off kalifornia by now.. opps.. they are back on that one... Killer bees!!! anyone recall that one? by now we should have nothing but killer bees...
Every year a new and dire prediction of doom and gloom to rival any biblical fire and brimstone.
Take a class at the local college.. you see profs that are so out of touch with reality that they are laughable.. none you would want to be around unless you had to be. Idiots..
And... I really don't think that any of you can win Ben Steins money.
lazs
-
Once again it's not the Science, it's the people who are supposed to be doing science. (simplified analogy: ) Ron Paul is a Politician just as Clinton is, but there's quite a margin between the two, on a scale of corruption. A similar analogy would be religious ministers being more or less corrupt.
Science isn't the source of the problems you're describing Lazs, it's the failure of people to flawlessly apply the science. Just as they have trouble being faithful to religious values, as in "the spirit is strong, the flesh weak".
Science isn't arrogant. Not any more than guns or religion are.
And another thing. Science is mostly boring. You don't get any glamour from scientific journals, so, VERY OFTEN, the science gets reported in exagerated form and/or flat out erroneously. "If it bleeds, it leads".
A recent average example: Titan, Saturn's moon, is covered in a certain chemical species. This species is a very popular one on earth, because of its name and because of its applications. This species, though, is really nothing special, and just one of countless if you look for it in a chemical encyclopedia.
The species is "organics", meaning it has carbon, which lights up people's memory either in the "life" meaning, or in the "petrol" meaning. Neither of those two are wrong, but the discovery of those compounds on Titan reported as "Organics discovered on Saturn moon!" is almost everytime misleading to the common reader.
Now, if there's something truly amiss with the scientific process, concerning evolutionary theory, then it's the theories that need to be refuted, and the people who are wrong to be corrected. It's not the freakin scientific process that's at fault.
Science isn't about pleasing people's religious or emotional or entertainment senses.
-
lazs ever met a 1000yr old dog breeder? because thats about how long you would need to observe adaptation in a dog. evolution into another distinct species would take numerous orders of magnitude longer, so I would say its unlikely dog breeders have directly observed evolution in their animals.
I think its very unfortunate that many people share your wariness of science. I can think of a range of explanations for this, but its a whole new topic really. what you describe is either bad science, or badly represented.
edit: hehe simulpost with same points :)
-
moot.. I agree.. but....
How do you separate the science from the scientists?
It seems fair that if you can't separate the religious sects from the god that you shouldn't separate the science from it's priests.
what is the fundamental difference in the man who scoffs at science because of the horrible way that scientists and academics are representing and perverting it claiming to know what they don't... what is that difference in that and the way that some religions misrepresent god and claim to know what is not knowable?
There is good work by the religious and there is good work by the scientists but... it is often hard to see because the representitives we see are so bad... all we see is bad science and arrogance on the one hand and bad religion and arrogance on the other.
If science can recognize the big bang theory it can recognize the theory that god created the universe.. it does fit into science.. all other explanations are exhausted.. big bang and god are all that is left. and big bang is lacking in some essential things like.. you can't bang nothing against nothing and get something..
God did it. It is the only thing that makes sense at this time... teach that it is one of the possibilities. That it is not measurable at this time and may never be.
lazs
-
Quote from Skyrock:"You wanted me to mention 1000 insects by name? Let me mention 4 animals that use chemical defense by mixing 2 chemicals. He mentioned the bombadier beetle, which is a great example of chemical defense(it uses 2 tubes to secrete 2 different chemicals, hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). But the use of chemicals as a defense is not unique at all and appears to have evolved in many different species. So lets look at another animal which uses 2 chemicals from 2 glands the Aplysia (Aplysia californica) sea slug. It uses the chemicals hydrogen peroxide and an amonia acid mix. The opilionid's(daddy long legs) also use a 2 chemical defense, methyl and benzoquinone. The skunk also uses a 2 chemical defense system with methyl and butyl thiols. So we have this occuring in insects, mollusks, arthropods, and mammals. Where are these species found? Bombadier beetle/Africa, the skunk/the Americas(except for 2 species found in indonesia and phillipines, sea slugs/the oceans, and opilionids/the americas. I see diversity from evolution. the fossil record is far from being finished, but I feel there is enough evidence out to support evolution. Don't have time right now to debate, but will be back on Sunday night"
Well you've stated the obvious observation of diversity amongst creatures using good design nothing more. Arguing the fact of numbers exactly how again demonstrates evolution? Is it A; because several species use chemical mechanisms. Therefore B; Evolution is true. Or in reality if A; You contain 2 chemicals which react explosively when they come in contact and don't have a proper mechanism to apply them for a useful purpose of survival at a safe distance. Therefore B; Your ability to survive and reproduce is in doubt. So in conclusion the evolutionist continues to hold to the statement this beetle bug just appears with the correct apparatus perfectly fitted in working order after its ancestors collected all that was needed, even though they survived not being able to use or need a disassembled apparatus prior to its current state. Which part of this argument is unbalanced? Is there not doubt inferred upon the evolution theory as the only explanation of origins of life.
Quote from RTHolmes;storch, you seem to be under the impression that the worldwide scientific community is engaged in an ongoing campaign to disprove the existence of god.
i'm not up to date with the literature, so perhaps you can tell me roughly how many papers were submitted for peer review arguing the hypothesis "god does not exist" in the last year?
That is the point. Specifically in the U.S.A. If you attempt to explain a designer of life, you are accused of introducing God into the debate. Which then is extolled as a violation of the separation of church and state principle, (another myth). Not just a few school curriculum has been challenged as unconstitutional for this notion, a simple web search should attest to that. History teaches me however that the federal capitol held Christian worship services and states attribute the blessings of liberty from God. Mostly our rights come from God as enumerated by Americas founding documents.
-
Lazs,
How to separate the science from the scientists? The Constitution doesn't belong to Ron Paul. It's easy enough to see that he and the Constitution are two separate things.
Just so, Science the process, and science the data presented by some "scientist", are two separate things. :) If the data he produces/presents is not true to the scientific process, then he doesn't fit the "scientist" moniker.
You've got it exactly here:
"what is the fundamental difference in the man who scoffs at science because of the horrible way that scientists and academics are representing and perverting it claiming to know what they don't... what is that difference in that and the way that some religions misrepresent god and claim to know what is not knowable?"
The difference is human error :)
The problem with science can recognize the big bang theory it can recognize the theory that god created the universe.. it does fit into science
is that Science doesn't deal in issues of faith. It deals in ideas you can test in practice. Science can't prove or dis-prove God, Lazs :) What it can do is provide a holistic explanations for all things we finite humans can figure out by finite reason from finite perception of infinite reality. It doesn't rule out that God made all things, but it doesn't prove it either. It's a learning process restricted to material reality. This material reality doesn't "need" supernatural elements.. Those elements will be obvious enough to everyone (supposedly) once they die and are brought back to God (depending on which faith we base this on).
In the mean time, the possible explanations aren't exhausted. A few decades ago material reality as we pictured it was limited to a flat earth. Today we're saying the best guess is something like a predictable macro-scale physics and unpredictable micro-scale physics (quantum physics).. Tomorrow, we'll keep progressing, but all along it's really beside the point what religious faith says. Science and Religion do not conflict nor overlap with each other. Only some people who mistakenly mix the two would have you believe so:
"God did it. [...] That it is not measurable at this time and may never be." Exactly. But that's not science. I'm convinced this should be taught, but not in science classes - in philosophy. It should be taught.
-
moot.. I am sorry but I see no difference between the big bang theory and "god did it" there is no proof of either and.. if anything.. the big bang theory is incomplete and explains nothing while "god did it" is the only explanation... at this time.. that fits. Nothing else works. It is only a theory if you like but to some of us.. it is clear. I admit that it is faith based.. I admit that I will never see it any other way. that at the root of it all is gods hand.
nothing else works.
lazs
-
Fair enough.... Give it a bit more time and it will be refined, just as round earth "theory" was refined from the raw data of some greek egghead using geometry to recognize the curvature of the Earth from experimentation and geometry of his experiments using a very high tower.
Again, (sorry for repeating it) science doesn't apply to the supernatural.
Don't be sorry :) The truth always rises up through the muck. Just give it some time.
-
Species are a man made category. How can you argue against something that you don't even understand? Is that an agenda in your pants?
Explain to me what I don't understand, moot.
Are species not part of the evolution terminology?
-
moot.. each and every one of us will know the truth soon enough. no one gets out alive.
I don't think science will ever explain the creation of the universe because it is outside the bounds of science.
lazs
-
Maybe or maybe not Laz.
If you die and there's nothing, you or your spirt/soul/essence/whatever will probably not have time to realize or assimilate that there's nothing. Not a bad thing but you won't "know".
If you die and there's something and the essence of you persists, you may know there is something. But if the individual awareness is melded into some common energy the "you" in you may not realize that either.
So, we may find out...or not. :)
-
The truly odd thing is you think the muck is religion. Even with the "earth is flat" theory... do you think that was purely religion based? You don't think there were any scientists at the time that believed it, taught it and argued with anyone that didn't believe it? Hell... do you think the church came up with the idea that things likelyness to float was based on their shape or do you think a group convinced the church this was the way it was? What do you think that group would do when shown to be wrong? Just admit it and move on?
The problem with evolution is it's being touted as science. It is not. It is religion. The amount of data needed to even remotely support theories with 1 in a trillion chances is staggering. "It could happen" is not science. Evolution is "the earth is flat" belief of the 20th century. Just look at how persecuted those are that don't believe it.
-
Donzo, hang on, I'll be back when I'm sober.
Lazs, absolutely. Science will never explain what's outside of its bounds. But if ever there were some people pretending that religion had sovereignty in the realm of science... That would be equaly mistaken.
I think you have things down pat, way more than some of the people pushing ID/Creationism, anyway.
-
there were any scientists at the time that believed it, taught it and argued with anyone that didn't believe it?
Would you expect any less from someone arguing their data?
Hell... do you think the church came up with the idea that things likelyness to float was based on their shape or do you think a group convinced the church this was the way it was? What do you think that group would do when shown to be wrong?
Just admit it and move on?
Admit scientific method is an ever advancing process, that intends to prove its own hypothesies and theories wrong over and over, not towards some eventual perfect theory, but towards an infinite progress in accuracy? Yes.
The problem with evolution is it's being touted as science. It is not. It is religion. The amount of data needed to even remotely support theories with 1 in a trillion chances is staggering. "It could happen" is not science. Evolution is "the earth is flat" belief of the 20th century.
Absolutely false. Evolution is a theory, not a religion. If some people take it as gospel, that's THEIR error and problem, not science's.
Just look at how persecuted those are that don't believe it.
Back this up with evidence.
-
Donzo, hang on, I'll be back when I'm sober.
Lazs, absolutely. Science will never explain what's outside of its bounds. But if ever there were some people pretending that religion had sovereignty in the realm of science... That would be equaly mistaken.
I think you have things down pat, way more than some of the people pushing ID/Creationism, anyway.
Science is only as good as the reasonableness and objectivity of the mind in which it is held. When that mind becomes closed to the possibility of a universe created by an all knowing intelligence it's science suffers, imo.
-
No. Logic has some very clear rules that would have been refuted by now, if they were flawed. Science is absolutely true to those rules.
If "some mind" which holds the ideal of science fails to be true to it, it's not science's suffering, it's that mind's.
Science NEVER has been closed to the possibility of a universe created by an all knowing intelligence. It just isn't included in science's domain.
-
No. Logic has some very clear rules that would have been refuted by now, if they were flawed. Science is absolutely true to those rules.
If "some mind" which holds the ideal of science fails to be true to it, it's not science's suffering, it's that mind's.
Science NEVER has been closed to the possibility of a universe created by an all knowing intelligence. It just isn't included in science's domain.
"Science" does not exist outside the mind of man. Many men who claim to be scientists have indeed closed their mind to the possibility of a divine creator.
-
Scientific method is an advancing process. It is not evolution. Evolution is not scientific method based. There is some application of science in it, but nothing that actually supports it. Science is a token gesture with theory being the driving force. Theory not based on science, but the belief that it is impossible that the universe was created, thus it must have happened this way. Evolutionists like you are insisting there isn't a god based on our inability to prove his existance while maintaining something that you are unable to prove is fact.
As you have satated, science is a tool, not a religion. You'll notice I only refer to evolution as a religion. You maintain it is not. What is clear, however, is that EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE. IT IS NOT SCIENCE VS RELIGION. IT IS ONE BELIEF VS ANOTHER.
As for evidence... read this thread. If you can't see it, you're simply ignorant. Religion is the force that holds back science. It always has been. At least... that's what you'd believe if you've actually read what you and myelo have posted (and MT in every other thread on the subject). I'm sure the terms "religious wacko" is simply something I've imagined. I'm sure the drive to seperate religion from state (not church... religion) is just something I'm imagining too. Yep... no evidence there.
-
Iron,
What would you have men do, better than follow logic?
That many men have closed their mind to the possibility of a divine creator means nothing to the validity of logical rhetorics.
Evolution is not scientific method based. There is some application of science in it, but nothing that actually supports it.
Evidence?
Evolution is not scientific method based. There is some application of science in it, but nothing that actually supports it.
Evidence?
EVOLUTION IS NOT SCIENCE. IT IS NOT SCIENCE VS RELIGION. IT IS ONE BELIEF VS ANOTHER.
Evidence?
As for evidence... read this thread. If you can't see it, you're simply ignorant.
Funny. I'm not ignorant. I'm open to any and all evidence. I will follow the trail of evidence. Anything which can be proven as most likely will have my attention. All that matters to me is truth.
-
Ever had a dog? All domesticated dog breeds are the result of selectively breeding wolves. Selectively bred by humans to promote whatever traits their masters desired; survival of the cutest. That's how evolution works in nature too ... selectively breeding to promote survival. I.e. survival of the fittest.
LOL! You might want to avoid using man as the catalyst for evolution arguments... it kinda defeats the purpose. Inherent gentics are explanations for micro evolution which is subtractive... not additive. The act of breeding to re-direct genetic traits implies that the recessive genetics were present already, not that new genetic traits were devoloped.
-
Some people would have reason trumped by faith because reason was abused in a few freak cases. A certain abuse doesn't justify prohibition of general use.
The act of breeding to re-direct genetic traits implies that the recessive genetics were present already, not that new genetic traits were devoloped.
Are you saying that it couldn't have happened if man hadn't made it happen? The genetic material is there, vulnerable to any natural alteration, be it by some cosmic ray altering one bit, or natural agent such as Man "purposedly" altering one or many bits of it.
-
What would you have men do, better than follow logic?
That many men have closed their mind to the possibility of a divine creator means nothing to the validity of logical rhetorics.
Logic is not an external truth to be sought. It is a process whereby one is willing to forgo preconceptions in order to gain a better understanding one's situation. The searcher for truth must be willing to reexamine every "fact" upon which his search is built. To do less it is to seek a specific goal without regard to reality and is not science.
-
Logic is not an external truth to be sought. It is a process whereby one is willing to forgo preconceptions in order to gain a better understanding one's situation. The searcher for truth must be willing to reexamine every "fact" upon which his search is built. To do less it is to seek a specific goal without regard to reality and is not science.
Understanding is a consequence of REASON. Reason is consequent to logic. Logic is the criteria that produces truth.
The searcher for truth must be willing to reexamine every "fact" upon which his search is built. To do less it is to seek a specific goal without regard to reality and is not science.
Which (in bold) is exactly what ID/Creationists do, deciding prejudicialy to find a religious echo of their faith in scientific data, and ignoring Science in the process.
The universe is a great thing. That God made it is not something science will dispute.
That man will (erroneously) dispute science as refuting religion is his own mistake, not science's.
-
I'm may not be making myself clear. Science is not an institution, true science is the search for truth, nothing more and nothing less.
-
Of course science is ever advancing, and I'm thankful for that. And your right that there are scientist that believed in a Creator and have changed their mind, and then there are scientist that didn't believe and their research led them to believe that a Creator was the only explanation that made sense. I still hold to the fact that our presuppositions determines how we look at the data that is a result of science. I don't believe in Evolution, or maybe I should say "particles to people Evolution". It is a hypothesis or conjecture at best.
Lambo
-
I'm may not be making myself clear. Science is not an institution, true science is the search for truth, nothing more and nothing less.
You should explicit your distinguishment of truth and Truth (as you've referred to before), then.
-
their research led them to believe that a Creator was the only explanation that made sense. I still hold to the fact that our presuppositions determines how we look at the data that is a result of science. I don't believe in Evolution, or maybe I should say "particles to people Evolution".
Bold shows the critical departure from science.
It is a hypothesis or conjecture at best.
Evidence?
I'll go out on a limb in this specific case: You will be proven wrong on this assertion, just as flat earthers were. What you fail to see is the ever supernatural parable that religion provides. Religious theory such as scripture predicts nothing in the realm of science.
You don't know science. Don't pretend to.
-
You should explicit your distinguishment of truth and Truth (as you've referred to before), then.
Well, from my perspective, there is no truth that isn't of the Truth. I readily admit that this is belief based on faith.
-
Then you admit that your perspective as concerns this specific matter is not scientific. Please don't unduely clog the plumbing of science.
-
Then you admit that your perspective as concerns this specific matter is not scientific. Please don't unduely clog the plumbing of science.
I sure won't admit that my search for truth isn't scientific. Because I have faith does not mean my mind is closed to possibilities or that I don't desire to know reality.
-
There's scientific truth, and religious truth. You've said so yourself ("truth and Truth"). Stop interfering with scientific method with red herrings.
-
I sure won't admit that my search for truth isn't scientific.
Any "scientific" "search for truth' will not include supernatural "possibilities".
-
I think your confusing science and Evolution. They didn't depart from science, just the belief in particles to people evolution.
My evidence is the same that you have. The difference is in the way we interpret the facts.
And I'm not a scientist, never claimed to be. I'm a christian.
Lambo
-
There's scientific truth, and religious truth. You've said so yourself ("truth and Truth"). Stop interfering with scientific method with red herrings.
"truth" is nothing more than a limited understanding of "Truth". We can know true aspects of the nature of God but we may never be able to have the full mind of God which is "Truth". If there is in reality a God from which all things flow how can science be true without considering this?
-
Evolution is Science, no confusion on my part. On yours, yeah, probably.
particles to people evolution
Huh? What?
Interpretation of facts is thru the optics of reason, logic. Show that your interpretations of the facts satisfies this criteria.
What does your being a christian have to do with scientific research?
-
"truth" is nothing more than a limited understanding of "Truth". We can BELIEVE true aspects of the nature of God but we may never be able to have the full mind of God which is "Truth".
fixed that for ya.. Let me know if and how you object.
If there is in reality a God from which all things flow how can science be true without considering this?
Science never has made any pretention to anything supernatural. Do you understand this, or dismiss/ignore it?
-
fixed that for ya.. Let me know if and how you object. Science never has made any pretention to anything supernatural. Do you understand this, or dismiss/ignore it?
I agree with your correction but then I think we don't actually know anything but rather have only belief. Thanks for the opportunity to clarify.
I need your definition of "supernatural" before I answer you.
-
If you attempt to explain a designer of life, you are accused of introducing God into the debate.
...which you would be, by definition.
-
Supernatural is that which we humans could never devise a scientific explanation for.
If I may, I'll pretend that I know where this is headed and jump to the final point.. I think we have our life here in the material world. I think we have brains to help us figure things out on our own, as far as we might. I think we may or may not have something supernatural waiting for us after we materialy die. I think if that's the case, we'll have eternity to figure out what happens after we die. I think it's a waste, of what we've been given, when time is ticking and our material choices decide what happens right now, to wax supernatural on our religious fate. I think we are here in this material world, left to do our best.
I think reason is our best material hope. I think any faith we have today in this material world will never compare with the Truth. I think it's in vain to try and pretend we know what we'll know in the infinite supernatural realm.
That's just my supposition on the supernatural. I don't think it trumps realistic, scientific reason at all. I believe what I see, not what I can imagine without practical confirmation.
-
Quote from
Evolution Is Religion--Not Science
by Henry Morris, Ph.D.
http://www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=455
"The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator. Evolutionism is thus intrinsically an atheistic religion. Some may prefer to call it humanism, and New Age evolutionists may place it in the context of some form of pantheism, but they all amount to the same thing. Whether atheism or humanism (or even pantheism), the purpose is to eliminate a personal God from any active role in the origin of the universe and all its components, including man. "
No Evolution is not science, it's just using science.
Lambo
-
Supernatural is that which we humans could never devise a scientific explanation for.
That's a circular argument if ever I heard one.
I'm going to attempt to establish some paramaters. We'll need to come to an understanding before you can understand my viewpoint.
Are quantum or string theories of the supernatural? If not, please explain why.
-
"The fact is that evolutionists believe in evolution because they want to. It is their desire at all costs to explain the origin of everything without a Creator.
You're a mind reader?
-
Are quantum or string theories of the supernatural? If not, please explain why.
They respect scientific protocol. Cut to the chase please, this is tedious.
That's a circular argument if ever I heard one.
It's not. "I need your definition of "supernatural" before I answer you." asks for a definition of what we could never detect or explain with our finite perception. It follows that supernatural is exactly that. My question was meant to point out exactly the circular flaw in ID/Creationist attempts at inserting religion in science.
-
They respect scientific protocol. Cut to the chase please, this is tedious.
It's not. "I need your definition of "supernatural" before I answer you." asks for a definition of what we could never detect or explain with our finite perception. It follows that supernatural is exactly that. My question was meant to point out exactly the circular flaw in ID/Creationist attempts at inserting religion in science.
Scientific protocol? You mean a set of standards that is constantly changing? Not a very good basis for deciding what is beyond your scope of exploration. I'll argue that man's imagination is what has driven all significant scientific discoveries, not scientific protocol.
-
It doesn't change. Where did you see such a thing? Science is as fixed as logic.
Imagination might provide a source of ideas, to feed the assembly line of science, and that freely draws from outside paradigms' boxes, but it doesn't change the fact that hypothesies and theories answer to reality's practical confirmation or refutal. There is no science without an unheeding adherence to logic and practical results.
Faith isn't bound by this and so does not belong in science.
-
It doesn't change. Where did you see such a thing?
Science is as fixed as logic.
I'll agree that it should be fixed only as the search for truth but it isn't always practiced this way. Science as practiced today often discounts suppostions based on established "facts". Too often these facts are proven unfactual. Need I go further than man made global warming as evidence?
-
"Should be"
"isn't always practiced this way"
Need I say more?
-
storch, you seem to be under the impression that the worldwide scientific community is engaged in an ongoing campaign to disprove the existence of god.
i'm not up to date with the literature, so perhaps you can tell me roughly how many papers were submitted for peer review arguing the hypothesis "god does not exist" in the last year?
I'm a semi literate layman. I'm a welder by trade.
-
Too often these facts are proven unfactual.
Which is a cornerstone of the scientific method.
A search for the truth of the natural world based on faith is at best a crippled effort.
Science allows someone to say "Based on this new evidence, I was wrong"
Religious dogma by its very nature does not.
However, Einstein once said, “I cannot believe that God plays dice with the cosmos.”
Johannas Kepler spent years researching the orbits of the planets looking for mathematical evidence of God's hand.
Galileo was convicted of heresy when he started teaching a modified interpretation of the Bible which wouldn't conflict with what he knew science was proving to be true. The new interpretation was contrary to what the Church believed and the Church had complete governing power to enforce its belief and sentence Galileo for heresy.
Scientists and religious faith are not mutually exclusive
-
Ya know... I am gonna quit this one while I am ahead.
There sure does seem to be a lot of prejudice, intolerance and ignorance on both sides of the issue.
To not even mention the possibility of the supernatural on the one hand and to give a literal interpretation of the bible or whatever on the other.
Lots of fear. What happened to live and let live?
lazs
-
Lots of fear. What happened to live and let live?
"Liability"?
In a nutshell, the problem is that scientists are corrupted, the same way politicians and gun-owners and religious people are. That doesn't mean that the scientific method, or the US Constitution, or guns, or the Bible ought to be thrown out the window.
Science has logic and peer review, US politics have common sense and the Constitution, guns have ethics, and religion has.. well that's a special case :P
It's the people that failed the rules (and ideals that made the rules), not the rules that failed the people.
-
Looks like this thread is gonna last longer than the movie will be around.
-
Looks like this thread is gonna last longer than the movie will be around.
well it is a compelling topic
-
I have a question on this. How many chemical variations did these animals try before they got the "right" stuff that they wanted to keep? Or did they get it right the first time? In order for them to have survived it must have been the first time, I guess. Wonder how they knew which concoction would work? I think God made them that way from the get go, sounds far better to me :).
Lambo
It's posts like these... this is an unarmed man attacking a machine gun nest. You have no clue whatsoever on what you are talking about. Organisms cannot "choose" traits.... they don't "pick" which ones might work and which ones won't. Genetic variability shows up only AFTER pressure is applied to the organism in question.... It's pretty much just "luck" as to which genetic trait is going to turn out positively for the organism. Please go back and read up on what you are talking about, prior to speaking.
quick example... a random genetic variation allows .01% of the population of say, humans, access to immunity to H5n1. Say the human population is 10,000, to keep the numbers low. Out of those 10,000, 100 would have this unlikely trait, and most likely not know it. H5n1 becomes, through mixing with another flu virus ( A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION) airborne, and transfers from avian to simian host. 9,900 of the population have no defense against this new pressure. 100 have natural immunity. Those 100 will survive and reproduce, because they were most readliy prepared for the selective pressure (H5n1) that the population faced. A preponderance of the offspring will now carry that trait.
-
quick example... a random genetic variation allows .01% of the population of say, humans, access to immunity to H5n1. Say the human population is 10,000, to keep the numbers low. Out of those 10,000, 100 would have this unlikely trait, and most likely not know it. H5n1 becomes, through mixing with another flu virus ( A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION) airborne, and transfers from avian to simian host. 9,900 of the population have no defense against this new pressure. 100 have natural immunity. Those 100 will survive and reproduce, because they were most readliy prepared for the selective pressure (H5n1) that the population faced. A preponderance of the offspring will now carry that trait.
So this "preponderance of the offspring", are they human?
-
So this "preponderance of the offspring", are they human?
yes.
But consider two seperate identical but isolated populations of humans. They begin to be selected from entirely different environmental conditions where they live. It is cold where one population lives, and they are selected due to their ability to battle severe cold. The second population lives in tropical desert conditions, and is selected because of it's ability to battle heat.
With enough isolation this selection happens over 100,000 generations, 100,000 times, the two populations could branch into 2 seperate human species. One furry heat efficient species and one that can tolerate a hot desert climate.
-
yes.
But consider two seperate identical but isolated populations of humans. They begin to be selected from entirely different environmental conditions where they live. It is cold where one population lives, and they are selected due to their ability to battle severe cold. The second population lives in tropical desert conditions, and is selected because of it's ability to battle heat.
With enough isolation this selection happens over 100,000 generations, 100,000 times, the two populations could branch into 2 seperate human species. One furry heat efficient species and one that can tolerate a hot desert climate.
But if the a male from the furry tribe and one from the bikini tribe got it on, they would produce a HUMAN, right?
Are their DNA different?
-
But if the a male from the furry tribe and one from the bikini tribe got it on, they would produce a HUMAN, right?
Not if the branches grew apart long enough.
After eons of isolation, they could have an offspring that was infertile.
Is a mule a horse or a donkey?
-
Recent acceleration of human adaptive evolution (http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/104/52/20753?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=1&author1=Harpending&author2=Cochran&andorexacttitle=and&andorexacttitleabs=and&andorexactfulltext=and&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&fdate=11/1/2007&tdate=1/31/2008&resourcetype=HWCIT)
Genomic surveys in humans identify a large amount of recent positive selection. Using the 3.9-million HapMap SNP dataset, we found that selection has accelerated greatly during the last 40,000 years. We tested the null hypothesis that the observed age distribution of recent positively selected linkage blocks is consistent with a constant rate of adaptive substitution during human evolution. We show that a constant rate high enough to explain the number of recently selected variants would predict (i) site heterozygosity at least 10-fold lower than is observed in humans, (ii) a strong relationship of heterozygosity and local recombination rate, which is not observed in humans, (iii) an implausibly high number of adaptive substitutions between humans and chimpanzees, and (iv) nearly 100 times the observed number of high-frequency linkage disequilibrium blocks. Larger populations generate more new selected mutations, and we show the consistency of the observed data with the historical pattern of human population growth. We consider human demographic growth to be linked with past changes in human cultures and ecologies. Both processes have contributed to the extraordinarily rapid recent genetic evolution of our species.
-
Anyone who thinks there is some order or design to the universe should take a close look at the Andromeda galaxy(it can be seen with the naked eye)...3 billion years from now(mark it on your calender),this galaxy will collide with ours...our sun turns into a red dwarf,then a red giant and every living thing on this planet gets broiled alive.
Some design...and quite some designer.
-
Anyone who thinks there is some order or design to the universe should take a close look at the Andromeda galaxy(it can be seen with the naked eye)...3 billion years from now(mark it on your calender),this galaxy will collide with ours...our sun turns into a red dwarf,then a red giant and every living thing on this planet gets broiled alive.
Some design...and quite some designer.
How does this indicate that there is/isn't a designer?
-
How does this indicate that there is/isn't a designer?
Are you talking about bringing on the armageddon?
-
im atheist = D have been for yrs now
-BigBOBCH
-
Are you talking about bringing on the armageddon?
No, I'm asking how this show there is/isn't a designer.
-
It's posts like these... this is an unarmed man attacking a machine gun nest. You have no clue whatsoever on what you are talking about. Organisms cannot "choose" traits.... they don't "pick" which ones might work and which ones won't. Genetic variability shows up only AFTER pressure is applied to the organism in question.... It's pretty much just "luck" as to which genetic trait is going to turn out positively for the organism. Please go back and read up on what you are talking about, prior to speaking.
quick example... a random genetic variation allows .01% of the population of say, humans, access to immunity to H5n1. Say the human population is 10,000, to keep the numbers low. Out of those 10,000, 100 would have this unlikely trait, and most likely not know it. H5n1 becomes, through mixing with another flu virus ( A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION) airborne, and transfers from avian to simian host. 9,900 of the population have no defense against this new pressure. 100 have natural immunity. Those 100 will survive and reproduce, because they were most readliy prepared for the selective pressure (H5n1) that the population faced. A preponderance of the offspring will now carry that trait.
Ridiculing me will win me over every time :) Shame that as smart as you would have us think you are that you would have to resort to insulting people.
Lambo
-
Facts take a back seat to feelings.
By the way, that quote of Lewontin you posted doesn't say what you say it does. And Moray hasn't insulted you in that post. He posted facts, showed how far off you are from those facts, and wrote what he suggested as remedy to being so far off.
-
H5n1 becomes, through mixing with another flu virus ( A CLEAR EXAMPLE OF EVOLUTION) airborne, and transfers from avian to simian host.
it would still be a virus it would not become anything other than a virus.
-
Not if the branches grew apart long enough.
After eons of isolation, they could have an offspring that was infertile.
Is a mule a horse or a donkey?
it is both. it is a hybrid. there have been instances of mules being fertile though
-
No, I'm asking how this show there is/isn't a designer.
Are you sadistic then ?
-
SirLoin you're doing the same thing they are.
-
The point is that isolated populations of the same species will change according to local conditions and will eventually be dissimilar enough to be considered different species.
it is both. it is a hybrid. there have been instances of mules being fertile though
There has never been a documented fertile male mule.
Human Chimpanzee hybrids have been rumored. If such an animal is possible, is it both?
-
The point is that isolated populations of the same species will change according to local conditions and will eventually be dissimilar enough to be considered different species.
There has never been a documented fertile male mule.
Human Chimpanzee hybrids have been rumored. If such an animal is possible, is it both?
no only fertile female mules. the humanzee has been proven to be false but the subject chimp was uncannily human looking. here is a linky to oliver the suspected humanzee and his story. www.rense.com/general67/oliver.htm
-
the humanzee has been proven to be false but the subject chimp was uncannily human looking.
http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23462/ (http://www.the-scientist.com/news/display/23462/)
The ancestors of humans and chimpanzees may have interbred and exchanged significant numbers of genes after the initial split between the species, scientists report in the May 17 online edition of Nature.
The findings could help rethink mainstream thought during the origin of species "by suggesting there can be a quite of bit of exchange as species emerge and diverge," James Mallet at University College London, who did not participate in this study, told The Scientist.
The researchers compared the genomes of humans, chimps, gorillas, and more distantly related primates such as orangutans and macaques, yielding roughly 20 million base pairs of aligned sequence. They focused not on the average level of genetic divergence between humans and their relatives, which can reveal approximately when each species emerged, but on genetic divergence across the human genome, to see when sequences diverged.
However, my question is still valid. If such an animal is possible, is it both?
-
I have a question on this. How many chemical variations did these animals try before they got the "right" stuff that they wanted to keep? Or did they get it right the first time? In order for them to have survived it must have been the first time, I guess. Wonder how they knew which concoction would work? I think God made them that way from the get go, sounds far better to me :).
Lambo
Let me ask you a question. What time frame did God create the sea slug and the bombadier beetle? WHich did he create first? Were they both created in the same week? If you are not informed on how defense mechanisms occur and have occured, then why not study up on them and educate yourself on the topic?
-
Stein had a very nice segment on Sunday Morning this morning.
-
any of you breeders ever change a dog into something other than another dog?
Just in case you didn't know this, it would take a very long time to do this. :aok
Science is more political now than at any time in it's history... more perverted. ever more shrill and fantastic visions of looming disaster by flood, fire or earthquake or disease and famine.. all using data that is incomplete or made up and all to fill the coffers of their "research facilities" the end justifies the means... Karl Marxs.. meet science..
What journals are you reading? LMAO! Stop being a moron.
Take a class at the local college.. you see profs that are so out of touch with reality that they are laughable.
Name one that you have studied under or actually seen that was "so out of touch with reality that they are laughable". Or is this just a false statement. There are many scientists out there that aren't worth their weight in dung, but continuously in this thread you have lumped all of science into this pot. Was Florey out of touch? What about Salk, or Sabin? Maybe Copernicus, or Galileo? Most "out there" scientists are also viewed "out there" by the scientific community. :aok
-
However, my question is still valid. If such an animal is possible, is it both?
a hybrid between humans and apes would be highly unlikely and the question is thusly invalid as apes have one more chromosome than we humans do. even though chromosomal disparity has produced hybrides in equines and felines it does seem to be a barrier in simians.
during the 1920s soviet biologist ilya lvanov performed a series of experiments attempting to produce a chuman but was never able to produce a preganancy.
in the 1970s researchers discovered that human sperm could indeed penetrate the outer membranes of a gibbon egg which amongst the apes is the farthest away genetically from humans. human sperm would not attach to any other egg of any other subhominid primate, including the bonobo which is our closest relative genetically speaking.
it is rumored that in nazi germany josef mengele attempted to impregnate jewish women with chimpazee sperm through artificial insemination with no successful pregnancy occuring.
the God you don't believe in doesn't want you monkeying around.
-
Facts take a back seat to feelings.
By the way, that quote of Lewontin you posted doesn't say what you say it does. And Moray hasn't insulted you in that post. He posted facts, showed how far off you are from those facts, and wrote what he suggested as remedy to being so far off.
It may very well not say that, was quoting what I read on Richard Dawkins. net:
28. Polling Data on Science and Religion
Comment #67102 by devolved on September 2, 2007 at 12:29 am
1. Some scientists start with the belief that only the natural world exists.
No scientist does that.
How could you possibly make such an assertion about the beliefs of all scientists? It's patently wrong.
For example look at this admission:
'We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door."
Source: Richard Lewontin, Billions and billions of demons, The New York Review, p. 31, 9 January 1997.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/userComments,page1,10415
-
While it's difficult for me to get my hands around the concept of timelessness it's not hard for me to allow the creator of time/space existence beyond his creation. How might a such being imagine mankind? That imagining may or may not be the creation but I suspect it could be. I don't believe in Darwin's evolution but I don't disbelieve the theory either. I do believe that if we are eternal creatures we will become more than we are today in the eons to come.
-
I have seen no evidence that supports the idea of an afterlife. It's a nice thought and probably a great comfort to those that are afraid to die, but I have no illusions of a life after death. As the electro-chemical machine I am when my life-processes seize to function I will seize to exist as a sentient being. My body will break down into elemental compounds and return to the Earth were they will be the building blocks of new life. Many small creatures and plant life will live of my remains and in that regard there is an afterlife, but the entity I call "me" will be gone forever ... only remembered by those who love me.
-
Good god, this thread is still going?
Has anybody changed their mind?
:D
-
Good god, this thread is still going?
Has anybody changed their mind?
:D
as many as you can expect from any internet debate.
-
I've changed my mind.. I used to think that people who confused religion and science were harmless.. Not anymore. ID/Creationists and Dawkins "militant atheists" are both rocking the boat of smooth scientific progress.
-
I have seen no evidence that supports the idea of an afterlife. It's a nice thought and probably a great comfort to those that are afraid to die, but I have no illusions of a life after death. As the electro-chemical machine I am when my life-processes seize to function I will seize to exist as a sentient being. My body will break down into elemental compounds and return to the Earth were they will be the building blocks of new life. Many small creatures and plant life will live of my remains and in that regard there is an afterlife, but the entity I call "me" will be gone forever ... only remembered by those who love me.
I can honestly say I don't fear death. I feel sadness at the prospect of my life, your life, and everyone who has ever lived or will live coming to a final end without reverberation. Do I believe in more simply to avoid the sadness and prospect of eternal darkness? Perhaps. I must consider that possibility. However, I have felt a presence I believe is God in a way that defies a natural explanation. For me it is more real than anything else I have ever experienced. It is that communion and not the fear of death that sustains my faith.
-
I feel sadness at the prospect of my life, your life, and everyone who has ever lived or will live coming to a final end without reverberation. Do I believe in more simply to avoid the sadness and prospect of eternal darkness?
Don't feel sad for me...I feel a sadness for anyone who wishes to be a slave in some non-existant afterlife..Where the entrance exam is based on your belief,rather than your actions...I have no time for the credulous..And to spend eternity with the like..?
Sounds like Hell to me.
-
I can honestly say I don't fear death. I feel sadness at the prospect of my life, your life, and everyone who has ever lived or will live coming to a final end without reverberation. Do I believe in more simply to avoid the sadness and prospect of eternal darkness? Perhaps. I must consider that possibility. However, I have felt a presence I believe is God in a way that defies a natural explanation. For me it is more real than anything else I have ever experienced. It is that communion and not the fear of death that sustains my faith.
that about covers it for me as well Iron, very well stated.
-
These threads make me sad.
So many intelligent people choosing to ignore the obvious in favor of the paranormal. I think this makes 8lb. 4 oz. baby Jesus cry.
-
I think this makes 8lb. 4 oz. baby Jesus cry.
Some of the responses of the faithfull are enough to make a cat laugh.
-
These threads make me sad.
So many intelligent people choosing to ignore the obvious in favor of the paranormal. I think this makes 8lb. 4 oz. baby Jesus cry.
do you mean like the brilliant minds who conceptualized and thusly brought this marvelous republic whose freedoms we enjoy and take for granted into being?
the difference between us and all other fauna is that the creator placed in us a little of him, a little itty bitty teensy weensy strike of a creative spark. we are created in his image and he is a creative spirit so we are a carbon based life form but with the spirit of something other dimensional. in time we will all know fully, it's just some of you will vey sorry for being so utterly wrong, that makes me sad.
-
do you mean like the brilliant minds who conceptualized and thusly brought this marvelous republic whose freedoms we enjoy and take for granted into being?
the difference between us and all other fauna is that the creator placed in us a little of him, a little itty bitty teensy weensy strike of a creative spark. we are created in his image and he is a creative spirit so we are a carbon based life form but with the spirit of something other dimensional. in time we will all know fully, it's just some of you will vey sorry for being so utterly wrong, that makes me sad.
Do you think non-believers(after they die) are burning in hell for eternity, or are their souls just incinerated instantly never to exist again?
-
do you mean like the brilliant minds who conceptualized and thusly brought this marvelous republic whose freedoms we enjoy and take for granted into being?
That'd be an example of brass tacks social engineering and realistic ethics, not superstitious bias for the paranormal.
the creator placed in us a little of him, a little itty bitty teensy weensy strike of a creative spark
Evidence?
that makes me sad.
Don't you think it's strange that someone enlightened to the infinite love and sublimeness of the holy spirit and his creation would be anything but exhalted to experience every single second of existence? Don't you think you're selling Him short by being sad when you could be gushing with hope and resolve rather than sadness and regret?
-
Don't you think it's strange that someone enlightened to the infinite love and sublimeness of the holy spirit and his creation would be anything but exhalted to experience every single second of existence? Don't you think you're selling Him short by being sad when you could be gushing with hope and resolve rather than sadness and regret?
Not being able to reach the unreachable would make anyone sad.
-
If there is a "designer", he isn't a very good one.
-
Not being able to reach the unreachable would make anyone sad.
By definition, the unreachable is unreachable and therefore cannot be reached.
Therefore even though I am smiling, I am sad.
-
If there is a "designer", he isn't a very good one.
Hey Furious, thanks for the contribution to the discussion! It took me a while to read all that you posted (with ALL those examples and such) but I think I got what you were trying to say.
-
By definition, the unreachable is unreachable and therefore cannot be reached.
Therefore even though I am smiling, I am sad.
I think CS Lweis said it well and to paraphrase: the gates of hell truly are locked but it is from the inside.
What exactly it means to reject the presence of God and thus be in outer darkness I can't know but I do believe that unrepentent pride and selfishness will lead you there. I also won't pretend to know that this life is the only shot you get or all that it takes to live in the presence of God. I think it may be a process wherein this life is but a small stepping stone though I do think the choices we make here are important. If you reject God now will you feel any differently should you find yourself still aware and thinking after you cross the threshold of death?
-
By definition, the unreachable is unreachable and therefore cannot be reached.
Therefore even though I am smiling, I am sad.
I think your analogy should read "Therefore even though I am smiling, I am frowning". The way it's written could indicate that you are bipolar.
-
I think your analogy should read "Therefore even though I am smiling, I am frowning". The way it's written could indicate that you are bipolar.
analogy: 1: inference that if two or more things agree with one another in some respects they will probably agree in others.
I was offering not an analogy, but a definition by which I could point out a use of faulty logic.
-
Hey Furious, thanks for the contribution to the discussion! It took me a while to read all that you posted (with ALL those examples and such) but I think I got what you were trying to say.
you never answered my questions.
-
I think CS Lweis said it well and to paraphrase: the gates of hell truly are locked but it is from the inside.
What exactly it means to reject the presence of God and thus be in outer darkness I can't know but I do believe that unrepentent pride and selfishness will lead you there. I also won't pretend to know that this life is the only shot you get or all that it takes to live in the presence of God. I think it may be a process wherein this life is but a small stepping stone though I do think the choices we make here are important. If you reject God now will you feel any differently should you find yourself still aware and thinking after you cross the threshold of death?
And I feel that if we reject reason and intellect we are rejecting the only gifts we have as humans that separate us from the other mammals. If there is a God, he would be sorely disappointed.
-
you never answered my questions.
I must have missed the questions directly to me....
-
And I feel that if we reject reason and intellect we are rejecting the only gifts we have as humans that separate us from the other mammals. If there is a God, he would be sorely disappointed.
Assuming there is a creator of all he must be disappointed when we reject reason and intellect. He created these afterall did he not? For these gifts to be squandered on exalting one's self instead of leading us to the knowledge of him surely causes him pain.
-
I have seen no evidence that supports the idea of an afterlife. It's a nice thought and probably a great comfort to those that are afraid to die, but I have no illusions of a life after death. As the electro-chemical machine I am when my life-processes seize to function I will seize to exist as a sentient being. My body will break down into elemental compounds and return to the Earth were they will be the building blocks of new life. Many small creatures and plant life will live of my remains and in that regard there is an afterlife, but the entity I call "me" will be gone forever ... only remembered by those who love me.
lumpy is spot on... what i find ironic... those that rage against nanny govts are the first to paparazzi the original.
-
I must have missed the questions directly to me....
My bad Donzo, they were to Lambo. Could you answer these?
What time frame did God create the sea slug and the bombadier beetle? WHich did he create first? Were they both created in the same week?
-
Assuming there is a creator of all he must be disappointed when we reject reason and intellect. He created these afterall did he not? For these gifts to be squandered on exalting one's self instead of leading us to the knowledge of him surely causes him pain.
Baloney... Who are you to say what "is Him" or isn't? Any and all things done or thought are equaly part of "Creation". Who are you to say what disappoints him or doesn't? Neither you nor anyone has anything else to base this on but a leap of faith.
Faith has no relevence in science.
And I reckon Holden doesn't reject God like you're so quick to conclude. It's really not surprising that in the end, the real argument for the religious to force faith onto science is some philosophical argument that's not scientific at all.
-
If you reject God now will you feel any differently should you find yourself still aware and thinking after you cross the threshold of death?
I do not reject God. I simply reject the idea that the (non) existance of God is knowable.
Accepting God on the proviso that one could be wrong, so the safe thing to do is accept Him, is a foolish one, as with that notion, one is fooling one's self.
"I better cover my bases because I might be wrong" is not blind faith.
-
Accepting God on the proviso that one could be wrong, so the safe thing to do is accept Him, is a foolish one, as with that notion, one is fooling one's self.
"I better cover my bases because I might be wrong" is not blind faith.
That's called "Pascal's Wager".
-
And there are many things wrong with it, http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm (http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm) but the fundamental in my mind is that:
"Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed." John 20:29 KJ
He doesn't say ,"Blessed are those who accept me on the possiblility that I may exist, because if they didn't believe in me and were wrong and they would burn in hellfire for eternity."
-
I do not reject God. I simply reject the idea that the (non) existance of God is knowable.
Accepting God on the proviso that one could be wrong, so the safe thing to do is accept Him, is a foolish one, as with that notion, one is fooling one's self.
"I better cover my bases because I might be wrong" is not blind faith.
I agree and you have created a strawman.
-
If you reject God now will you feel any differently should you find yourself still aware and thinking after you cross the threshold of death?
This is a paraphrase of Pascal's wager.
It is not my strawman.
-
This is a paraphrase of Pascal's wager.
It is not my strawman.
I was not suggesting you would regret your rejection of God, assuming Christians are right and he does stand and knock at the door of everyone's heart. I was asking that if you reject the Christian God now would you change your mind should you find him to be a reality after you die?
-
If there is a "designer", he isn't a very good one.
(http://animals.nationalgeographic.com/staticfiles/NGS/Shared/StaticFiles/animals/images/primary/platypus.jpg)
-
I was not suggesting you would regret your rejection of God, assuming Christians are right and he does stand and knock at the door of everyone's heart. I was asking that if you reject the Christian God now would you change your mind should you find him to be a reality after you die?
And your question is Pacal's wager.
Logic would say that a reasonable man would change his views based on evidence showing him wrong. I am a reasonable man. But in order for your suggestion to be reasonable, one must assume the existance of an afterlife: something that has no evidence and is therefore unreasonable.
Your question is just an if based on an if.
I have not rejected God, I just have no evidence suggesting his presence.
Whether you realize it or not, you have misrepresented my views: hence the strawman is yours.
-
Rev 3:20 "'Behold, I stand at the door and knock; if anyone hears My voice and opens the door, I will come in to him and will dine with him, and he with Me."
Whether or not you have heard the knock but won't answer is not for me or any other man to say. It is my belief though that everyone will at some or many points hear that knock. That knock may be considered by God sufficient "evidence".
-
So...
The evidence needed to believe... will reveal itself... once you believe...
OK.
Once again logic and faith are not adequate to prove each other.
-
Once again a thread on evolution dissolves into bible class. :rolleyes:
This simple observation proves evolution can move in two directions. Too many scared, intellectually lazy people out there, instead of learning about the world, decided to go make too many copies of themselves and now have gone from riding in the short bus to driving it.
Your genes will win out in the end... you can't fix stupid.
Let the "Devolution" debate begin. The real life Devolution obviously has, at least in the United States. I swear, if there ever was an alien invasion, all they'd have to do is dress one of them up like Jesus, send him down and tell us to shoot ourselves. Pretty sure 85% of of this country might just listen, without a second thought.
I wonder if the loss of rational thought hurt many of you.
-
Well .... that's was insightful.
-
So...
The evidence needed to believe... will reveal itself... once you believe...
OK.
Once again logic and faith are not adequate to prove each other.
I don't think you can believe until you hear the knock and answer. Cause and effect are logical. Can you even have logic without cause and effect? Is it illogical to believe the universe was created if everything we see within it is the result of cause and effect?
-
I was asking that if you reject the Christian God now would you change your mind should you find him to be a reality after you die?
..But at the perverbial gates of Heaven,i would say..
"Yes,my Lord...But you didn't present enough.. may i say.... evidence." .
-
..But at the perverbial gates of Heaven,i would say..
"Yes,my Lord...But you didn't present enough.. may i say.... evidence." .
yes he has, we choose to ignore it though.
-
if you're senile heaven sounds like a great place... the quintessential nanny state clubhouse.
-
and this thread has pretty much made the point.
If you bothered to read the article and the origin of the discussion: atheists, or non-believers vehemently argue their position, so much as to attempt and discredit in any way possible someone who does not agree. They don't care about beliefs of another, they believe in the beliefs of their own and anyone who disagrees is something to be stomped on.
Pot meet kettle, you claim medieval Christians attempted to stomp out non-believers in unjust and unright ways, here you do the exact same. don't think it is any different. That by the way was the point of the whole movie, but guess you just either didn't evolve enough to understand it or ignore it.
-
if you're senile heaven sounds like a great place... the quintessential nanny state clubhouse.
I think you have no idea what "my heaven" is like. Imagine living in the presence of a being that created time and space and all contained therein and you've just begun to glimpse the adventure awaiting us.
-
you claim medieval Christians attempted to stomp out non-believers in unjust and unright ways, here you do the exact same. don't think it is any different.
Dude, it's not like anyone is getting thrown to the lions. There's a wee bit of difference between an intardnet fight and being burned at the stake.
-
Dude, it's not like anyone is getting thrown to the lions. There's a wee bit of difference between an intardnet fight and being burned at the stake.
sources?
-
sources?
for?
Edit: Maybe I didn't pick up sarcasm, if so, my apologies.
-
Storch, Kamilyun can back up what he said with evidence, you can't. Making a joke out of your arguments being as well founded as sand castles is possibly the closest you'll get to having a point.. You could still post evidence for your earlier assertions.
-
for?
Edit: Maybe I didn't pick up sarcasm, if so, my apologies.
:aok
-
I'm sorry, moot. Who's the evolutionist being burned at the stake these days? Or, are you saying that no christain has ever been tourtured, crucified or persecuted at any time in history? I'd be very curious to see what kind of "evidence" you come up with to support that lie.
You (and others) seem to have a very clear veiw of the atrocities of religion and somehow use it to vilify it, while maintaining that "science" is somehow pure. This is a load of crap. Any group will ban together to restrict/resist/persecute another group. Religion is not needed. It's the irony of what is being called science today. It is the irony of "science" such as global warming that insisted there was no argument against it then changed their fight to "climate change" because, erm, they were wrong about the whole GW thing. These are all religions with the same social ramifications.
-
Storch, Kamilyun can back up what he said with evidence, you can't. Making a joke out of your arguments being as well founded as sand castles is possibly the closest you'll get to having a point.. You could still post evidence for your earlier assertions.
there is no evidence to prove the big bang actually occured. the scientific community has to rely solely on speculation and interpretation on this one. as far as evolution is concerned the scientific community has even further mocked science with outright fraud in many instances.
I have yet to take the time to chase myelo's examples but I speculate (the same thing you brainy scireligious types do) that it will be stuff akin to miller-urey, the homology of vertebrate limbs, haeckle's embryos, darwin's finches, the four winged fruit flies thing, the peppered moths and lastly but certainly not least archaeopteryx.
in short I am firmly convinced by my completely objective way of analyzing stuff that your examples are all probably hog wash, hooey, baloney, bullshirt and that you faithful of the scireligion cult have been bamboozled by their high priests.
personal interest and objectivity compells me to read whatever I get my hands on concerning this topic but since I'm not adherent and therefore susceptible to the wiles of either side of this argument I remain a believer with an open mind.
and before I forget, Jesus saves.
-
You (and others) seem to have a very clear veiw of the atrocities of religion and somehow use it to vilify it, while maintaining that "science" is somehow pure.
That does not happen without reason..For example,i think it can be safe to say that the "suicide bombing community" are all faith based.
-
I have yet to take the time to chase myelo's examples but I speculate (the same thing you brainy scireligious types do) that it will be stuff akin to miller-urey, ...
in short I am firmly convinced by my completely objective way of analyzing stuff that your examples are all probably hog wash, hooey, baloney, bullshirt and that you faithful of the scireligion cult have been bamboozled by their high priests.
personal interest and objectivity compells me to read whatever I get my hands on concerning this topic but since I'm not adherent and therefore susceptible to the wiles of either side of this argument I remain a believer with an open mind.
For those scoring at home, let's summarize Storch's method of objective analysis.
1. Claim evolution is hooey because there's no supportive evidence.
2. When confronted with such evidence, don't get around to reading it but just dismiss it.
3. Claim evolution is hooey because there's no supportive evidence.
Yep, hard to see any flaws with that approach.
and before I forget, Jesus saves
He's Jewish, what do you expect?
-
I'm sorry, moot. Who's the evolutionist being burned at the stake these days? Or, are you saying that no christain has ever been tourtured, crucified or persecuted at any time in history? I'd be very curious to see what kind of "evidence" you come up with to support that lie.
You (and others) seem to have a very clear veiw of the atrocities of religion and somehow use it to vilify it, while maintaining that "science" is somehow pure. This is a load of crap. Any group will ban together to restrict/resist/persecute another group. Religion is not needed. It's the irony of what is being called science today. It is the irony of "science" such as global warming that insisted there was no argument against it then changed their fight to "climate change" because, erm, they were wrong about the whole GW thing. These are all religions with the same social ramifications.
:rofl
-
For those scoring at home, let's summarize Storch's method of objective analysis.
1. storch is seldom wrong
2. storch is usually correct
3. storch is damned handsome man
Yep, hard to see any flaws with that approach.
He's Jewish, what do you expect?
well the correct answer would have been yes storch, but moses invests. you silly scirelgionists. oh and don't mention it.
-
well the correct answer would have been yes storch, but moses invests. you silly scirelgionists. oh and don't mention it.
Storch, I respect your passion for your faith, but I now put you in the lazs category. :aok
-
I'm sorry, moot. Who's the evolutionist being burned at the stake these days? Or, are you saying that no christain has ever been tourtured, crucified or persecuted at any time in history? I'd be very curious to see what kind of "evidence" you come up with to support that lie.
You (and others) seem to have a very clear veiw of the atrocities of religion and somehow use it to vilify it, while maintaining that "science" is somehow pure. This is a load of crap. Any group will ban together to restrict/resist/persecute another group. Religion is not needed. It's the irony of what is being called science today. It is the irony of "science" such as global warming that insisted there was no argument against it then changed their fight to "climate change" because, erm, they were wrong about the whole GW thing. These are all religions with the same social ramifications.
What lie?
How is the abstract idea of science anything but pure?
How is an idea based on the exact antithesis of religion, religion?
-
there is no evidence to prove the big bang actually occured. the scientific community has to rely solely on speculation and interpretation on this one. as far as evolution is concerned the scientific community has even further mocked science with outright fraud in many instances.
I have yet to take the time to chase myelo's examples but I speculate (the same thing you brainy scireligious types do) that it will be stuff akin to miller-urey, the homology of vertebrate limbs, haeckle's embryos, darwin's finches, the four winged fruit flies thing, the peppered moths and lastly but certainly not least archaeopteryx.
in short I am firmly convinced by my completely objective way of analyzing stuff that your examples are all probably hog wash, hooey, baloney, bullshirt and that you faithful of the scireligion cult have been bamboozled by their high priests.
personal interest and objectivity compells me to read whatever I get my hands on concerning this topic but since I'm not adherent and therefore susceptible to the wiles of either side of this argument I remain a believer with an open mind.
and before I forget, Jesus saves.
There's nothing objective about a leap of faith as anything more than a personal belief, e.g. as basis for science.
"No evidence for big bang".. There was no evidence for the earth being spherical either. Why don't you take your superstitious arguments to e.g. Stephen Hawking...
-
No idea is pure.
-
I don't think you can believe until you hear the knock and answer. Cause and effect are logical. Can you even have logic without cause and effect? Is it illogical to believe the universe was created if everything we see within it is the result of cause and effect?
My last post on this, as arguing religion is fruitless as argument is based on logic and religion is based on faith.
By definition, logic is faithless and faith is illogical. It is illogical to come up with something that requires a leap of faith, and a leap of faith defies logic.
You ask, “Is it illogical to believe the universe was created if everything we see within it is the result of cause and effect?” Quantum says that things sometimes just happen, so modern physics says that sometimes things are created from nothing.
You ask if it is illogical: It is not illogical to believe the universe was created, as it exists. But that is as far as you can logically go. We cannot logically say something created it if we have no evidence that the whatever is was that did the creating exists. Quantum says it could be that the creation just happened.
If you say God created it, then you must answer the question of who or what created God as in order for Him to exist, He must have been created, just as it is for the Universe.
-
The only pure thing in existence are ideas. <-- see what I did there?
Show how ideas are anything but pure, MiniD.
FWIW Holden put my point of view pretty much word for word as I understand things.
-
Myelo, evolution is not supported by evidence in science. At least, not as it is being defined. I particularly like the link about previously unobservered genetic traits and how a new observed genetic trait is showing up. That's not science. There is not enough data to suggest that a trait has never existed before. There is no real refference to zero it. Hell, the technology to look at it has only been around for a microsliver of time.
Evolutionists have a tendancy to latch on to any result that can support a THEORY. They do not look at all results and then form a theory. The amount of data presented to originally support evolution was miniscule. The theory gained wider acceptance as people became disillusioned with religion yet still felt the need to explain the origin of life, the universe and everything. Science didn't really become the "weapon" of evolutionists for quite a while.
Now... "science" is the axe swung at every instant. I remember seeing a show on the missing link between reptiles and birds. I was interested in seeing the fossile that was presented (someone else mentioned this earlier). I looked at the photos of the fossile being evaluated and noticed the words "could be", "might be" and "suggests" used predominantly. This was evidence. It has since been shown to be wrong, but as long as results were "inconclusive", it was "evidence". What was funny was looking at the photos and wondering how the hell he was getting from point a to point b in his logic given the minimal data set he had (there were no clear markings indicating feathers or scales, just some subtle lines with no detail). Yet this was evidence.
It all reminds me of modern day misteries, where the hero takes a very minute set of data and makes a completely accurate assumption based on it. This does not happen in science. As data fills in, discoveries are made, but just exactly what is being discovered is not obvious until a butt-ton of data comes in. Evolution seems to be exempt from these basic rules of science. Hell... it's already a fact and we still do not have squat in the way of supporting data.
-
The only pure thing in existence are ideas. <-- see what I did there?
Show how ideas are anything but pure, MiniD.
There is no lack of irony to the things you want proof of and the things you're willing to accept on faith. I mean... I know you haven't reviewed all the data on Evolution and formed your own oppinions. You're nothing but a script bot on "these are the things that you say when someone questions evolution." Myelo kicks right in there too. It's so ingrained it's amazing. You cannot recite in matched rythm and call yourself free thinkers.
I'm not going to argue with you on "pure ideas". The very notion is hillarious. The only possibilty for a pure idea would be someone who only ever had one idea prior to hearing, learning or seeing anything else and then died. I honestly don't think you know what the word "pure" means. That, too, is a bit ironic given your instistance scientific method.
-
Alright, so you can't come up with a reason that ideas aren't the only pure thing.. Nevermind the high & mighty condescendence to some guy half your age that asks for nothing more than to learn from someone who apparently knows more than him.. How arrogant is that? :lol
My basis for ideas' purity is in the Platonic sense.. There's nothing more pure than ideas. Maybe it's your definition of pure that's crooked. Why don't you give just one example of an idea not being pure?
So the context to this hair-splitting doesn't get lost: You (and others) seem to have a very clear veiw of the atrocities of religion and somehow use it to vilify it, while maintaining that "science" is somehow pure.
Italics is your erroneous assumption, bold is your explicit assertion which I think is bunk.
I don't have anything against religion. I was baptized myself and went from christian to atheist to agnostic. My problem is with people who pretend to follow an ideal but don't, and so create a whole lot of misinformation by misleading people as in the case of Global Warming, or Flat Earth, or that God is a factual, unquestionable fact (nevermind when that idea of God is anthropomorphized). Blaming science for some crooked "scientists" is like blaming political philosophy or the Constitution for what rotten politicians have done "in their name".
The only faith I take for granted is that I'm not some brain in a jar in the solipsist sense. Everything downstream of that is sanctioned (can't think of a better word in english) by logic.
I think I see what you think of by "pure".
-
My last post on this, as arguing religion is fruitless as argument is based on logic and religion is based on faith.
By definition, logic is faithless and faith is illogical. It is illogical to come up with something that requires a leap of faith, and a leap of faith defies logic.
You ask, “Is it illogical to believe the universe was created if everything we see within it is the result of cause and effect?” Quantum says that things sometimes just happen, so modern physics says that sometimes things are created from nothing.
You ask if it is illogical: It is not illogical to believe the universe was created, as it exists. But that is as far as you can logically go. We cannot logically say something created it if we have no evidence that the whatever is was that did the creating exists. Quantum says it could be that the creation just happened.
If you say God created it, then you must answer the question of who or what created God as in order for Him to exist, He must have been created, just as it is for the Universe.
Well, guess I get the last word then. ;)
If the universe, by which I mean time and space, was created then it stands to reason that there was a creator. Whether this creator is a benevolent all knowing "God" or the pressure of quantum probability (whatever that might be), it needn't have come to be in the same manner existent in it's creation. I would argue that the creator of time cannot be constrained by it's creation.
-
Iron, the problem is that time and space as empirical facts, could be subordinate to some bigger empirical framework.. God as a rational cause of what we can detect and tinker with till we understand is forever receding, in any such setting - where some something supernatural is given as explanation to something natural.
-
Can one of the religious guys please answer my question? What was created first, the sea slug or the bombadier beetle? :aok
-
Myelo, evolution is not supported by evidence in science.
That the genetic characteristics of a population change over time is a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. The only persons who deny this are either so poorly informed as to not understand the evidence or so biased by religious dogma as to deny the evidence.
Regarding the former, since you apparently can comprehend written English and have internet access, there’s really no reason you can’t learn the basics enough to at least understand the topic if you really wanted to. A good start would be:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)
Regarding the latter, it’s true evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, but so does the fact that the earth is not flat. But evolution doesn’t contradict the existence of God in general, because common descent could describe the process used by God. Many people believe both in the existence of God and in evolution, including a lot of biologists and the Pope.
-
Various eggheads answer "Does science make belief in God obsolete?" :
http://www.templeton.org/belief/
Snippet from Shermer's much longer answer:
Science traffics in the natural, not the supernatural. The only God that science could discover would be a natural being, an entity that exists in space and time and is constrained by the laws of nature. A supernatural God would be so wholly Other that no science could know Him.
Does science make belief in God obsolete? Belief, no. God, yes.
-
Iron, the problem is that time and space as empirical facts, could be subordinate to some bigger empirical framework.. God as a rational cause of what we can detect and tinker with till we understand is forever receding, in any such setting - where some something supernatural is given as explanation to something natural.
Forever is a long time. For you and I the answer to whether there is a supernatural will come much sooner. We need only die to have our answer. I'm patient.
-
You first. :)
-
That the genetic characteristics of a population change over time is a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. The only persons who deny this are either so poorly informed as to not understand the evidence or so biased by religious dogma as to deny the evidence.
You're wrong here, myelo. You're wrong on so many levels it's quite funny. You seem to think I'm arguing for religion and creation as defined in the bible when I'm simply arguing that evolution takes the same leap of faith. I am not a victim of dogma.
And now... history seems to be science? Is history imperical? And just what historical evidence is there to explain the origin of a species? The links have not been found and proven (by science) to be links.
Regarding the former, since you apparently can comprehend written English and have internet access, there’s really no reason you can’t learn the basics enough to at least understand the topic if you really wanted to. A good start would be:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-intro-to-biology.html)
Regarding the latter, it’s true evolution contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis, but so does the fact that the earth is not flat. But evolution doesn’t contradict the existence of God in general, because common descent could describe the process used by God. Many people believe both in the existence of God and in evolution, including a lot of biologists and the Pope.
What does the earth being flat have to do with genisis again? That's a few times I've seen it in this thread. I would guess you believe that only the christians thought the world was flat. It definately seems as if you believe the bible says it.
I have no problem with aspects of evolution, but on a micro scale. I've said it before that evolution is subtractive and not additive and have no problem with it in that context. I have no problem looking at various breeds of dogs and understanding how they came to be. I have no problem looking at various species of birds and realizing how they came to be. What I have a serious problem with is the very notion that this all evolved from a single cell that magically appeared in a pond that magically appeared on a planet that magically appeared in a universe that magically popped into existance. Those things are being tought as fact these days.
As for you moot... that's pretty damn funny. Make a senseless statement and declare victory (yep... thoughts are the only pure thing in the universe alrighty). Maybe I should ask you for proof?
-
You're wrong here, myelo. You're wrong on so many levels it's quite funny... You seem to think I'm arguing for religion and creation as defined in the bible when I'm simply arguing that evolution takes the same leap of faith. I am not a victim of dogma.
Evolution requires zero leap of faith...That has to be the stupidist thing said in this entire thread.
-
My last post on this, as arguing religion is fruitless as argument is based on logic and religion is based on faith.
By definition, logic is faithless and faith is illogical. It is illogical to come up with something that requires a leap of faith, and a leap of faith defies logic.
You ask, “Is it illogical to believe the universe was created if everything we see within it is the result of cause and effect?” Quantum says that things sometimes just happen, so modern physics says that sometimes things are created from nothing.
You ask if it is illogical: It is not illogical to believe the universe was created, as it exists. But that is as far as you can logically go. We cannot logically say something created it if we have no evidence that the whatever is was that did the creating exists. Quantum says it could be that the creation just happened.
If you say God created it, then you must answer the question of who or what created God as in order for Him to exist, He must have been created, just as it is for the Universe.
I'll take advantage here of having the final last word over you !80} It's logical for the farmer to plant a field and yet have faith it will yield.
Quantum says getting something from nothing only works if your on welfare.
If I said God created I'll add the definition of God that he is self existent infinite and eternal according to the evidence provided.
Can one of the religious guys please answer my question? What was created first, the sea slug or the bombardier beetle?
Hey Skyrock, the Torah gives them both to be created on the fifth literal day of creation.
Let the slough march on.
-
Forever is a long time. For you and I the answer to whether there is a supernatural will come much sooner. We need only die to have our answer. I'm patient.
If I were irresponsible enough to evaluate things based on faith rather than reason and empirical evidence, then I'd say that yes, there's definitely a way for us to divine everything, from the future to what's supposed to be "impenetrable" ways. If that supernatural judgement day comes up, I'll at least have the clear conscience of having done things reasonably rather than on some random leap of faith.
-
Evolution requires zero leap of faith...That has to be the stupidist thing said in this entire thread.
Is that because evolution is backed up by so many facts?
-
Evolution requires zero leap of faith...That has to be the stupidist thing said in this entire thread.
do you get issued a robe and pointy hat in your religion when you first join up? how about pointy curly up tipped loafers?
-
If I were irresponsible enough to evaluate things based on faith rather than reason and empirical evidence, then I'd say that yes, there's definitely a way for us to divine everything, from the future to what's supposed to be "impenetrable" ways. If that supernatural judgement day comes up, I'll at least have the clear conscience of having done things reasonably rather than on some random leap of faith.
I promise you that your day will come and it may be here much sooner than you expect. If you believe there is no supernatural and you're right how will your reason profit you then? I agree that doing things reasonably is better than taking some random leap of faith. I don't think you'll find anyone here that believes their faith to be a random leap though. To the contrary, it's probably safe to say that all believe their faith reasonable based on their experience.
-
Evolution requires zero leap of faith...That has to be the stupidist thing said in this entire thread.
LOL! Yeppers, you got me there. It's all been proven and is based on science. Something came from nothing just like science says it would.
-
As for you moot... that's pretty damn funny. Make a senseless statement and declare victory (yep... thoughts are the only pure thing in the universe alrighty). Maybe I should ask you for proof?
Declare victory where? Yes, by all means ask for proof for whatever.I promise you that your day will come and it may be here much sooner than you expect. I agree that doing things reasonably is better than taking some random leap of faith.
Sure, and I've got 7 virgins waiting for me if I go enlist in the nearest jihad office and gobble up all the superstitious crap they've got for me..
As for dying, I've come close three times already by my own doing, and probably more times in situations where I had no control. Whatever that's worth.
If you believe there is no supernatural and you're right how will your reason profit you then?
That's the thing you don't seem to get. I don't feed any sort of belief on supposed supernatural.
Second, where did I say I was looking to profit?
I don't think you'll find anyone here that believes their faith to be a random leap though. To the contrary, it's probably safe to say that all believe their faith reasonable based on their experience.
Bolded the key word. All the jihadists also "believe" their faith is reasonable based on their experience. An example that might tickle some people the wrong way, but that's beside the point.
LOL! Yeppers, you got me there. It's all been proven and is based on science. Something came from nothing just like science says it would.
Science doesn't say the universe came from nothing, anymore than it says there's nothing beyond black holes' singularity. Science is a process.
-
What's the point of reason if not profit?
-
I think we covered this already. My only agenda is knowing more. Put me in front of those supposed pearly gates and I'll be thinking "interesting..." :lol
Second goal is to get off this piece of rock. If I get to go see other stars and nebulas etc, even better.
-
What's the point of reason if not profit?
That's a bit cynical.
Some people are just interested in learning how stuff works. I'll never make a dime off of an oil slick rainbow, but understanding why it's there is kind of cool. ;)
-
That's a bit cynical.
Some people are just interested in learning how stuff works. I'll never make a dime off of an oil slick rainbow, but understanding why it's there is kind of cool. ;)
By profit I mean to gain something of value, it needn't be financial gain. To gain knowledge from study could be profitable.
-
I don't see how that's not a loaded question... What does the fruits of my rational labors in a natural framework have to do with what I'll do or think or be once in a supernatural framework, which couldn't have been predicted in anyway beforehand?
Do you see the futility of any fancy of the mind, about what's beyond the natural (no derailing puns pls) world? It could be anything and everything. There's no sense in arguing any of it. So I'm not going to waste my time here in this natural world debating what would take infinity to figure out even one iota about it.
We did this same argument before. The only way to sample even the most infinitely small quantity of something supernatural/infinite, is to study it for infinity, if we are gaining knowledge at anything less than an infinite pace. So we'll never learn anything about the infinite, untill we've reached an infinite rate of learning, and such a pace would equate to being infinite ourselves.
-
There are a lot of unexplained things out there. God may not be part of the scientific method. All that means is science has no explanation for God. Science is limited in this respect to physical explanations of what goes on in our world. If God created all things in the Universe, and science does not accept God, it stands to reason science stays within its boundaries of practicality specifically and limited to physical things. It goes so far and then philosophy fills in. Philosophy includes the idea of God. Philosophy is part of science.
Science is of great value to mankind, but is limited by logic. Logic is not absolute truth in all instances. I have read logic has flaws and is not dependable in proving something true. Logic is limited in what it can do.
Most great scientists are great because they believe in God. Of course this is my opinion, so don't ask for links. It's my opinion. I'm not a scientist, but I do believe it takes an open minded and curious person to be a scientist. I'm an artist by trade. My brother was a scientist with NASA for about 40 years. He was Chief of Propulsion at MSFC for about five years and was offered a professorship at California Institute of Technology which he turned down to remain with his family. He died at the age of 63 back in 2001. I wish he was here now and am curious what he would say about all this discussion of science. If he was alive now he would probably respond about science if I asked him. He was a scientist.
He mentioned to me that rockets are not sure things and that it's a miracle when they work as designed. From that I gathered everyone involved prayed a manned rocket would work as expected. They prayed to God. Even with all the work and double checking and triple checking, they still prayed it would work.
If these scientists that actually make things work have the ability to believe in God, is there no room for God in science? I realize God is not part of calculus or physics or mathematics. Everything works by formulas and God is not in there anywhere. It is an exact science. The miracle occurs when it's put to the test of reality and is not just theory or conjecture.
In the matter of evolution it may be evolution is how God did things. Certainly with something as tenuous as explaining the origins of life by scientific means, one guess is as good as another which makes for a very theoretical science at best and one which cannot be etched in stone. And this is the fundamental principle as it should be presented. We do not know so let's move on to what we do know.
Les
-
Are you sure it's not the other way around, that science is part of philosophy?
Because God isn't a process, science can't include God. And if it can't be detected, science is no use to it, and conversely, there's no scientific use to such an "impenetrable" thing. What do you do with something supernatural? You don't "do" anything, because you don't understand it and can't predict anything it does.. and in fact that's the other way around too, it does you. Gathering data on it (supposing it can be detected) will by principle be limited to 'stamp collecting'.
You can't detect and scientificaly study the supernatural any more than a camera can see inside itself.
Science doesn't 'reject' or 'accept' God, it is simply not concerned with it. The only real domain of faith is personal, it's in people's minds. That's my opinion, I don't have any proof for that, just a sense of it from a vague pattern in everything I've lived. Religion forced onto others is tyranny. It's tyranny because there is no possible empirical proof to back up any sort of religious assertion. Which is nicely illustrated by all the "religious" wars in history: Both sides in today's christian-muslim conflict "believe" they are right.
Meanwhile, the cold hard fact of bullets+skull, based on "assumptions" that material engineering of the weapon and projectile's alloys, chemistry of the charge, ballistic physics of the trajectory, and biology of the combatants all work to something like 99.999% of the scientificaly predicted results.. So much for science as a means of accurate learning right?
If you can't force religion on others, you certainly can't force it on science.
I think I'm gonna quit this thread too, because for now at least, I think the argument that faith is any sort of substitute for empirical method of science is insanity, litteraly. Some of you guys see a meaningful understanding of things that's progressing and tending towards perfection (regardless if it never reaches it, that's not the point), and your suggestion for improving it is to throw a wrench of irrationality, faith, religion, into this mechanic.
You see an exponential curve in information technologies, and chalk it up to dumb luck, if not flat out "erroneous assumptions".
Insane. Regardless of how romantic it might seem, seen from inside.
I mean, what's next, the mystical science of rocketry? You think rockets are unpredictable now, wait till random irregularities in their theoretical studies start hatching practical flukes the way cosmic rays disrupt the signals of deep space instruments... The noise/signal ratio of that New Mystical Rocketry science is gonna go through the roof.
You guys argue and argue like logic and reason was worth something, but then flip right around and say that one application of that same logic and reason is faulty because it happens to conflict with some myth, when that myth is interpreted in just one of the almost infinite number of ways it could be interpreted.
<S>
-
Something came from nothing just like science says it would.
The "something came outta nothing" argument.. sheesh.
I think we could all agree that we have "something" right now..And we know that 3 billion years from now,"nothingness" is coming(the Andromeda Galaxy colliding with ours)..In fact,"nothingness" is the next big thing for our solar system.We know it's coming.
Some design huh?
What about all the imploded stars and failed solar systems?What about our planet being so wonderfully constructed that it can only support life some of the time on only some of it's surface?What about the 99% failure rate(extinction) for species on this planet?(what you see living now on this planet is the remaining 1%)...When is your god gonna take responsibility for that?
In fact,recent diggings in Africa show that we as a species were only down to a few thousand examples..And we could have easily joined the 99% club of extinction had the decision to move on(because of climactic reasons) not been made.
btw..if you send $100 and a DNA sample to National Geographic magazine,they will map your DNA and tell you from what region of Africa you desended from.
-
3 billion years from now,"nothingness" is coming(the Andromeda Galaxy colliding with ours)..In fact,"nothingness" is the next big thing for our solar system.We know it's coming.
Some design huh?
What about all the imploded stars and failed solar systems?What about our planet being so wonderfully constructed that it can only support life some of the time on only some of it's surface?What about the 99% failure rate(extinction) for species on this planet?(what you see living now on this planet is the remaining 1%)...When is your god gonna take responsibility for that?
Anthropomorphisms.
-
The "something came outta nothing" argument.. sheesh.
I think we could all agree that we have "something" right now..And we know that 3 billion years from now,"nothingness" is coming(the Andromeda Galaxy colliding with ours)..In fact,"nothingness" is the next big thing for our solar system.We know it's coming.
Some design huh?
Tell me, when the Andromeda Galaxy collides with ours and creates this "nothingness", will EVERYTHING be gone...the entire universe?
You seem to be implying just that.
-
What was created first, the sea slug or the bombadier beetle? :aok
I have no idea, Skyrock....do you?
-
I'm sorry, but did someone just dismiss the origins of the universe by saying "it's all going to end anyways"? There's more science for you! Now... how do you explain the big bang theory and it's relevance to science? This is strictly theory based with no scientific data to back it up, yet it's believed. How can you not call that faith? The basic premise that we cannot comprehend the beginning of the universe seems to be something many are not willing to concede. They find a faith and a religion that explains it as well as is needed and stick with it insisting anyone thinking otherwise is insane. The very notion that something just went pop and there was a universe is as much of a stretch as believing some being outside of our realm of understanding initiated that pop.
At least christians are willing to concede the faith-based aspect of their belief. Those arguing for evolution seem to think they're belief is much more secure because scientists agree with it.
-
Science doesn't say the universe came from nothing, anymore than it says there's nothing beyond black holes' singularity. Science is a process.
I didn't say science said something came from nothing. That was sarcasm because nothing we've discovered, using science has even remotely hinted at the possibility. There are little things called "laws" that say it's impossible. Yet the fundamental question "where did it all come from" is explained by first throwing scientific evidence out the window and just making something up by christians and evolutionists.
-
At least christians are willing to concede the faith-based aspect of their belief. Those arguing for evolution seem to think they're belief is much more secure because scientists agree with it.
that is my point as well and have stated on all of these threads . it takes equal faith to believe in the creator as it takes to believe what what cosmologists have offered up in the last one hundred or so years.
-
I almost get the feeling that scientists are so hell bent on proving that intelligence wasn't required for life to exisist that they're working to create life themselves so that they can turn and say "see... no intelligent being is needed to create life."
-
I almost get the feeling that scientists are so hell bent on proving that intelligence wasn't required for life to exisist that they're working to create life themselves so that they can turn and say "see... no intelligent being is needed to create life."
look at the four winged fruit flies thing that is exactly what theodosius dobzhansky did in 1937. call me stupid but there is clear evidence of intelligent design for you.
<edit> I almost forgot geneticist ed lewis of CIT was awarded the 1995 nobel prize for his research on the four winged fruit fly and it's developement. the scientific community love citing these examples but neglect to mention that the process took three separate mutations all of which were carried out under controlled conditions and that the second set of wings do not function. the appendages called halteres which work as counterbalances to the flies functional wings were better than the second set of wings. what we have in the four winged fruit fly is actually evolution in reverse!!!
I love the scireligious crowd, they manipulate creation, produce something non functional and then laud themselves for their brilliance.
I'm chuckling right now as type this BTW.
-
Science is not about disproving the existence of God. Quite simply science cannot disprove the existence of God. It can disprove certains tracts of the Bible. Which apparently is the big problem for many people who have an over reliance on the Bible. So they attack evolution as bad science, oblivious to the irony that their version of events relies entirely on a single story in a single book written thousands of years ago.
There is absolutely no evidence for God, nor indeed is their evidence to the contrary. If you believe in any God, you cannot prove it's existence. But no one, no science can prove the entity you believe in does not exist.
Scientists are not out to get God :noid A scientist's job is to investigate how the world works. No more, no less.
-
Science is not about disproving the existence of God. Quite simply science cannot disprove the existence of God. It can disprove certains tracts of the Bible. Which apparently is the big problem for many people who have an over reliance on the Bible. So they attack evolution as bad science, oblivious to the irony that their version of events relies entirely on a single story in a single book written thousands of years ago.
There is absolutely no evidence for God, nor indeed is their evidence to the contrary. If you believe in any God, you cannot prove it's existence. But no one, no science can prove the entity you believe in does not exist.
Scientists are not out to get God :noid A scientist's job is to investigate how the world works. No more, no less.
that's nice in print but not actually true. what you have in all hellbound people is the equivalent of an ostrich sticking his head in the sand (I know they don't really but it serves to make my point here) ultimately it is an attempt at self agrandisement, it's pride and nothing less.
-
Science is not about disproving the existence of God. Quite simply science cannot disprove the existence of God.
You're confusing the term science with scientists.
-
What does the earth being flat have to do with genisis again? That's a few times I've seen it in this thread. I would guess you believe that only the christians thought the world was flat.
Of course not. I don't fault the anonymous authors of Genesis for not knowing the earth was a sphere. Nobody did at the time. But as science moved forward we realized the earth wasn't flat. And it's not 10,000 years old. Rabbits aren't ruminants. There was no global flood. The different languages didn't all originate at the same time. And the extant species, including human beings, did not originate separately in their present forms.
These are facts regardless of whether it's more distressing for you to give up the religious dogma then it is to deal with the cognitive dissonance of accepting some of these facts but denying others.
What I have a serious problem with is the very notion that this all evolved from a single cell that magically appeared in a pond that magically appeared on a planet that magically appeared in a universe that magically popped into existance. Those things are being tought as fact these days.
Once again you're confusing abiogenesis with evolution. Evolution does not deal with the origin of life or the origin of the universe. Although there are several ideas about these occurred, there is no clear consensus on the details.
But more to the point for our discussion, you don't seem to have a problem at all accepting how things could magically pop into existence, because that's exactly what ID presumes. God magically created a universe, life, and so on, not to mention you have to accept that God himself somehow popped magically into being.
Claiming God did it, doesn't solve anything. It just moves the question back one level. If the universe was designed, who designed the designer?
-
well I finally got around to reading on the stuff myelo posted regading observances in evolution.
I read up on ted mosquins observances in fireweeds and as I suspected it is the result of tampering in the laboratory while doing research to curb the rapid spread of this aggressive species but as with many attempts along this line they could not test for speciation because the manipulated product was sterile as it was a hybrid.
bzzzzzzz another failure and actually more fuel for the ID camp. on to the cichlids I supose, mayr's work was with african cichlids correct?
-
.
-
So this doesn't get locked.. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html & of course 300+ comments on that same article's page :lol
-
So this doesn't get locked.. http://www.newscientist.com/channel/life/dn14094-bacteria-make-major-evolutionary-shift-in-the-lab.html & of course 300+ comments on that same article's page :lol
Thanks, Matt, good read. :aok
-
Another write-up on the same topic.
http://arstechnica.com/articles/culture/conservapedias-evolutionary-foibles.ars
-
wow this looks bad for us creationists. about as bad as miller-urey did in 1953. I got a chuckle out the response from the whiney toned second linky. I'm going out on a limb here and stating that we will see tampering on some level here as the scrutiny of the dissenters is applied but time will tell.
the litmus test for this raging debate will come when upon the millisecond after your death you find yourself before your creator and needing to settle accounts. I wonder, will you have your notebook with you?
-
Not even close...
-
the litmus test for this raging debate will come when upon the millisecond after your death you find yourself before your creator and needing to settle accounts. I wonder, will you have your notebook with you?
Probably not, since you'll be dead. No brain activity, no account to settle. You won't even know you're dead.
-
upon the millisecond after your death you find yourself before your creator and needing to settle accounts. I wonder, will you have your notebook with you?
I have given this great and deep thought and come to the conclusion that my first move before the Almighty will be to moon him.
-
I have given this great and deep thought and come to the conclusion that my first move before the Almighty will be to moon him.
Mind posting that on Youtube if you get the chance? Not sure hell with have internet wi-fi :rofl
-
upon the millisecond after your death you find yourself before your creator and needing to settle accounts. I wonder, will you have your notebook with you?
Oh my Jod --- I plan on sneaking in ... I'm screwed that me and the several hundred thousand souls entering Heaven at the same time will be at the God counter ordering milk shakes and getting judged... I'm hoping he is a forgiving God... Cuz i still laff at that Jesus painting and the 3 guys doing the YMCA thing ..that is still floating around the intardnet.....
:pray
NwBie
-
We may all get an opportunity to revise our opinions in this life in the not so distant future. Significant ancient bible prophecy may be fulfilled sooner rather than later. If you see Russia and Iran marching on Israel know that it was foretold over 2500 years ago.
-
You're confusing the term science with scientists.
Science depends on fact; Religion depends on faith.
-
"The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator?"
-- Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time
-
No doubt Stephen Hawking is a lot smarter than me but why would a self contained universe have to be creatorless? Only means that the creator of space/time exists beyond it. I understand that is a difficult concept to embrace.
-
Remember, only Man demands that something MUST be created for there is no way that anything could have been already there.
-
Remember, only Man demands that something MUST be created for there is no way that anything could have been already there.
From within the perspective of space/time, it always was and always will be. Without space/time how could there be any thing, beginning, or end? A question is can there be a continuation or event without space/time as we know it? I believe the answer is a qualified yes, it won't be an existence we can understand from within our perspective of space/time.
-
I have given this great and deep thought and come to the conclusion that my first move before the Almighty will be to moon him.
I like you so I will advise you buy asbestos underware.
-
No doubt Stephen Hawking is a lot smarter than me but why would a self contained universe have to be creatorless? Only means that the creator of space/time exists beyond it. I understand that is a difficult concept to embrace.
It's not difficult.. The creatorless-universe may be just one of an infinite recession/series of intermediate steps to "creation" which some unimaginable "Creator" sparked off eons ago. Picking the one we lowly humans (as we are now) can detect NOW, as the one final conclusive "proof" of supernatural/godly fingerprint, is pretty shortsighted.I like you so I will advise you buy asbestos underware.
I'm sure he'll have a sense of humor, and disposing of an eternity and infinite Goodness, will allow for the time to go for a beer or two to shoot the poop before sending me to hell in eternal damnation.
From within the perspective of space/time, it always was and always will be. Without space/time how could there be any thing, beginning, or end? A question is can there be a continuation or event without space/time as we know it? I believe the answer is a qualified yes, it won't be an existence we can understand from within our perspective of space/time.
Anthropomorphism. 2000 years ago, we wouldn't have understood jack of what what today's average joe does... Everyday happenstances 2000 years from now will be explonentialy more out of reach from us.. space/time may well be some tired old paradigm. etc.
-
Everyday happenstances 2000 years from now will be explonentialy more out of reach from us.. space/time may well be some tired old paradigm. etc.
Then again, 2000 years from now humans could be living in conditions resembling the stone age, if "progress" continues in it's current direction. You and I won't won't be around to see any significant changes anyway you look at it.
-
cue Kurzweil/DeGrey
-
Probably not, since you'll be dead. No brain activity, no account to settle. You won't even know you're dead.
I hope for your sake you are correct and I am completely wrong. I hope for your sake the creator says let's look at what you typed in response to my servant storch on that obscure BBS on July 1, 2008.......