RETIRED: Creation or Evolustionists theory [Archive] - Page 9

Libertarian

08-06-2009, 03:14 PM

So prior to photography, nothing was scientific? Were the drawings of images Galileo saw through his telescope not scientific? How about Antonie Philips van Leeuwenhoek or Robert Hooke's drawings of microorganisms? I suppose Henry Gray's anatomical drawings weren't science either.

Sure, Haeckel fudged some of his drawings but most of them are consistent with reality. Design also doesn't explain why the order of development follows the evolutionary path such as the human cerebrum developing last or whales developing legs that recede during embryonic development. Why does the designer give mammals a useless yolk sac?

Why hasn't anyone ever answered the question asked previously here as to why a designer would give the appearance of a nested hierarchy, something that was observed by Linnaeus long before Darwin. A designer should be able to reuse parts without this relationship between various species.
Nowadays, with modern gene sequencing, there is even more evidence to support common ancestry. Why would a designer not only reuse chimpanzee genes in a human but fuse two of the chimp chromosomes giving us Human Chromosome 2? The genes of modern organisms can be traced back to one another, very much like forensic detective work, we can see the splices, additions, frame shifts and recombinations of various genes and the proteins they make. It isn't always the similarities but the genetic differences that give us strong evidence for evolution. We can look at the computer code for Mozilla and see Netscape in it's 'evolutionary' history yet IE and Firefox have many similarities in how they look and act on the computer but have very different origins and coding. Design should work the same, similar organism would not necessarily have to have similar code. Yet evolutionary theory allows us to make predictions as to what we will find when looking at these changes in the genome, that there is a distinct evolutionary steps that can be seen when looking at related organisms. What can design predict? Design should give us no temporal relationship between various species, even if code is reused. There should be no need for nested hierarchies. Was the designer trying to deceive us?

Thanks for answering for me.. I was going to say all of that...really. :P

It is very interesting about whales developing temporary legs as fetuses.. I've heard of that sort of thing happening in other species.. People still actually have the apparatus in place for a human tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigial#Coccyx) similar to a monkey's. It lost it's place in humans during the evolutionary process but some people are born with a genetic defect where the tail gene isn't turned "off" entirely and they sprout tails that can measure from 2-6 inches. It's not a pretty sight but with a search of google video I'm sure you can find a few examples. ;)

And you make an excellent point at the end of your post. I'd like an answer for talgot or Superdan on this. If God is perfect, and man was created in God's (perfect) image, WHY do so many animals (including humans) have vestigial parts? What was the point? Did God make whales grow legs just to LOL at the look on human's faces once we became advanced enough to study such things? Is this another instance of him "testing our faith" like he did by making dinosaur bones appear to be 230 million years older than humanity?

Phreaker47

08-06-2009, 03:19 PM

darkfrog

08-06-2009, 04:18 PM

Thanks for answering for me.. I was going to say all of that...really. :P

It is very interesting about whales developing temporary legs as fetuses.. I've heard of that sort of thing happening in other species.. People still actually have the apparatus in place for a human tail (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_vestigial#Coccyx) similar to a monkey's. It lost it's place in humans during the evolutionary process but some people are born with a genetic defect where the tail gene isn't turned "off" entirely and they sprout tails that can measure from 2-6 inches. It's not a pretty sight but with a search of google video I'm sure you can find a few examples. ;)
Sorry Lib, didn't mean to steal your thunder. :P

I just get so tired of the creationist argument that the similarities between us and other species are because it is efficient for a designer to re-use engineering ideas that work well. That conclusion has multiple problems, only a few of which I touched on in my post.

The creationists cannot seem to answer some of these basic questions as evidenced by the silence that has occurred every time someone brings them up. Not one of them has proposed why what they consider macro-evolution cannot occur while they will accept the changes in the genome that micro-evolution provides. It can easily be shown these small micro changes produce speciation where two groups of what were once the same species have diverged enough due to isolation to where they can no longer breed with one another. These changes also are able to produce vastly different physical traits to which even they admit a 5 year old can tell the difference between them. Why then is it impossible for these changes to build up over large stretches of time to produce the variety we see today? I think part of the reason is because people have a very hard time understanding and conceptualizing deep time, I know I still do. Imagine that the age of the earth, 4.5 is represented by a 24 hour clock, every second represents about 52,000 years. That means that man has only arrived here in the last few seconds before midnight. The dinosaurs when extinct about 11:40pm but their reign began way back around 10:25pm. The first multicellular life didn't emerge until about 6:46pm.

These geologic time scales are so vast, it's hard to imagine them. However, once we understand them, why is it so hard to fathom the diversification we do see, knowing how the genome can change so relatively rapidly in isolated populations?

superdan54

08-06-2009, 08:57 PM

And you make an excellent point at the end of your post. I'd like an answer for talgot or Superdan on this. If God is perfect, and man was created in God's (perfect) image, WHY do so many animals (including humans) have vestigial parts?

As I told kharvel in the other thread, being made in God's image has nothing to do with any physical similarites, in fact it says that God is invisible. Thus, the image we possess is something immaterial, a spirit. Furthermore, Paul gives somewhat of a dualistic outlook of the body (flesh) and soul in Romans 8:7-10

7 the mind set on the flesh is hostile toward God; for it does not subject itself to the law of God, for it is not even able to do so ;
8 and those who are in the flesh cannot please God.
9 However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him.
10 And if Christ is in you, though the body is dead because of sin, yet the spirit is alive because of righteousness.

I say this to emphasize that the existence of vestigial structures in our body bears no consequence theologically, because the body is corrupt anyway. As I see it, Adam & Christ were the only two humans to be born free of corruption. Adam still sinned anyway, but Christ became the perfect, unblemished offering so that the rest of us can obtain freedom as children of God.

Libertarian

08-06-2009, 09:05 PM

(ignoring the nonsensical bible quote)

I say this to emphasize that the existence of vestigial structures in our body bears no consequence theologically, because the body is corrupt anyway. Adam & Christ were the only two humans to be born free of this genetic corruption, Adam still sinned anyway, but Christ became the perfect, unblemished offering so that the rest of us can obtain freedom as children of God.

First, what the hell does this mean?

Secondly, what the hell does this mean? Is this your explanation for why God put obvious signs of evolution (you can call them "flaws" if you want) inside us and all of his other creatures?

superdan54

08-06-2009, 09:20 PM

First, what the hell does this mean?

Secondly, what the hell does this mean? Is this your explanation for why God put obvious signs of evolution (you can call them "flaws" if you want) inside us and all of his other creatures?

Yeah, genetic corruption wasn't the best wording for such a short summation, which is why I edited it out. I never said God created vestigial structures as is, I'm satisfied with the natural explanation. You asked for an answer to its relation in terms of the image of God, I'm telling you its a non-issue. To me it actually emphasizes the state of man as told in the Bible (i.e. man is genetically unable to live up to God's standard). If you will bear with me, I'd be happy to explain better, but as you saw before it's hopelessly difficult to do in a few short sentences.

(ignoring the nonsensical bible quote)

In all fairness, I try my best to sincerely look at the scientific data. You hand-waving away any biblical quote as nonsense doesn't speak well for your objectivity. Perhaps there are great truths you are missing out on with your dismissive and sometimes condescending manner. I say this from personal experience, not because I think myself superior.

darkfrog

08-06-2009, 09:31 PM

I keep hearing http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Sync-crickets.jpg

Maybe their studying up, which is a way of saying furiously searching the internet to see of a creationist website has the answers.

Dan, I know you probably have your own thoughts on the matter. Does the genetic code give us reasonable evidence that supports common descent or not? You've already given up the notion that the earth is only thousands of years old versus billions, when does the evidence pointing toward evolution by natural selection reaches a toppling point with you? You already know that you don't automatically become an atheist as soon as you accept Darwin was correct, you can still have an appreciation for a being that created the Cosmos with very simple sets of laws that are rational and can be observed. Of course one of these ideas is that everything is made up of matter and energy and so far, there does not seem to be anything like a soul so that is one of the reasons I feel there is insufficient evidence that people that have spiritual experiences are are acting on innately human experiences. Funny it appears to be an evolutionary advantage as well, linking together larger, stronger, social groups. Throughout history, people have seen angels, demons, and now aliens, many of them very similar experiences. Now, science can explain many of these as routine sleep paralysis, a very human condition. However, try telling that to an abductee...

It has also been an evolutionary advantage to be led by a strong alpha male, whether in religion, politics, or work. Societies could look to them for answers to the tough questions. Many unscrupulous people have taken advantage of that and that's where we get suppression of heretical ideas, the Keplers and Galileos, as well as all of medieval times to the Hitlers and Mao Zedongs. It has only been since the Enlightenment that free thought has been rewarded again, often answering many of the questions we have had about the world through the lens of science. Of course, the thought of no afterlife is a frightening aspect for many people. The dawn of modern man is often recognized by if they buried their dead, meaning they could conceptualize a life beyond death. Since I don't find there is any evidence in support in an afterlife, in spite of this sudden resurgence of fascination with ghosts, I feel it is important to make an impact in this life, so future generations can build upon my knowledge just as we now sit on the shoulders of giants.

Libertarian

08-06-2009, 09:37 PM

superdan54

08-06-2009, 11:22 PM

I'm sorry Dan.. Most of the quotes you post sound like another language to me, but when I can scrape the pieces of biblical quotes together with your thoughts and summarize the statement in plain english, the explanations just seem laughable. Basically what you are saying here is that man can't live up to God's standard...that Jesus and Adam were the only two humans created without flaws..and that because Adam ate a magical apple, he was kicked out of the Garden of Eden and his descendants were forever condemned to grow tailbones. I know that summary may sound condescending, but this is essentially what you are saying put into standard english. I can respect you as a person but I can't help but be dismissive about such opinions. It's hard to fathom how a rational person could hold them.

I apologize, teaching is not something I've ever been good at. I don't think linearly, so often my explanations come out jumbled. Couple that with the fact that I liberally use Christian theology foreign to most, and its a recipe for disaster.

I have to admit I smiled when reading your post, the tailbones bit was pretty funny. But no, that's not really what I believe. I differ greatly with most Christians when it comes to the Creation account, which makes it even harder for me to explain, but I will try and write everything down someday when I get all my ducks in a row. I've got several loose theories, but all are works in progress, and I'm sure I've got years of debate & study ahead of me before I can entrench myself to a particular worldview like the rest of y'all.

superdan54

08-07-2009, 01:32 AM

Dan, I know you probably have your own thoughts on the matter. Does the genetic code give us reasonable evidence that supports common descent or not? You've already given up the notion that the earth is only thousands of years old versus billions, when does the evidence pointing toward evolution by natural selection reaches a toppling point with you?

Dang, I was hoping you'd never call me out ;). Well I've actually considered it strongly for a while now. I'd have to say that in the least I'm apathetic towards evolution while by default ascribing to progressive creation. At most, I'd lean towards punctuated equilibrium.

I certainly think there is reasonable evidence for common descent, yet I still have some reservations, mostly with the fossil record, and it's pattern of relative stasis-rapid change.

You already know that you don't automatically become an atheist as soon as you accept Darwin was correct, you can still have an appreciation for a being that created the Cosmos with very simple sets of laws that are rational and can be observed.

Yeah, I'm definitely not in less awe of God now. Plus while the concept may be conceivably simple, the details are nearly infinite!

My view on God's hand in Creation hasn't largely changed actually. I still see amazing creatures such as the splash tetra, which mate in air and deposit their eggs on a suspended leaf above the water, then spend the next several days splashing water on them to keep them hydrated until they hatch. I dunno, even if the behavior was a trait formed naturally, to me it just speaks to something deeper, just as it did before.

I suppose the one area of creation I view differently now is in regards to predatory relationships, like the brachnoid wasp & aphid. Before, like most I suppose I viewed them as a product of the fall of Adam, but now I see it as an integral part of the natural laws God has used to let the Earth bring forth its animals & plants.

Of course one of these ideas is that everything is made up of matter and energy and so far, there does not seem to be anything like a soul so that is one of the reasons I feel there is insufficient evidence that people that have spiritual experiences are are acting on innately human experiences. Funny it appears to be an evolutionary advantage as well, linking together larger, stronger, social groups. Throughout history, people have seen angels, demons, and now aliens, many of them very similar experiences. Now, science can explain many of these as routine sleep paralysis, a very human condition.

Yeah well most of my spiritual experiences don't happen when I'm asleep, so there :P.

We're stuck in a paradigm, either God doesn't exist (or doesn't care), or he's designed a covenental relationship to be built upon faith. Even if you can naturally explain away every single claim of a spiritual experience, the paradigm will remain.

The one major problem I have seen the more "objective" I become is that I become more and more reliant upon empirical evidences as truth. Certainly they should be a crucial part of a worldview, but if you make them your sole cornerstone, you completely negate the possibility of the other end of the paradigm, a possibility you can't relegate to statistics :nod:.

p.s. the fam is in town this weekend so I most likely won't post for awhile.

luvtoargue

08-07-2009, 05:16 AM

I apologize, teaching is not something I've ever been good at. I don't think linearly, so often my explanations come out jumbled. Couple that with the fact that I liberally use Christian theology foreign to most, and its a recipe for disaster.

I have to admit I smiled when reading your post, the tailbones bit was pretty funny. But no, that's not really what I believe. I differ greatly with most Christians when it comes to the Creation account, which makes it even harder for me to explain, but I will try and write everything down someday when I get all my ducks in a row. I've got several loose theories, but all are works in progress, and I'm sure I've got years of debate & study ahead of me before I can entrench myself to a particular worldview like the rest of y'all.

Maybe the jumbling is in your head?

So you're essentially...pulling it out of your ass? Making it up as you go?

Personally...I think you're wasting your time...

I'm not trying to be offensive towards you...I've "studied" religion too and I've found it ALL to be nothing but a load of BS. Hopefully, you will realize it too...

Epiphyte

08-07-2009, 05:23 AM

Maybe the jumbling is in your head?

So you're essentially...pulling it out of your ass? Making it up as you go?

Personally...I think you're wasting your time...

I'm not trying to be offensive towards you...I've "studied" religion too and I've found it ALL to be nothing but a load of BS. Hopefully, you will realize it too...

Note: Please do not take luvtoargue's statements as representative of the opinions of most atheists.

Phreaker47

08-08-2009, 12:00 AM

Comedy break!

Well, I guess only SOME would find it funny.

I'm watching Family Guy the other night, and in it a doctor is telling Peter he is retarded. He explains to Peter just where he's at with this chart:

http://www.dererumnatura.us/archives/images/petarded.png

:D :D :D

darkfrog

08-09-2009, 11:06 AM

Dang, I was hoping you'd never call me out ;)
Thanks for answering my friend.

The fossil record shouldn't be an impediment to accepting common ancestry since we understand there are rare conditions necessary to create fossils so we expect many gaps. Also, the record is only one piece of evidence to support descent, the strongest so far is the genetic code, especially since it turns out to follow the predictions of evolution. As you mention, punctated equilibrium helps explain the stasis-change that we do see. Species are relatively stable unless the environment is altered or isolation occurs.

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that spiritual experiences only happen when were asleep but the idea that the frontal lobe, the part of the brain most human, is also responsible for these feelings and ideas. Sleep hypnosis and frontal lobe seizures also explains historical accounts of gods and angels talking to people. If those events didn't happen, your religion may have turned out very differently if it developed at all.

Jhaan

08-09-2009, 02:08 PM

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that spiritual experiences only happen when were asleep but the idea that the frontal lobe, the part of the brain most human, is also responsible for these feelings and ideas. Sleep hypnosis and frontal lobe seizures also explains historical accounts of gods and angels talking to people. If those events didn't happen, your religion may have turned out very differently if it developed at all.

Let's get specific. What stories of God talking to people do you think were actually frontal lobe seizures?

darkfrog

08-09-2009, 05:33 PM

Let's get specific. What stories of God talking to people do you think were actually frontal lobe seizures?
Maybe a great majority of them. Who knows?

In Genesis we read of angels who couple with "the daughters of men." The culture myths of ancient Greece and Rome told of gods appearing to women as bulls or swans or showers of gold and impregnating them. In one early Christian tradition, philosophy derived not from human ingenuity but out of demonic pillow talk -- the fallen angels betraying the secrets of Heaven to their human consorts. Accounts with similar elements appear in cultures around the world. Parallels to incubi include Arabian djinn, Greek satyrs, Hindu bhuts, Samoan hotua poro, Celtic dusii, and many others.
St. Teresa of Avila reported a vivid sexual encounter with an angel -- an angel of light, not of darkness, she was sure -- as did other woman later sanctified by the Catholic Church.

There is no spaceship in these stories. But most of the central elements of alien abduction accounts are present, including sexually obsessive non-humans who live in the sky, walk through walls, communicate telepathically, and perform breeding experiments on the human species.

Who's to say Moses and St. Paul did not suffer from temporal lobe seizures?

More on the subject -- http://www.bidstrup.com/mystic.htm
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104291534
http://www.dimaggio.org/Heretic/originof.htm

superdan54

08-09-2009, 10:56 PM

Note: Please do not take luvtoargue's statements as representative of the opinions of most atheists.

There's one in every crowd, right ;)?

That was a nice reply...

I know you are capable of it too, I think you just get a little trigger happy with your postings sometimes.

BTW, I didn't mean to imply that spiritual experiences only happen when were asleep but the idea that the frontal lobe, the part of the brain most human, is also responsible for these feelings and ideas. Sleep hypnosis and frontal lobe seizures also explains historical accounts of gods and angels talking to people. If those events didn't happen, your religion may have turned out very differently if it developed at all.

I wouldn't be surprised if the great majority of spiritual experiences carry little substance beyond chemical fluctuations of the brain. However, I don't think it necessarily explains all the historical accounts. True supernatural acts (those which cannot be explained in any way naturally) of God are very few and far between in the Bible. Likewise, an angel or God directly speaking to a non-prophet is rare as well, especially in light of the millenniums that transpired in between. Let's not confuse the crux of the matter though, the reason these visions and other phenomena are so important to people is because they provide external evidence of God. However, that is never to be their purpose, in fact Christ himself says "This generation is a wicked generation; it seeks for a sign, and yet no sign shall be given to it.."

I think it's interesting that one of the earliest Biblical narratives has men trying to build a tower to heaven. What really happened is irrelevant, as the message is clear. Men desire to reach God through their own power. Furthermore, God confused & divided their language to prevent them from their goal. I know it sounds trite, but in a sense I see the same thing happening today, on both sides of the spectrum.

superdan54

08-09-2009, 11:00 PM

In Genesis we read of angels who couple with "the daughters of men."

I think the text is pointing to something less dramatic, simply the Hebrews pairing with the Non-Hebrews. This cause-effect relationship is replayed over and over and over again throughout the OT, and always leads to destruction of the Semites.

Who's to say Moses and St. Paul did not suffer from temporal lobe seizures?

Paul's & Moses lives were not defined by visions but by external acts (made possible by faith), which lend credence to the original "vision" that kick started their ministries.

darkfrog

08-10-2009, 12:09 AM

Paul's & Moses lives were not defined by visions but by external acts (made possible by faith), which lend credence to the original "vision" that kick started their ministries.

A burning talking bush is just the type of thing someone with a temporal lobe seizure might see. No doubt that he had a lot of faith after that. He was also a brilliant military tactician, remember he was brought up to be the next Pharaoh.

Please understand, I never made the argument that it explained all of the miracles, there are other naturalistic explanations for those as well though including embellishment as typical of myths of great leaders often are. Do you believe all of the reports of modern miracles, even those that occur by those outside of Christianity?

Doctor_Wu

08-11-2009, 10:46 AM

I'm not trying to be offensive towards you...I've "studied" religion too and I've found it ALL to be nothing but a load of BS. Hopefully, you will realize it too...

Good of you to put studied in quotes.

redmaxx

08-11-2009, 10:49 AM

Good of you to put studied in quotes.

:lol: Good observation! :iagree:

superdan54

08-11-2009, 12:35 PM

Do you believe all of the reports of modern miracles, even those that occur by those outside of Christianity?

Honestly, I have to take it on a case by case basis. By and large I only consider reports of miracles/supernatural events w/in my own social circle (i.e. a very small subset of Christianity), as they are from people whom I know and trust to be beyond reproach and sensationalism. And though I don't know Moses & Paul personally, I trust through the nature & content of their writings that they likewise were competent & righteous men beyond reproach and that God, wanting us to have a foundation for which to seek truth, allowed their stories and writings to pass down relatively unscathed.

However, I don't preclude that miracles cannot happen outside of Christianity. Even from a Scriptural standpoint, the Egyptian magicians were able to copy the works of Moses up to a point, and Balaam the false prophet was given true words to prophesy. Even more, Christ often healed those outside the faith, so perhaps that mercy still applies in some areas.

fbskiracer

08-14-2009, 07:32 AM

Let's get specific. What stories of God talking to people do you think were actually frontal lobe seizures?

You know when I rotated on Psychiatry I always feared the people who 'talked to go the most' (or rather were talked to by God). Its hard to prove to a psychotic person their 'voice' isn't God. You never know we could be wrong. :lmao:

Phreaker47

08-16-2009, 05:03 PM

superdan54

08-16-2009, 09:08 PM

Some of you might be noticing I'm a relatively new fan of the Showtime series, "Penn and Teller Bullshit!". I highly recommend this episode about Creationism. The only complete version I could find has some foreign subtitles, but oh well:

Part 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lx5muLLPkMM
Part 2: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCWEpaLBa6U
Part 3: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDDxF3j4Q4g

I'm sure Duane Gish and his toupee were not too pleased with the context of the interview's presentation!

I didn't have time to watch the whole episode, but it seems that behind the scences, Penn has different opinion on evangelism. He may think the Bible itself is BS, but admires those who really take its message to heart and even those who proselytize. The vid below is Penn recounting how a man gave him a Bible after one of his shows. I have alot of respect for Penn in the sense that he can see beyond the initial annoyance of being witnessed to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM&feature=fvw

Phreaker47

08-17-2009, 01:08 AM

I didn't have time to watch the whole episode, but it seems that behind the scences, Penn has different opinion on evangelism. He may think the Bible itself is BS, but admires those who really take its message to heart and even those who proselytize. The vid below is Penn recounting how a man gave him a Bible after one of his shows. I have alot of respect for Penn in the sense that he can see beyond the initial annoyance of being witnessed to.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7JHS8adO3hM&feature=fvw

The guy he talked about in that clip is definitely someone far different than a guy that believes "The Great Flood" cut and shaped the Grand Canyon in just a few days.

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 07:22 AM

The guy he talked about in that clip is definitely someone far different than a guy that believes "The Great Flood" cut and shaped the Grand Canyon in just a few days.
I don't think Penn would have a problem with what he believes as long as he doesn't attempt to get that nonsense taught as science in the classroom. Then he would call him what he does on the show--asshole.

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 06:56 PM

As for your arguments countering evolutionist skeptics (never of every portion of the study): I'm curious how you could have so definitively satisfied yourself, when so many esteemed scientists have such huge questions about it still to this day - questions that are very well expressed in the quotes I provided.

Since mensa isn't taking the advice and bringing the evolution argument here instead of continuing it in the GW thread, I thought I'd help him.

So to answer your question, it would be easier if you could read it for yourself. Here's a link to get you started http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 07:19 PM

BTW, Charles B. Thaxton, PhD in Chemistry and Postdoctoral Fellow at Harvard University, agrees with me:

…an intelligible communication via radio signal from some distant galaxy would be widely hailed as evidence of an intelligent source. Why then doesn't the message sequence on the DNA molecule also constitute prima facie evidence for an intelligent source? After all, DNA information is not just analogous to a message sequence such as Morse code, it is such a message sequence. 4
Of course Thaxton is going to say something like that. He is as much involved in the ID movement as Behe. He is one of the editors of Pandas, the ID textbook that was clearly shown to have creationist origins during Kitzmiller v Dover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)

The simple explanation that should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that patterns in radio signals are not natural as far as we can tell. Therefore a pattern in a radio signal would appear to be intelligence that has evolved to a point where they use radio for communication.
Since we understand the naturalistic mechanism for the patterns we see in DNA as well as other patterns in nature, Thaxton's argument appears quite silly.

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 07:26 PM

Of course Thaxton is going to say something like that. He is as much involved in the ID movement as Behe. He is one of the editors of Pandas, the ID textbook that was clearly shown to have creationist origins during Kitzmiller v Dover (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District)

The simple explanation that should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that patterns in radio signals are not natural as far as we can tell. Therefore a pattern in a radio signal would appear to be intelligence that has evolved to a point where they use radio for communication.
Since we understand the naturalistic mechanism for the patterns we see in DNA as well as other patterns in nature, Thaxton's argument appears quite silly.

You err: both the data we receive from observance of patterns in nature, and patterns emanating from radio waves, are simply data, and what makes each interesting are the patterns.

But the secularist engages in a double standard: one pattern is deemed to be from a non-intelligent origin, and the other is automatically assumed to be intelligent.

That's the height of logical fallacy, and about as insightful and expose of the inconsistency in the secular argument as can exist.

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 07:31 PM

Since mensa isn't taking the advice and bringing the evolution argument here instead of continuing it in the GW thread, I thought I'd help him.

So to answer your question, it would be easier if you could read it for yourself. Here's a link to get you started http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/quotes/mine/project.html

I've already read that, and talkorigins appears very early in my favorites - not because I agree, but because I use it as my falsification exercise.

You'll note that the link you provide does include some quotes in full context, but (as Darwin's quote, as an example) simply shows the thought process of Darwin as he asks himself that famous question.

That answer, however, hasn't held up since he pondered it - and that's the point. As my link considers, what would Darwin think now, having had the benefit the display of millions of exposed fossils, making it evident that the hope of extricating the transitionary fossils uncovered from the very depths he surmised must have buried them actually buried the hopes?

There are no transitionary fossils, even though by Darwin's math there should have been approximately 10 million of them, in proportion.

Again: that's the point.

Epiphyte

08-17-2009, 07:33 PM

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 07:37 PM

Salt crystals show patterns too. Clearly the work of intelligent life.

You clearly do not understand the core of this debate. If ID is to be accepted, then by definition all Creation originates from design. That includes Salt crystals, Epiphyte - unless you've written a peer-reviewed paper that establishes the existence of salt crystals before the establishment of existence itself. :lol:

In which case, you may want to start a new religion. May I suggest Mortonism? :rofl2:

In your failed attempt to be clever, you actually expose a profound misunderstanding of the depth and breadth of this discussion, and the implications. :rolleyes:

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 07:38 PM

You err: both the data we receive from observance of patterns in nature, and patterns emanating from radio waves, are simply data, and what makes each interesting are the patterns.

But the secularist engages in a double standard: one pattern is deemed to be from a non-intelligent origin, and the other is automatically assumed to be intelligent.

That's the height of logical fallacy, and about as insightful and expose of the inconsistency in the secular argument as can exist.
You are incorrect and obviously haven't studied information theory. But I guess I should have known that since it is a real science with lots of that math stuff.

No one makes a claim that any pattern is a priori signs of intelligence. We see patterns all over nature. Fractals are repeated patterns that show up all over the place from snowflakes to shorelines. Are snowflakes intelligently designed?
SETI is based on the assumption that we don't know of any natural phenomena that produces complex patterns in the EM spectrum (prime numbers for example). We do get patterns but some, like pulsars can be explained in naturalistic terms. Even so, radio astronomers were quite excited when they discovered this regular pattern, some even thought it may have been intelligence. Being good scientists though, they investigated other probabilities before running to the newspapers claiming we found ET. So, no, patterns in radio waves are not considered intelligent until proven otherwise but are considered intelligent, only after eliminating the possibility of natural causes.

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 07:40 PM

You clearly do not understand the core of this debate. If ID is to be accepted, then by definition all Creation originates from design. That includes Salt crystals, Epiphyte - unless you've written a peer-reviewed paper that establishes the existence of salt crystals before the establishment of existence itself. :lol:

In which case, you may want to start a new religion. May I suggest Mortonism? :rofl2:

In your failed attempt to be clever, you actually expose a profound misunderstanding of the depth and breadth of this discussion, and the implications. :rolleyes:
Really? I thought ID only claimed life was created supernaturally. I didn't know IDers had issue with naturalistic phenomena like crystallization. :lol:
I really think its your understanding of the "debate" that is in question.

Epiphyte

08-17-2009, 07:41 PM

There are no transitionary fossils, even though by Darwin's math there should have been approximately 10 million of them, in proportion.

If you have a fossil that has features of a bird and a dinosaur you can just say it's "clearly just a bird" or "clearly just a dinosaur" and deny that it's a transitionary fossil.

It's like saying a tadpole immediately becomes a frog, any steps in between can be called "clearly a frog" or "clearly a tadpole."

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 07:45 PM

I've already read that, and talkorigins appears very early in my favorites - not because I agree, but because I use it as my falsification exercise.

You'll note that the link you provide does include some quotes in full context, but (as Darwin's quote, as an example) simply shows the thought process of Darwin as he asks himself that famous question.

That answer, however, hasn't held up since he pondered it - and that's the point. As my link considers, what would Darwin think now, having had the benefit the display of millions of exposed fossils, making it evident that the hope of extricating the transitionary fossils uncovered from the very depths he surmised must have buried them actually buried the hopes?

There are no transitionary fossils, even though by Darwin's math there should have been approximately 10 million of them, in proportion.

Again: that's the point.
There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
Response:

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).

9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 07:47 PM

Really? I thought ID only claimed life was created supernaturally. I didn't know IDers had issue with naturalistic phenomena like crystallization. :lol:
I really think its your understanding of the "debate" that is in question.

Actually, it is clearly your misunderstanding of the debate, and I fear that you are not willing to wrap your mind around the premise. You, in trying to make that miserable failure of a point, have arbitrarily decided that crystallization is a natural phenomenon, and as a result attempt to use the very issue in contention (that all that appears in existence occurred naturally), to establish that all that appears in existence is natural!

That is utterly circular reasoning. Here is the point: if the contention that there is an Intelligent Designer was realized as fact, then it would be impossible to not conclude that every thing in existence was Created.

Including salt crystals, and the mechanism which forms them.

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 07:52 PM

There are no transitional fossils. Evolution predicts a continuum between each fossil organism and its ancestors. Instead, we see systematic gaps in the fossil record.
Source:
Morris, Henry M. 1985. Scientific Creationism. Green Forest, AR: Master Books, pp. 78-90.
Watchtower Bible and Tract Society. 1985. Life--How Did It Get Here? Brooklyn, NY, pp. 57-59.
Response:

1. There are many transitional fossils. The only way that the claim of their absence may be remotely justified, aside from ignoring the evidence completely, is to redefine "transitional" as referring to a fossil that is a direct ancestor of one organism and a direct descendant of another. However, direct lineages are not required; they could not be verified even if found. What a transitional fossil is, in keeping with what the theory of evolution predicts, is a fossil that shows a mosaic of features from an older and more recent organism.

2. Transitional fossils may coexist with gaps. We do not expect to find finely detailed sequences of fossils lasting for millions of years. Nevertheless, we do find several fine gradations of fossils between species and genera, and we find many other sequences between higher taxa that are still very well filled out.

The following are fossil transitions between species and genera:

1. Human ancestry. There are many fossils of human ancestors, and the differences between species are so gradual that it is not always clear where to draw the lines between them.

2. The horns of titanotheres (extinct Cenozoic mammals) appear in progressively larger sizes, from nothing to prominence. Other head and neck features also evolved. These features are adaptations for head-on ramming analogous to sheep behavior (Stanley 1974).

3. A gradual transitional fossil sequence connects the foraminifera Globigerinoides trilobus and Orbulina universa (Pearson et al. 1997). O. universa, the later fossil, features a spherical test surrounding a "Globigerinoides-like" shell, showing that a feature was added, not lost. The evidence is seen in all major tropical ocean basins. Several intermediate morphospecies connect the two species, as may be seen in the figure included in Lindsay (1997).

4. The fossil record shows transitions between species of Phacops (a trilobite; Phacops rana is the Pennsylvania state fossil; Eldredge 1972; 1974; Strapple 1978).

5. Planktonic forminifera (Malmgren et al. 1984). This is an example of punctuated gradualism. A ten-million-year foraminifera fossil record shows long periods of stasis and other periods of relatively rapid but still gradual morphologic change.

6. Fossils of the diatom Rhizosolenia are very common (they are mined as diatomaceous earth), and they show a continuous record of almost two million years which includes a record of a speciation event (Miller 1999, 44-45).

7. Lake Turkana mollusc species (Lewin 1981).

8. Cenozoic marine ostracodes (Cronin 1985).

9. The Eocene primate genus Cantius (Gingerich 1976, 1980, 1983).

10. Scallops of the genus Chesapecten show gradual change in one "ear" of their hinge over about 13 million years. The ribs also change (Pojeta and Springer 2001; Ward and Blackwelder 1975).

11. Gryphaea (coiled oysters) become larger and broader but thinner and flatter during the Early Jurassic (Hallam 1968).

The following are fossil transitionals between families, orders, and classes:

1. Human ancestry. Australopithecus, though its leg and pelvis bones show it walked upright, had a bony ridge on the forearm, probably vestigial, indicative of knuckle walking (Richmond and Strait 2000).

2. Dinosaur-bird transitions.

3. Haasiophis terrasanctus is a primitive marine snake with well-developed hind limbs. Although other limbless snakes might be more ancestral, this fossil shows a relationship of snakes with limbed ancestors (Tchernov et al. 2000). Pachyrhachis is another snake with legs that is related to Haasiophis (Caldwell and Lee 1997).

4. The jaws of mososaurs are also intermediate between snakes and lizards. Like the snake's stretchable jaws, they have highly flexible lower jaws, but unlike snakes, they do not have highly flexible upper jaws. Some other skull features of mososaurs are intermediate between snakes and primitive lizards (Caldwell and Lee 1997; Lee et al. 1999; Tchernov et al. 2000).

5. Transitions between mesonychids and whales.

6. Transitions between fish and tetrapods.

7. Transitions from condylarths (a kind of land mammal) to fully aquatic modern manatees. In particular, Pezosiren portelli is clearly a sirenian, but its hind limbs and pelvis are unreduced (Domning 2001a, 2001b).

8. Runcaria, a Middle Devonian plant, was a precursor to seed plants. It had all the qualities of seeds except a solid seed coat and a system to guide pollen to the seed (Gerrienne et al. 2004).

9. A bee, Melittosphex burmensis, from Early Cretaceous amber, has primitive characteristics expected from a transition between crabronid wasps and extant bees (Poinar and Danforth 2006).

The following are fossil transitionals between kingdoms and phyla:

1. The Cambrian fossils Halkiera and Wiwaxia have features that connect them with each other and with the modern phyla of Mollusca, Brachiopoda, and Annelida. In particular, one species of halkieriid has brachiopod-like shells on the dorsal side at each end. This is seen also in an immature stage of the living brachiopod species Neocrania. It has setae identical in structure to polychaetes, a group of annelids. Wiwaxia and Halkiera have the same basic arrangement of hollow sclerites, an arrangement that is similar to the chaetae arrangement of polychaetes. The undersurface of Wiwaxia has a soft sole like a mollusk's foot, and its jaw looks like a mollusk's mouth. Aplacophorans, which are a group of primitive mollusks, have a soft body covered with spicules similar to the sclerites of Wiwaxia (Conway Morris 1998, 185-195).

2. Cambrian and Precambrain fossils Anomalocaris and Opabinia are transitional between arthropods and lobopods.

3. An ancestral echinoderm has been found that is intermediate between modern echinoderms and other deuterostomes (Shu et al. 2004).
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html

None of this is evidence of transitionary fossils; it has been formed by evolutionists utterly committed to the substantiation of the theory, completely as a result of the inability to determine it through any other means. If what is asserted here were true, why exactly did Darwin posit the question about the transitionary fossils to begin with?

I'll tell you why: because Darwin wasn't going to be dishonest in his attempt to establish Common Descent like you and talkorigins are now trying to be dishonest. Can't find true transitions? Redefine the RULES.

What hypocrisy: accusing those who charge that transitionary fossils haven't been found as changing definitions, when it's obvious that Darwin himself didn't agree with the very attempts found here! Literally everything you attempt to call evidence of transitionary fossils are in fact - as Darwin had explained - fossils demonstrating mutation and adaptation, something which is not in contention here, or anywhere else.

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 07:56 PM

Actually, it is clearly your misunderstanding of the debate, and I fear that you are not willing to wrap your mind around the premise. You, in trying to make that miserable failure of a point, have arbitrarily decided that crystallization is a natural phenomenon, and as a result attempt to use the very issue in contention (that all that appears in existence occurred naturally), to establish that all that appears in existence is natural!

That is utterly circular reasoning. Here is the point: if the contention that there is an Intelligent Designer was realized as fact, then it would be impossible to not conclude that every thing in existence was Created.

Including salt crystals, and the mechanism which forms them.so you are claiming that if I took salt water and crystalized it, that is the designer's doing and not the atomic bonds forming a lattice pattern? Did the designer make my laptop too? :rolleyes:

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 08:05 PM

so you are claiming that if I took salt water and crystalized it, that is the designer's doing and not the atomic bonds forming a lattice pattern? Did the designer make my laptop too? :rolleyes:

Your question is prima facie evidence of your complete misunderstanding of the concept of ID, and obviously you're unaware of that fact, as you've asked it.

Can you explain to me exactly how the atomic bonds form a lattice, unless they were programmed to do so? :P

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 08:12 PM

Your question is prima facie evidence of your complete misunderstanding of the concept of ID, and obviously you're unaware of that fact, as you've asked it.

Can you explain to me exactly how the atomic bonds form a lattice, unless they were programmed to do so? :P
Take some classes in chemistry and physics. It's not my job to teach you the basics of atomic theory.

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 08:18 PM

Take some classes in chemistry and physics. It's not my job to teach you the basics of atomic theory.

I have a BSEE/BSME. I have done more than that. You've dodged the question. All you can do is describe what science has discovered is the interaction between atoms, but not the 'why' of it.

In that question, one is forced to ponder a metaphysical answer. That, apparently, is beyond your pay grade. :O

bonkman

08-17-2009, 08:32 PM

I have a BSEE/BSME. I have done more than that. You've dodged the question. All you can do is describe what science has discovered is the interaction between atoms, but not the 'why' of it.

In that question, one is forced to ponder a metaphysical answer. That, apparently, is beyond your pay grade. :O
You mean, who wrote the equations that govern the universe? In which case, you can either subscribe to "G-d did it" or the multiverse theory. Both are untestable and unprovable.

You can always say "G-d did it." But that tends to cause insensitivity to the problems observed (ie laws of gravitation vs angels).

And apparently you slept through the classes that answer your question, and you definitely didn't take any bio classes (or at least learn from them). Either that, or you can't actually word your statement correctly, and I'm giving you more credit than you deserve when I write my first sentence. Math seems pretty doubtful too, based on the reasoning you've displayed.

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 08:36 PM

I have a BSEE/BSME. I have done more than that. You've dodged the question. All you can do is describe what science has discovered is the interaction between atoms, but not the 'why' of it.

In that question, one is forced to ponder a metaphysical answer. That, apparently, is beyond your pay grade. :O
what are you talking about? The theory behind crystals is based on atomic structure and thermodynamics and is something that can be predicted in unknown and even hypothetical compounds. It is no more mysterious than why pieces of a puzzle fit the way they do or any other chemical or nuclear reaction for that matter. If you are such a reductionist that everything observable is due to pre-planned design by some being, then all of science is in trouble, not just crystals and evolution.

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 08:37 PM

You mean, who wrote the equations that govern the universe? In which case, you can either subscribe to "G-d did it" or the multiverse theory. Both are untestable and unprovable.

Yes - that's why I said the answer is metaphysical.

You can always say "G-d did it." But that tends to cause insensitivity to the problems observed (ie laws of gravitation vs angels).

:lmao:

Insensitivity? WTF does that mean? It's a complete red herring to attempt to claim that simply believing in God (and btw: what fear have you of actually spelling the word? Do you think you may turn into a pillar of salt or something?) somehow cripples one's desire to discover the details of His Creation.

And apparently you slept through the classes that answer your question, and you definitely didn't take any bio classes (or at least learn from them). Either that, or you can't actually word your statement correctly, and I'm giving you more credit than you deserve when I write my first sentence. Math seems pretty doubtful too, based on the reasoning you've displayed.

Ooh. Ad hominem. I'm humbled by your argumentative prowess.

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 08:39 PM

what are you talking about? The theory behind crystals is based on atomic structure and thermodynamics and is something that can be predicted in unknown and even hypothetical compounds. It is no more mysterious than why pieces of a puzzle fit the way they do or any other chemical or nuclear reaction for that matter. If you are such a reductionist that everything observable is due to pre-planned design by some being, then all of science is in trouble, not just crystals and evolution.

The "how" and "why" questions do not challenge the "what" questions. What you are suggesting is baseless hyperbole.

Regardless: you overstate the level of knowledge we possess @ present wrt to even things like atomic structure. There is plenty of mystery left. What makes you wish to place such an explanation point on it all?

talgot

08-17-2009, 08:44 PM

(and btw: what fear have you of actually spelling the word? Do you think you may turn into a pillar of salt or something?)

He is Jewish. It is a form of respect to his religion not to write the name of God. Trust me he is being respectful and not being rude in doing that at all. Bonk despite his flawed view of evolution :P is a very good guy.

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 08:47 PM

He is Jewish. It is a form of respect to his religion not to write the name of God. Trust me he is being respectful and not being rude in doing that at all. Bonk despite his flawed view of evolution :P is a very good guy.

Ah. What about the use of "Xtianity"?

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 08:49 PM

The "how" and "why" questions do not challenge the "what" questions. What you are suggesting is baseless hyperbole.

Regardless: you overstate the level of knowledge we possess @ present wrt to even things like atomic structure. There is plenty of mystery left. What makes you wish to place such an explanation point on it all?Really? We know enough about atomic structure to synthesize new compounds and even predict how they will behave. I never said there was no mystery left, I merely commented on what we do know.

It is hardly hyperbole to think that if nothing can be considered 'natural' that if everything is due to the will of the designer, then nothing can be truly 'known'. However, if your creator set up the cosmos to follow very simple laws like what we appear to find when we look, then it stands to reason that it is these laws that govern the actions of matter and energy and that gives us a chance to actually understand them. Where they come from is unknown but that doesn't automatically mean that they were created. That's just the god of the gaps fallacy.

BTW, Jews are taught not to write out the name of god on something that can be destroyed, which is why we have many euphemisms for the name of the Hebrew god and will write G-d when referring to that specific deity, the God of Abraham.

talgot

08-17-2009, 08:49 PM

Ah. What about the use of "Xtianity"?

I would guess not a problem since it doesn't directly speak of God. Bonk or DF would better be able to speak to this. I am not Jewish.

talgot

08-17-2009, 08:51 PM

BTW, Jews are taught not to write out the name of god on something that can be destroyed, which is why we have many euphemisms for the name of the Hebrew god and will write G-d when referring to that specific deity, the God of Abraham.

That was a better explaination.

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 08:52 PM

Ah. What about the use of "Xtianity"?
It's not an X, it's the Greek letter Chi, the first letter in Greek for Christos. It's an abbreviation for Christ like in Xmas.

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 08:53 PM

Well, I've learned something new. Thanks!

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 08:54 PM

That was a better explaination.
Yours was fine, I just had my browser open to comment and didn't see you already answerd. :nod:

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 08:56 PM

Well, I've learned something new. Thanks!
If you really want to learn something, study this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Commenting that it this is all imagination of evolutionists is not a proper response without first actually examining the claims.

IMMensaMind

08-17-2009, 09:00 PM

If you really want to learn something, study this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils
Commenting that it this is all imagination of evolutionists is not a proper response without first actually examining the claims.

You assume I haven't, and you're wrong about that. I ask again: why would Darwin (and a ton of other scientists) have questioned the lack of transitional fossils, were your claims of these as truly transitional able to hold water?

darkfrog

08-17-2009, 09:05 PM

You assume I haven't, and you're wrong about that. I ask again: why would Darwin (and a ton of other scientists) have questioned the lack of transitional fossils, were your claims of these as truly transitional hold water?
Darwin answered his own question on transitional fossils. I thought you read the quote mining link I gave you. Darwin often used the question and answer technique in his writings. Darwin wasn't around during the discovery of most of these. There are not 'tons' of scientists refuting the fossil record and the ones that do probably work for creationist or ID think tanks and are purposely or ignorantly misrepresenting the lack of transitional forms.

But, as by this theory innumerable transitional forms must have existed, why do we not find them embedded in countless numbers in the crust of the earth? It will be more convenient to discuss this question in the chapter on the Imperfection of the Geological Record; and I will here only state that I believe the answer mainly lies in the record being incomparably less perfect than is generally supposed. The crust of the earth is a vast museum; but the natural collections have been imperfectly made, and only at long intervals of time.
Besides leaving out the context, this is misleading in a subtler way when used for the proposition that there are no transitional forms. Darwin is not talking about the existence or nonexistence of transitionals here, but of an "innumerable" series of finely-graded transitionals linking together all extinct and existing forms. As he says later in Chapter XI of the sixth edition on page 342:
These causes [the imperfection of the fossil record, the limited exploration of the record, poor fossilization of certain body types, etc.], taken conjointly, will to a large extent explain why -- though we do find many links -- we do not find interminable varieties, connecting together all extinct and existing forms by the finest graduated steps. It should also be constantly borne in mind that any linking variety between two forms, which might be found, would be ranked, unless the whole chain could be perfectly restored, as a new and distinct species; for it is not pretended that we have any sure criterion by which species and varieties can be discriminated.

In short, the use of the quote to imply there are no transitionals misstates Darwin's argument, intentionally or out of ignorance. Darwin was not stating that there was an absence of transitionals but, in fact, stated there were "many links." Instead, he was discussing why there are not more transitionals in an easily read pattern of gradual change. As Darwin correctly noted, where the fossil record does not approach "perfection," it is difficult, if not impossible, to tell by morphology alone exactly where any particular organism would fall within such a graduated series. Thus, such an organism might be classified as a distinct species from either the original or the subsequent ones. However, such organisms, being general morphological intermediates between different forms, as in the case of Archaeopteryx, would, along with other evidence, support an inference of evolutionary change over time through common descent. The fossil record may not be easy to read, but it is not devoid of information either.

Even if the quote stood for what the quote miners claim it does, Darwin was writing almost 150 years ago, at a time early in the scientific study of fossils and when few scientists were expecting to find "transitional forms." Much has been learned since, some of which can be seen in various articles in the Archive, such as: Transitional Vertebrate Fossils FAQ, Archaeopteryx FAQs, and 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution, among others.

Libertarian

08-18-2009, 01:26 AM

Interesting news today..

Building block of life found on comet (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE57H02I20090818)
LOS ANGELES (Reuters) - The amino acid glycine, a fundamental building block of proteins, has been found in a comet for the first time, bolstering the theory that raw ingredients of life arrived on Earth from outer space, scientists said on Monday.

Microscopic traces of glycine were discovered in a sample of particles retrieved from the tail of comet Wild 2 by the NASA spacecraft Stardust deep in the solar system some 242 million miles (390 million km) from Earth, in January 2004.

Samples of gas and dust collected on a small dish lined with a super-fluffy material called aerogel were returned to Earth two years later in a canister that detached from the spacecraft and landed by parachute in the Utah desert.

Comets like Wild 2, named for astronomer Paul Wild (pronounced Vild), are believed to contain well-preserved grains of material dating from the dawn of the solar system billions of years ago, and thus clues to the formation of the sun and planets.

The initial detection of glycine, the most common of 20 amino acids in proteins on Earth, was reported last year, but it took time for scientists to confirm that the compound in question was extraterrestrial in origin.

"We couldn't be sure it wasn't from the manufacturing or the handling of the spacecraft," said astrobiologist Jamie Elsila of NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, the principal author of the latest research.

She presented the findings, accepted for publication in the journal Meteoritics and Planetary Science, to a meeting of the American Chemical Society in Washington, D.C., this week.

"We've seen amino acids in meteorites before, but this is the first time it's been detected in a comet," she said.

Chains of amino acids are strung together to form protein molecules in everything from hair to the enzymes that regulate chemical reactions inside living organisms. But scientists have long puzzled over whether these complex organic compounds originated on Earth or in space.

The latest findings add credence to the notion that extraterrestrial objects such as meteorites and comets may have seeded ancient Earth, and other planets, with the raw materials of life that formed elsewhere in the cosmos.

"The discovery of glycine in a comet supports the idea that the fundamental building blocks of life are prevalent in space, and strengthens the argument that life in the universe may be common rather than rare," said Carl Pilcher, the director of the NASA Astrobiology Institute in California, which co-funded the research.

So it seems the first comet we were able to examine had the building blocks of life in it. Unless we were just incredibly lucky on our first attempt, this really shortens the odds on life existing elsewhere in the universe.

Phreaker47

08-18-2009, 03:41 AM

This thread got full of "win" again.

You know, the funny thing is, there really is *no* debate about evolution in the scientific community. While the particulars are always an ongoing investigation, there is quite simply no debate that it is genuine.

Quite literally, only pseudoscience begs to differ.

Phreaker47

08-18-2009, 03:43 AM

Interesting news today..

Bulding block of life found on comet (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE57H02I20090818)

So it seems the first comet we were able to examine had the building blocks of life in it. Unless we were just incredibly lucky on our first attempt, this really shortens the odds on life not* existing elsewhere in the universe.

* I'm guessing that's what you meant.

Epiphyte

08-18-2009, 05:07 AM

bonkman

08-18-2009, 01:22 PM

Interesting news today..

Building block of life found on comet (http://www.reuters.com/article/scienceNews/idUSTRE57H02I20090818)

So it seems the first comet we were able to examine had the building blocks of life in it. Unless we were just incredibly lucky on our first attempt, this really shortens the odds on life existing elsewhere in the universe.
But where did glycine originate from? chemical reactions! Which use atoms! Where did atoms originate from? energy at the beginning of the universe! Where did that originate from? Who knows! Ergo, nothing can be known!

[/thread] :bow:

Libertarian

08-18-2009, 01:40 PM

But where did glycine originate from?

I'm pretty sure it didn't come from a garden with magical trees and talking snakes that is currently being guarded by a cherub with a flaming sword (as the bible says)..but I could be wrong.

IMMensaMind

08-18-2009, 03:23 PM

But where did glycine originate from? chemical reactions! Which use atoms! Where did atoms originate from? energy at the beginning of the universe! Where did that originate from? Who knows! Ergo, nothing can be known!

[/thread] :bow:

Why would you conclude that "nothing can be known" via the recitation of the rest of your scribe?

It strikes me that most - like Stephen Hawking - who study the origins of the universe, and have trouble escaping the notion that some Intelligence had to be involved, know quite a bit.

Too many in science have shifted the role of science as a tool to discover knowledge to being a tool to disqualify notions of a Deity.

bonkman

08-18-2009, 03:43 PM

darkfrog

08-18-2009, 03:44 PM

Why would you conclude that "nothing can be known" via the recitation of the rest of your scribe?

It strikes me that most - like Stephen Hawking - who study the origins of the universe, and have trouble escaping the notion that some Intelligence had to be involved, know quite a bit.

Too many in science have shifted the role of science as a tool to discover knowledge to being a tool to disqualify notions of a Deity.
I'm pretty sure Hawking never said anything of the sort. At most he has acknowledged that given a starting point for the universe, the Big Bang, God could have been what we consider the cause, but mostly because unless the original cause left some sort of evidence, we will never be able to know what started it.
As he said in A Brief History of Time, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?... Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?" (p. 192)

He obviously is asking questions, not making statements about the origin. And he certainly never claimed that the universe necessitates an intelligence as you claimed.

darkfrog

08-18-2009, 03:50 PM

Hawking subscribes to the multiverse.
Of course none of this matters as arguments from authority hold no weight in science.

IMMensaMind

08-18-2009, 03:54 PM

Hawking subscribes to the multiverse.

That's not quite true. Hawking has admitted that he's been required to create imaginary math to support the multiverse theory.

Too many who believe in the role of a deity attribute too much to it, ignoring the findings of science.

In what way? Evidence of this assertion?

Oh, and that's not my conclusion. That's what you've been arguing here and in the GW thread.

Oh? Support that assertion, because it's utterly false.

IMMensaMind

08-18-2009, 04:06 PM

IMMensaMind

08-18-2009, 04:10 PM

I'm pretty sure Hawking never said anything of the sort. At most he has acknowledged that given a starting point for the universe, the Big Bang, God could have been what we consider the cause, but mostly because unless the original cause left some sort of evidence, we will never be able to know what started it.
As he said in A Brief History of Time, "Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe?... Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing? Is the unified theory so compelling that it brings about its own existence? Or does it need a creator, and, if so does he have any other effect on the universe? And who created him?" (p. 192)

He obviously is asking questions, not making statements about the origin. And he certainly never claimed that the universe necessitates an intelligence as you claimed.

I've also said that many are attempting to use Science as a tool to defeat the notion of a Deity. Here, too, is support of that:

A recent and much-publicized version of the quantum universe model was advanced by the physicist Stephen Hawking. In his book A Brief History of Time, Hawking states that the Big Bang doesn't necessarily mean existence from nothingness. Instead of "no time" before the Big Bang, Hawking proposed the concept of "imaginary time". According to Hawking, there was only a 10-43 second "imaginary" time interval before the Big Bang took place and "real" time was formed after that. Hawking's hope was just to ignore the reality of "timelessness" before the Big Bang by means of this "imaginary" time.

Stephen Hawking also tries to advance different explanations for the Big Bang other than Creation just as other Materialist scientists do by relying upon contradictions and false concepts.
As a concept, "imaginary time" is tantamount to zero or non-existence�like the imaginary number of people in a room or the imaginary number of cars on a road.

Stephen Hawking also tries to advance different explanations for the Big Bang other than Creation just as other Materialist scientists do by relying upon contradictions and false concepts.

Here Hawking is just playing with words. He claims that equations are right when they are related to an imaginary time but in fact this has no meaning. The mathematician Sir Herbert Dingle refers to the possibility of faking imaginary things as real in math as:

In the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its physical correlate.8
To put it briefly, a mathematically imaginary or theoretical solution need not have a true or a real consequence. Using a property exclusive to mathematics, Hawking produces hypotheses that are unrelated to reality. But what reason could he have for doing this? It's easy to find the answer to that question in his own words. Hawking admits that he prefers alternative universe models to the Big Bang because the latter "hints at divine creation", which such models are designed to oppose.9
What all this shows is that alternative models to the Big Bang such as steady-state, the open and close universe model, and quantum universe models in fact spring from the philosophical prejudices of materialists. Scientific discoveries have demonstrated the reality of the Big Bang and can even explain "existence from nothingness". And this is very strong evidence that the universe is created by Allah, a point that materialists utterly reject.

An example of this opposition to the Big Bang is to be found in an essay by John Maddox, the editor of Nature (a materialist magazine), that appeared in 1989. In "Down with the Big Bang", Maddox declares the Big Bang to be philosophically unacceptable because it helps theologists by providing them with strong support for their ideas. The author also predicted that the Big Bang would be disproved and that support for it would disappear within a decade.10 Maddox can only have been even more discomforted by the subsequent discoveries during the next ten years that have provided further evidence of the existence of the Big Bang.

Some materialists do act with more common sense on this subject. The British Materialist H. P. Lipson accepts the truth of creation, albeit "unpleasantly", when he says:

If living matter is not, then caused by the interplay of atoms, natural forces, and radiation, how has it come into being?�I think, however, that we must�admit that the only acceptable explanation is creation. I know that this is anathema to physicists, as indeed it is to me, but we must not reject that we do not like if the experimental evidence supports it.11
In conclusion, the truth disclosed by science is this: Matter and time have been brought into being by an independent possessor of immense power, by a Creator. Allah, the Possessor of almighty power, knowledge and intelligence, has created the universe we live in.

http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/bigbang_03.html

darkfrog

08-18-2009, 04:21 PM

My statement was that esteemed scientists - like Stephen Hawking - have difficulty squaring the Origin without acknowledging an Intelligence. Here is a quote:

I think that quote supports my statement. It is extremely difficult to discuss the concept of Origin without acknowledging a Creator. Stephen Hawking, in his attempts to stay on the "scientific side" of the discussion actually had to manipulate math, and create his own, to support an alternative to those models which "hint" at a Divine Creator.

His book references God all over the place. I think that establishes my point very well.As I said, it's still an argument from authority.

His book was to lay audiences and contained his opinion only. There is nothing inherent in the equations that say God Did It.
You have not demonstrated that he believes that the physics of the origin requires an intelligence, you have only shown that Hawking himself appears to be most comfortable with that explanation of the unknown.

darkfrog

08-18-2009, 04:37 PM

I've also said that many are attempting to use Science as a tool to defeat the notion of a Deity. Here, too, is support of that:

http://www.creationofuniverse.com/html/bigbang_03.htmlAs for that bullshit article calling scientists materialists as opposed to naturalist as some sort of slam, just keep in mind there are many Christians that find the idea of the Big Bang distasteful and attempt to lump that together with evolution as evil doctrine. Just look at the stance from ICR. http://www.icr.org/research/index/researchp_df_r01/
http://www.icr.org/article/big-bang-theory-collapses/

so its a damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario for scientists. Most BTW, have no express purpose in disproving god, something that most people understand is not even possible. John Maddox can rave all he wants about the Big Bang giving comfort to theists, yet he made that statement 3 years before COBE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_Background_Explorer) and unless he has some empirical studies, anything he says is opinion and following the rule about arguments from authority, his opinion is not science.

bonkman

08-18-2009, 07:17 PM

That's not quite true. Hawking has admitted that he's been required to create imaginary math to support the multiverse theory.

All math was invented at one point or another.

In what way? Evidence of this assertion?

This thread.

Oh? Support that assertion, because it's utterly false.

"why do sodium chloride atoms form a lattice?"

"evolution can't be understood because we don't understand abiogenesis, therefore we can't say there's no creation at work."

darkfrog

08-18-2009, 07:47 PM

All math was invented at one point or another.

This thread.

"why do sodium chloride atoms form a lattice?"

"evolution can't be understood because we don't understand abiogenesis, therefore we can't say there's no creation at work."

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?2,file=4904,filename=pwned-funny2.jpg

IMMensaMind

08-19-2009, 02:22 PM

As I said, it's still an argument from authority.

By that standard, can we dismiss your "peer-reviewed" studies in support of MMGW as "an argument from authority"?

:lol:

His book was to lay audiences and contained his opinion only. There is nothing inherent in the equations that say God Did It.

Actually, the opposite is true. Stephen Hawking created imaginary math specifically so the equations didn't inherently imply that "God did it".

You have not demonstrated that he believes that the physics of the origin requires an intelligence, you have only shown that Hawking himself appears to be most comfortable with that explanation of the unknown.

Not just Hawking - and you're skewing what I said. I said "had difficulty squaring", and "have trouble coming to terms" not requires.

You'll notice that I did so in response to bonkman's statement that considering a Deity in any way cripples one to do further research. I have also - as a free bonus! :D - included a quote from a secular scientist who clearly demonstrates a bias against any scientific study which may indeed support the notion of a Deity.

That latter is something which actually happened. The converse is only something which secularlists have, in error and bias, claimed.

IMMensaMind

08-19-2009, 02:45 PM

All math was invented at one point or another.

Your double standard is incredible. Stephen Hawking himself admits that his math is unsupportable conjecture; that it will never be supportable conjecture. You have no choice but to hold this position, because the only other choice - the one supported by proofed math - demands a singularity.

You are now choosing to support a scientist who has nothing more than faith with which to defend his idea of multiverses.

Isn't that position the type which you've been railing against in this thread? :rolleye2:

This thread.

OHRLY? Is that why you're looking to argue with me on the multiverse theory, which is clinically unfalsifiable? Hypocritical as hell, sir.

"why do sodium chloride atoms form a lattice?"

How does asking why the mechanism work in any way demonstrate that point? You - and no one else - can demonstrate why the laws of nature do as they do, you can just predict how they work out, and what they do, based upon a repeated understanding of their witness.

"evolution can't be understood because we don't understand abiogenesis, therefore we can't say there's no creation at work."

Complete strawman. If you have to mischaracterize my argument - and I argue as clearly as anyone - then you're on weak ground.

I have already explained that certain portions of the study of evolution are established truth. What's insipid is the attempt to grant cover to other portions of evolutionary study as equally true - the portions which ask us to believe that man and ape do have a common ancestor; the parts which demand that we believe that all living things started as one living thing - without anywhere near the same level of clinical proof.

The motives behind that are simple: they are an attack on a belief in God.

IMMensaMind

08-19-2009, 02:47 PM

http://www.fairfaxunderground.com/forum/file.php?2,file=4904,filename=pwned-funny2.jpg

sad. You too obviously have a double standard. All math was invented at one time or another? Crissakes.

How is that not an example of faith, then, frog? Are you aware that you've just become that which you seemingly argue against?

darkfrog

08-19-2009, 05:25 PM

By that standard, can we dismiss your "peer-reviewed" studies in support of MMGW as "an argument from authority"?
Maybe you need to look up argument from authority. Here, I'll help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

So unless you can show that peer review studies are considered correct because of who wrote them rather than the content of the paper, then you are wrong here as well.

Actually, the opposite is true. Stephen Hawking created imaginary math specifically so the equations didn't inherently imply that "God did it".
You haven't yet demonstrated that was his reason for using that type of math. It is well known that he was led to introduce imaginary time by attempting to accommodate both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. Imaginary numbers come about naturally in many mathematical pursuits and when they can't be avoided, it may be a reflection of reality in some way. In case you haven't had mathematics in awhile, it would be a good idea to remind yourself of some of these basics, including the fact that imaginary number is just a name, they are not really imaginary, non-existent or fake.

Not just Hawking - and you're skewing what I said. I said "had difficulty squaring", and "have trouble coming to terms" not requires.
You said, "Stephen Hawking - who study the origins of the universe, and have trouble escaping the notion that some Intelligence had to be involved"
That sounds like a requirement to me. I have no issue with someone that has trouble squaring the idea or coming to terms with the idea of a god. That is a personal, internal struggle that has nothing to do with whether or not some deity was responsible for the origin of the cosmos.

You'll notice that I did so in response to bonkman's statement that considering a Deity in any way cripples one to do further research. I have also - as a free bonus! :D - included a quote from a secular scientist who clearly demonstrates a bias against any scientific study which may indeed support the notion of a Deity.

That latter is something which actually happened. The converse is only something which secularlists have, in error and bias, claimed.So a scientist has a problem with ideas that support a god, BFD! A scientist's opinion has very little impact on what is or is not actually scientific. If you notice it didn't matter that he didn't like the Big Bang concept, it is supported by empirical evidence so it is accepted in spite of the fact that he is an editor for a prestigious science journal. It just supports what I keep saying that appeal to authority has no scientific merit whatsoever.

bonkman

08-19-2009, 05:49 PM

Your double standard is incredible. Stephen Hawking himself admits that his math is unsupportable conjecture; that it will never be supportable conjecture. You have no choice but to hold this position, because the only other choice - the one supported by proofed math - demands a singularity.

You are now choosing to support a scientist who has nothing more than faith with which to defend his idea of multiverses.

Isn't that position the type which you've been railing against in this thread? :rolleye2:

No. Math is a truth within itself. Just like Newton made up calculus, Hawking's math (afaik) stands within itself. Newton's calculus was done to make problems dealing with gravitation explainable, but it could have just as well had no application and still been correct. It may have been irrelevant, but still would have worked at an abstract level. Likewise, Hawkings math works. That is, there is no flaw in his math that makes it an incorrect mathematical system (like calculus). Whether it has any connection to the real world makes no difference -- this is where you're lost. Because his math works doesn't [prove that multiverses exist, but it does show it could. Just like calculus doesn't prove that angels aren't moving the planets around, but it does show they don't have to be.

OHRLY? Is that why you're looking to argue with me on the multiverse theory, which is clinically unfalsifiable? Hypocritical as hell, sir.

Maybe it would help if you read this thread, which is an extremely good example of people admitting their ignorance of science saying they believe G-d does everything.

How does asking why the mechanism work in any way demonstrate that point? You - and no one else - can demonstrate why the laws of nature do as they do, you can just predict how they work out, and what they do, based upon a repeated understanding of their witness.

That's irrelevant. I'm defending my statement that you're using this thinking to claim that evolution isn't true.

Complete strawman. If you have to mischaracterize my argument - and I argue as clearly as anyone - then you're on weak ground.

I basically C&P from the GW thread, like it or not.

I have already explained that certain portions of the study of evolution are established truth. What's insipid is the attempt to grant cover to other portions of evolutionary study as equally true - the portions which ask us to believe that man and ape do have a common ancestor; the parts which demand that we believe that all living things started as one living thing - without anywhere near the same level of clinical proof.

Actually, you haven't explained jack. It's not "established truth," but it's definitely an idea that will probably never be completely discredited. However, there are no "separate parts" except for people who don't understand biology. For one thing, evolution doesn't require that there was "one living thing." Again, that's abiogenesis. It's highly doubtful that whatever chemical reaction created the first life form only happened once. However, once things started, evolution explains how it continues. And the life forms that started were not elephants and octopii.

The motives behind that are simple: they are an attack on a belief in God.
You're an idiot if you believe that. There's no scientific movement to "kill G-d." There's only a search for the mechanisms that work in nature. You can always, always say that "G-d did it" using science as a tool. For example, many people interpret Genesis where it says "bring forth kinds" to mean evolution -- that not all creatures were created but evolution made all species from the original organisms.

In short, science can never kill the idea of G-d, nor does it care to. It CAN extinguish the idea that G-d must be necessary for everything to happen by finding natural processes and laws that explain the universe. Did G-d cause that avalanche? No, the force due to gravity overcame the force of friction on the slope and snow slipped. Was it G-d's will that caused that to happen? Who knows?

sad. You too obviously have a double standard. All math was invented at one time or another? Crissakes.

How is that not an example of faith, then, frog? Are you aware that you've just become that which you seemingly argue against?

Ummm...because all math WAS invented at one time or another. Where do you think the fields of math came from? Magic?

Libertarian

08-19-2009, 05:51 PM

Bonk, you realize you look like a nutcase by typing G-d instead of God right?

Just FYI.

bonkman

08-19-2009, 05:52 PM

Bonk, you realize you look like a nutcase by typing G-d instead of God right?

Just FYI.
I've been called worse. :)

I think I look more like a nutcase for trying to argue with someone who believes scientists are motivated by attacking beliefs of G-d.

IMMensaMind

08-19-2009, 05:55 PM

I've been called worse. :)

I think I look more like a nutcase for trying to argue with someone who believes scientists are motivated by attacking beliefs of G-d.

You are, so why wouldn't some scientists be? After all, I listed one and quoted him, for crissakes.

bonkman

08-19-2009, 06:03 PM

You are, so why wouldn't some scientists be? After all, I listed one and quoted him, for crissakes.
Really? I'm out to end the belief in G-d? Which is why I write it as G-d?

Anyway, the way you write implies it's more than a handful of scientists, since the vast majority of scientists believe in (:rolleyes:) the theory of evolution. If there are a handful of scientists who are motivated to destroy G-d, it's still irrelevant as that's not the motivation of most scientists.

darkfrog

08-19-2009, 06:19 PM

I've been called worse. :)

I think I look more like a nutcase for trying to argue with someone who believes scientists are motivated by attacking beliefs of G-d.
I'm starting to feel a bit nutty too. :O

What is kind of funny is when one claims religious belief plays no role in his hostile attitude toward evolution yet continues to argue that scientists are trying to attack the idea of a god. :dontknow:

IMMensaMind

08-19-2009, 06:47 PM

Maybe you need to look up argument from authority. Here, I'll help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_authority
Argument from authority or appeal to authority is a logical fallacy, where it is argued that a statement is correct because the statement is made by a person or source that is commonly regarded as authoritative. The most general structure of this argument is:

Source A says that p.
Source A is authoritative.
Therefore, p is true.

So unless you can show that peer review studies are considered correct because of who wrote them rather than the content of the paper, then you are wrong here as well.

As I've already written, it isn't just one cosmologist/astronomer/physicist. It's quite a few. Secondly, I wasn't attempting to prove anything. I merely said that those at the pinnacle of the field have difficulty pondering our Origins and establishing a logical explanation without invoking a Creator. I'm correct about that, and as such, there is no fallacy.

At minimum, your and other's attempts to claim that "peer-reviewing" is what determines something's veracity (and don't deny that; it's obvious that the claim in GW thread has been that a larger number of peer-reviewed papers supporting MMGW trumps the number against, and attempts, therefore, to elevate the IPCC, through which the vast majority of pro-MMGW are channeled) is an appeal to authority - obviously, as you've made the actual term "Peer-Reviewed" the authority.

You certainly haven't made the content the authority, due to its esoteric nature. My claim, while made tongue in cheek (didja see the :D, or are you just this sensitive when your religion is attacked? :D), rings true.

You haven't yet demonstrated that was his reason for using that type of math.

Sure I did! He couldn't avoid singularities without creating Imaginary Time! Here it is in his own words:

Only if we could picture the universe in terms of imaginary time would there be no singularities.... When one goes back to the real time in which we live, however, there will still appear to be singularities. (Hawking, S.W. 1988. A Brief History of Time, pp. 138-139).

It is well known that he was led to introduce imaginary time by attempting to accommodate both General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics without acknowledging a Big Bang.

Fixed for accuracy, darkfrog. The Big Bang purports to be the Beginning, squaring it with General Relativity, as well as the start of all matter, squaring it with Quantum Mechanics.

I know a thing or two about both. General Relativity requires a starting point, as in: a beginning of time. This inescapably supports the definition of the Universe with a Starting Point - a Singularity. No secularist can abide this, but not abiding this creates an Entropy problem: how can the Second Law of Thermodynamics be true (and it is; it's testable), in this scenario?

Imaginary numbers come about naturally in many mathematical pursuits and when they can't be avoided, it may be a reflection of reality in some way. In case you haven't had mathematics in awhile, it would be a good idea to remind yourself of some of these basics, including the fact that imaginary number is just a name, they are not really imaginary, non-existent or fake.

Do you think veiled insults become you? I have a double engineering degree, for crissakes. I've likely studied more math than you'll ever see. LaPlace and Fourier Transforms ate up hours of my time for years of my life.

Your "reasoned" explanation for Hawking's attempts fall flat, considering that it isn't just imaginary numbers he developed (as in, the square root of -4), he literally made up rules - you know, like saying something like "well, what if we made 4x0≠0, but instead, =�? That, by the way, is the only way you can circumvent a decay equation, because nothing arrives at zero.

You said, "Stephen Hawking - who study the origins of the universe, and have trouble escaping the notion that some Intelligence had to be involved"
That sounds like a requirement to me. I have no issue with someone that has trouble squaring the idea or coming to terms with the idea of a god. That is a personal, internal struggle that has nothing to do with whether or not some deity was responsible for the origin of the cosmos.
So a scientist has a problem with ideas that support a god, BFD! A scientist's opinion has very little impact on what is or is not actually scientific. If you notice it didn't matter that he didn't like the Big Bang concept, it is supported by empirical evidence so it is accepted in spite of the fact that he is an editor for a prestigious science journal. It just supports what I keep saying that appeal to authority has no scientific merit whatsoever.

Then I can officially call your defense of Hawking - and Hawking's attempt itself - unscientific, and strictly an exercise of faith. That he as gotten away with it is evidence of his reputation as an AUTHORITY. He's doing it through the graces of his own weight! Had a nobody developed this funkymath, they would have been laughed out of the room. It isn't "scientific" to literally create a new form of math simply because the existing form of math won't avoid a singularity, but you seem to support the act. That means you are just as guilty of operating under the use of faith as anyone who believes in God is.

It's funny how you desegregate a scientist from his science when his opinion - clearly offered in the realm of science - is easily discerned as an attempt to circumvent a conclusion which makes the secularist uncomfortable - as you are. Other times, you cannot seem to understand that the claim that "science is agnostic, and just looks for the truth" is a complete canard, considering that science is nothing more than a tool, and does nothing more than become an extension of the scientist, fully able to be manipulated.

And manipulated it has been.

And bonk: Calculus was developed through mathematical proof, as evidenced in how it solved typical change/rate problems published in Principia Mathematica. Calculus was testable through derivation and integration. It was not something that was "invented", but rather: discovered. Math is a reality that exists, not created.

The late Sir Herbert Dingle explains:

“Suppose we want to find the number of men required for a certain job under certain conditions. Every schoolboy knows such problems, and he knows that he must begin by saying: ‘Let x = the number of men required.’ But that substitution introduces a whole range of possibilities that the nature of the original problem excludes. The mathematical symbol x can be positive, negative, integral, fractional, irrational, imaginary, complex, zero, infinite, and whatever else the fertile brain of the mathematician may devise. The number of men, however, must be simply positive and integral. Consequently, when you say, ‘Let x = the number of men required’ you are making a quite invalid substitution, and the result of the calculation, though entirely possible for the symbol, might be quite impossible for the men.

Every elementary algebra book contains such problems that lead to quadratic equations, and these have two solutions, which might be 8 and –3, say. We accept 8 as the answer and ignore –3 because we know from experience that there are no such things as negative men, and the only alternative interpretation-that we could get the work done by subtracting three men from our gang-is obviously absurd….

So we just ignore [one] of the mathematical solutions, and quite overlook the significance of that fact-namely, that in the language of mathematics we can tell lies as well as truths, and within the scope of mathematics itself there is no possible way of telling one from the other. We can distinguish them only by experience or by reasoning outside the mathematics, applied to the possible relation between the mathematical solution and its supposed physical correlate.” - Herbert Dingle, Science at the Crossroads (London: Martin, Brian and O’Keefe, 1972) pp. 31-32.

Good arguments - and perhaps insight into some of my beliefs, here (http://www.skepticalchristian.com/cosmological_argument.htm).

Phreaker47

08-19-2009, 09:13 PM

I'm starting to feel a bit nutty too. :O

What is kind of funny is when one claims religious belief plays no role in his hostile attitude toward evolution yet continues to argue that scientists are trying to attack the idea of a god. :dontknow:

Which leads you to wonder whether it's (A) conscious dishonesty, or (B) self-delusion when they do so.

superdan54

08-20-2009, 06:59 AM

Good arguments - and perhaps insight into some of my beliefs, here (http://www.skepticalchristian.com/cosmological_argument.htm).

Kalam FTW :woot:!

btw - interesting discussion y'all...

IMMensaMind

08-20-2009, 07:35 AM

Which leads you to wonder whether it's (A) conscious dishonesty, or (B) self-delusion when they do so.

Um...you have to wonder about the strength of your position if you have to resort to supporting each other's stance by attacking with ad-hominem.

IMMensaMind

08-20-2009, 07:56 AM

I'm starting to feel a bit nutty too. :O

I would hope you don't make stuff up, like feeling nutty about talking about one of the most commonly debated topics in the world. :rolleye2:

What is kind of funny is when one claims religious belief plays no role in his hostile attitude toward evolution yet continues to argue that scientists are trying to attack the idea of a god. :dontknow:

You continue to mischaracterize the position - which you have to do in order to defeat it (or at least convince yourself you've defeated it :rolleye2:). Where have I or anyone else said that our motivation isn't defense of belief in God? :dontknow:

I have been crystal clear in my description of the parts of evolutionary theory with which I agree, and which parts have insufficient support to be accepted - parts which, despite the dearth of evidence - are used as a propagandic tool to support the belief system which ridicules belief in God. In point of fact, it isn't even the absence of compelling evidence with which I take issue.

It's how that supposed "sufficient evidence" is used to attack the legitimacy of religious faith. Do you honestly think that if those people who supported the notion of the Story of Evolution as being a completely natural (read: non-deistic) process - from primordial ooze to our present state - wouldn't attempt to wield that belief into a whip against those who believe in God...that those who believe in God would even care? :shake:

Of course not. Anyone who believes in God could very easily adapt that belief with the knowledge of Evolution as a programmed process put in place by an Intelligent Being.

For true insight into who is really the antagonist, ask yourself if the reverse were true. If someone arrived at the mathematical postulate in support of God (which, BTW, the Theory of the Big Bang does, which is exactly why I brought it up and quoted people like Hawking). You and other atheist/agnostic/secularists literally had a tizzy fit and lobbed ad hominems.

I just falsified your hypothesis, btw. :nod:

If you cannot acknowledge that you and others ridicule those who believe in God, I cannot see how this discussion can advance. It is apparent that when those who believe in God express their beliefs, one of the first arguments used in an attempt to counter it is the idea of "proof", which then moves to the explanations of what we have proved: meaning: certain aspects of the process of evolution, as though such an explanation (with the purpose of supporting "natural" - read: non-deistic - processes) actually does delegitimize a Deistic belief.

It does not. Case closed.

Epiphyte

08-20-2009, 08:32 AM

For true insight into who is really the antagonist, ask yourself if the reverse were true. If someone arrived at the mathematical postulate in support of God (which, BTW, the Theory of the Big Bang does, which is exactly why I brought it up and quoted people like Hawking). You and other atheist/agnostic/secularists literally had a tizzy fit and lobbed ad hominems.

I just falsified your hypothesis, btw. :nod:

I might not have kept up with this discussion so I might have missed this. But, the big bang theory does not attempt to describe what caused the big bang anymore than the theory of gravity attempts to describe what causes gravity or the theory of evolution attempts to describe how life began.

Edit: Although, they're great questions and are well worth speculating about.

IMMensaMind

08-20-2009, 12:34 PM

I might not have kept up with this discussion so I might have missed this. But, the big bang theory does not attempt to describe what caused the big bang anymore than the theory of gravity attempts to describe what causes gravity or the theory of evolution attempts to describe how life began.

Edit: Although, they're great questions and are well worth speculating about.

You did miss the core point, which was made in links and quotes. The interesting thing about the mathematics supporting the Big Bang is that it supports/alludes to a Creation event. That's precisely why secularists have said that they have to somehow "defeat" the very idea.

The fact that some secular scientists even have that attitude is at the center of my points.

Epiphyte

08-20-2009, 12:42 PM

You did miss the core point, which was made in links and quotes. The interesting thing about the mathematics supporting the Big Bang is that it supports/alludes to a Creation event. That's precisely why secularists have said that they have to somehow "defeat" the very idea.

The Big Bang Theory does not address what came "before" the Big Bang.

IMMensaMind

08-20-2009, 01:01 PM

The Big Bang Theory does not address what came "before" the Big Bang.

In one inescapable way, it definitely does: it acknowledges a Singularity, and begs the question: what - something outside the bounds and limits of time and space - would have come before?

That is the Singularity event that Hawking cites in his contemplation of a Deity, and why he constructed a fabricated alternate reality to cope with the existence of everything without having to acknowledge such a Deity.

Epiphyte

08-20-2009, 01:09 PM

In one inescapable way, it definitely does: it acknowledges a Singularity, and begs the question: what - something outside the bounds and limits of time and space - would have come before?

That is the Singularity event that Hawking cites in his contemplation of a Deity, and why he constructed a fabricated alternate reality to cope with the existence of everything without having to acknowledge such a Deity.

It does imply this question, but it makes no claims about it. Just like how the Theory of Evolution implies that life began at some point but makes no claims about that. Both deal entirely with the Universe and life after those initial points. Any theory has boundaries, outside of which the theories either do not apply or are highly questionable.

Any attempts so far to explain the very beginning of life and the Universe are highly speculative. But, just because we don't know it doesn't imply that a God is involved. That is, unless you define God as "the mechanism behind the Big Bang." In that case, yes, the Big Bang implies a "God."

darkfrog

08-20-2009, 01:32 PM

In one inescapable way, it definitely does: it acknowledges a Singularity, and begs the question: what - something outside the bounds and limits of time and space - would have come before?

That is the Singularity event that Hawking cites in his contemplation of a Deity, and why he constructed a fabricated alternate reality to cope with the existence of everything without having to acknowledge such a Deity.

If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?
-- Dr. Carl Sagan

redmaxx

08-20-2009, 01:59 PM

If the general picture of an expanding universe and a Big Bang is correct, we must then confront still more difficult questions. What were conditions like at the time of the Big Bang? What happened before that? Was there a tiny universe, devoid of all matter, and then the matter suddenly created from nothing? How does that happen? In many cultures it is customary to answer that God created the universe out of nothing. But this is mere temporizing. If we wish courageously to pursue the question, we must, of course ask next where God comes from. And if we decide this to be unanswerable, why not save a step and decide the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question? Or, if we say that God has always existed, why not save a step and conclude that the universe has always existed?
-- Dr. Carl Sagan

By natural law, the universe couldn't have always existed, however we don't have any such proof of a limit on God, so there's no reason to assume that God would have such a requirement to have had a beginning.

bonkman

08-20-2009, 02:14 PM

By natural law, the universe couldn't have always existed, however we don't have any such proof of a limit on God, so there's no reason to assume that God would have such a requirement to have had a beginning.
ummmm...no. It absolutely could have if there is no existence without a universe -- by definition.

redmaxx

08-20-2009, 02:20 PM

ummmm...no. It absolutely could have if there is no existence without a universe -- by definition.

Two things:

A) I said there's no reason to assume.

B) Darkfrog: Science doesn't attempt to disprove god by induction ("all crows are black" argument), it is silent on the existence of anything outside of the natural realm.

darkfrog

08-20-2009, 02:25 PM

ummmm...no. It absolutely could have if there is no existence without a universe -- by definition.

Maybe redmaxx has a point, I mean if there was an intelligence that is infinite, at some point boredom would ensue, making the utter confusing and contradictory elements in the bible understandable. It's his form of entertainment, seeing how those puny humans handle such confusion. :D

darkfrog

08-20-2009, 02:27 PM

Two things:

A) I said there's no reason to assume.

B) Darkfrog: Science doesn't attempt to disprove god by induction ("all crows are black" argument), it is silent on the existence of anything outside of the natural realm.
I don't think bonk said you couldn't assume that, he was just pointing out an alternative idea that is supported by physics. Namely that existence is meaningless before the BB, the moment space and time came into being.

redmaxx

08-20-2009, 02:41 PM

I don't think bonk said you couldn't assume that, he was just pointing out an alternative idea that is supported by physics. Namely that existence is meaningless before the BB, the moment space and time came into being.

I don't think it's been conclusively proven that there's no possible way for anything to exist outside of space and time, has there?

IMMensaMind

08-20-2009, 02:50 PM

It does imply this question, but it makes no claims about it.

The implication alone is enough, as the quotes I provided substantiate. The implication, in fact, becomes the claim - due to, as you've already said, the anti-falsibility of the claim. This is how the Big Bang theory itself becomes anathema to those who do not believe in God - just as the quotes I provided substantiate.

Just like how the Theory of Evolution implies that life began at some point but makes no claims about that.

Same rules apply as did above: the implication alone is the claim, due to the anti-falsiblity of it. I would hope your explanation here, however, would give posters like darkfrog some pause, because atheist/secularist posters such as he were attempting to assert that no such implication exists or is attempted. Your words are further evidence that their position is incorrect.

Because the Theory of Evolution is used by many atheists/secularists to establish a "natural" reason (accident) for our existence, it has been squarely implicated in attempting to tear down the tenets of religion, which is why it finds itself a target in our culture, pitting atheist against deist, with the former the antagonist (contrary to dark's claims). Those with belief in God have no reason to dismiss evolutionary study, due to the fact that the mechanism of the creation is justifiably a creation itself. The atheist, therefore, is motivated to defeat the position of the believer by providing evidence of a process which requires no God.

Both deal entirely with the Universe and life after those initial points.

If it were pure science, it would. However, science is a tool, and that tool, when put in the hands of man, becomes bastardized and manipulated to political/propagandic ends, just as anything else is.

Any theory has boundaries, outside of which the theories either do not apply or are highly questionable.

I agree: the question being discussed in this thread is a disagreement regarding the location of those boundaries. This is where belief muddies science.

Any attempts so far to explain the very beginning of life and the Universe are highly speculative.

Those who believe in God have a very good understanding of the need for metaphysics in these questions. Secularists seem so zealously committed to pure science that they attempt to make the tool of science valid in places it cannot be (science itself is part of the creation, if the premise were to be accepted here), and in so doing corrupt their science with articles of faith - all while attempting to claim that the faith needed to believe in God is invalid. It is a massive hypocrisy and double standard.

But, just because we don't know it doesn't imply that a God is involved.

No, put that way, it doesn't. However, that is a clever manipulation of semantics, and itself implies that Science will one day know. Science cannot know, as Science is invalid outside of the rules under which it operates. So, if I were to put it in a way that I believe is accurate, the conclusion drawn is totally different:

Just because we don't know doesn't imply that a God is involved, but realizing that we can never know does imply that very thing.

That is, unless you define God as "the mechanism behind the Big Bang." In that case, yes, the Big Bang implies a "God."

...and I think you come to realization right here as well, and hit upon the core contention I've made. The bottom line is that the Big Bang Theory requires a catalyst that, by definition, exists outside the rules and influence of time and space.

If the word "God" is unable to fit such a definition, then nothing ever will.

darkfrog

08-20-2009, 03:01 PM

I don't think it's been conclusively proven that there's no possible way for anything to exist outside of space and time, has there?What is anything? What is exist? To science, existence is matter and energy, without those the idea of existence is meaningless as far as science is concerned. It is a difficult idea to conceptualize in the human brain but it is just like asking what is outside the boundary of the universe itself, what is it expanding into? In spite of mensa's assertions, just because we don't know or understand something and even if it is impossible to even find the answer, does not imply a deity.

riptide_slick

08-20-2009, 03:08 PM

Those with belief in God have no reason to dismiss evolutionary study, due to the fact that the mechanism of the creation is justifiably a creation itself. And yet they do dismiss evolutionary studies and findings, oftentimes altogether. Why would they do this, if there is no motivation for them to do so?

You believe that atheist evolutionists have an agenda to prove God wrong because it contradicts scientific theories even though not all evolutionists are athiest, and I believe that IDers have an agenda to prove evolution wrong because it contradicts their non-scientific beliefs. What other motivation would they have to try and contradict a scientific theory? Science is agnostic.

The atheist, therefore, is motivated to defeat the position of the believer by providing evidence of a process which requires no God. Are you assuming that all supporters of evolution are atheist (or that all atheists are pro-evolution)? You don't seem to make such assumptions in your other posts, so I'm a bit unclear on what you're trying to say here - could you clarify it for me?

redmaxx

08-20-2009, 03:41 PM

What is anything? What is exist? To science, existence is matter and energy, without those the idea of existence is meaningless as far as science is concerned.

Hence B in my reply to bonkman. :)

Epiphyte

08-20-2009, 03:49 PM

Same rules apply as did above: the implication alone is the claim, due to the anti-falsiblity of it. I would hope your explanation here, however, would give posters like darkfrog some pause, because atheist/secularist posters such as he were attempting to assert that no such implication exists or is attempted. Your words are further evidence that their position is incorrect.

Anti-falsifiability of what? Of evolution? Anything having to do with the very start of life does not nullify the Theory of Evolution because that theory does not at all attempt to tackle that question. Does the discovery of the Higgs Boson make a difference as to whether you'll fall down if you jump up? No. The current Theory of Gravity would still hold true (though it may be modified to incorporate the Higgs Boson just as evidence of a God starting life would be incorporated into the Theory of Evolution if evidence of that was found).

"But, just because we don't know it doesn't imply that a God is involved."

No, put that way, it doesn't. However, that is a clever manipulation of semantics, and itself implies that Science will one day know. Science cannot know, as Science is invalid outside of the rules under which it operates. So, if I were to put it in a way that I believe is accurate, the conclusion drawn is totally different:

Just because we don't know doesn't imply that a God is involved, but realizing that we can never know does imply that very thing.

1. It DOES NOT imply that science will one day know. That's a complete fabrication.

2. Currently, science cannot answer that question, but one day it might. I'm not implying that it will, merely stating that it's possible. You might say that by definition it is impossible, but that's only the current definition, definitions can be revised. There have been countless things in history that Humans have thought were impossible that we have achieved.

3. Even if it IS impossible (something we can never be certain of) to know why the Big Bang occurred, that doesn't imply that a God is involved. It just means that it's impossible to know. Of course, you can equate that unknown to God if you so desire.

...and I think you come to realization right here as well, and hit upon the core contention I've made. The bottom line is that the Big Bang Theory requires a catalyst that, by definition, exists outside the rules and influence of time and space.

The rules of time and space have changed radically just this past century, what makes you think they won't change radically again?

IMMensaMind

08-20-2009, 04:06 PM

Really? I'm out to end the belief in G-d? Which is why I write it as G-d?

Anyway, the way you write implies it's more than a handful of scientists, since the vast majority of scientists believe in (:rolleyes:) the theory of evolution. If there are a handful of scientists who are motivated to destroy G-d, it's still irrelevant as that's not the motivation of most scientists.

This is your assertion, but that's all it is. You, I or anyone else cannot exactly offer a poll asking this of scientists, can we? No...so we're left with observing from where such attacks on religion emanate. "Science" is the banner under which belief in God finds itself attacked. You need do nothing else than read the the below, and see the OP's article and subsequent commentary to understand this:

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2511,Does-science-make-belief-in-God-obsolete,Hitchens-Pinker-Stenger-Schermer-others,page2#170205

I know this: evidence of religious belief attempting to discredit science may have taken place in places like the Roman Catholic Church (during Inquisition times), but that most certainly is not happening now, secularist's hyperbole notwithstanding. The reverse is taking place. Just a search for threads on the topic in most mainstream forums will expose a rank hatred of Christianity - a hatred that cannot be denied.

darkfrog

08-20-2009, 04:16 PM

http://www.richarddawkins.net/articleComments,2511,Does-science-make-belief-in-God-obsolete,Hitchens-Pinker-Stenger-Schermer-others,page2#170205
http://www.templeton.org/belief/

It looks to me like many prominent scientists answer "No" to the question. Even renowned atheist Christopher Hitchens says no as well. In science, we only need one counter example to falsify a hypothesis. Here we have many.

IMMensaMind

08-20-2009, 04:26 PM

And yet they do dismiss evolutionary studies and findings, oftentimes altogether. Why would they do this, if there is no motivation for them to do so?

Evolutionary findings? What always is contested is the nature of the findings, and the conclusions drawn as a result of those findings. Findings are findings. Those who study evolution can enlighten us on their discoveries, but must drawn the line on passing on those discoveries in the trappings of what it is supposed to mean. Anyway: links to those who dismiss? Anything mainstream?

You believe that atheist evolutionists have an agenda to prove God wrong because it contradicts scientific theories even though not all evolutionists are athiest

The sentence you just wrote is absolutely illogical. Atheist evolutions have an agenda, even though they're not all atheist evolutionists? No.

...and I believe that IDers have an agenda to prove evolution wrong because it contradicts their non-scientific beliefs.

This, too, is wrong; you literally made that up. How would the realization of ID's proof - that there is a Designer - invalidate the concept of evolution? Intelligent Design has no conflict with the study of evolution whatsoever, but the reverse is most certainly true. The conflict is one where belief in support of a Designer is somehow delegitimized by Evolutionists, even though Government programs such as SETI rely on patterns to determine intelligence themselves.

As a kernel to consider on that topic, consider that ID proponents aren't looking to eliminate the study of evolution in schools, but the reverse is true.

What other motivation would they have to try and contradict a scientific theory? Science is agnostic.

I'm getting tired of making this point, as it is the only one which matters: Scientists are not.

Are you assuming that all supporters of evolution are atheist (or that all atheists are pro-evolution)? You don't seem to make such assumptions in your other posts, so I'm a bit unclear on what you're trying to say here - could you clarify it for me?

Where did you even think to ask that from the words I wrote? Here they are again:

The atheist, therefore, is motivated to defeat the position of the believer by providing evidence of a process which requires no God.

I should now refine that statement to say strong atheist. Weak atheists are generally not activists. In no place have I said that all people who "believe in evolution" are atheist, and in fact I've said that many Christians believe in evolution (small 'e'), but most don't fully accept Evolution (capital 'E') - and for damned good reason: it's incomplete study.

riptide_slick

08-20-2009, 05:32 PM

Anyway: links to those who dismiss? http://www.answersingenesis.org/about

The sentence you just wrote is absolutely illogical. Atheist evolutions have an agenda, even though they're not all atheist evolutionists? No. My apologies - I changed the sentence and didn't grammar check it. How about "You [seem to] believe that evolutionists have an agenda to prove God wrong because it contradicts scientific theories even though not all evolutionists are athiest..."

This, too, is wrong; you literally made that up. I made up something I believe? The nerve of me! ;)

How would the realization of ID's proof - that there is a Designer - invalidate the concept of evolution? It doesn't. Attempting to equate it's various findings (i.e. "it's that way because it was designed that way") to scientific ones is the attempt to invalidate findings of evolution in order to discredit the theory as a whole. See link above for this quote:

"...seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a “millions of years old” earth (and even older universe)."

Intelligent Design has no conflict with the study of evolution whatsoever, but the reverse is most certainly true. Evolution conflicts with ID but ID doesn't conflict with Evolution? I'm confused.

If you're trying to say that belief in a deity as a creator doesn't conflict with evolution then I'd wholeheartedly agree. But the reverse is also true in that case.

As a kernel to consider on that topic, consider that ID proponents aren't looking to eliminate the study of evolution in schools, but the reverse is true. Evolution proponents aren't seeking to eliminate the study of ID - they're not proponents of teaching in in science class as a competing theory. And let's call it what it is - relabeled creationism. And I personally have issues with that being taught as science, because it's not.

Teach it as a religious elective for those that wish to learn about it if you'd like. But if we're talking about public schools, then be prepared to offer electives in *any* religion that's demanded. Anything less would be preferential treatment and unconstitutional.

I'm getting tired of making this point, as it is the only one which matters: Scientists are not. We're not arguing about scientists - we're arguing about a scientific theory. If you want to call out specific scientists as "having an agenda" then fine - go ahead. But you seem to be insinuating that it's science that has the agenda by saying things like "[science] becomes bastardized and manipulated to political/propagandic ends, just as anything else is." If we are to take such an accusation at face value, do we never believe any evidence that science (or scientists) provide because they are man-made and therefore corruptable? As an aside, is the Bible more authoritative than scientists?

I should now refine that statement to say strong atheist. Weak atheists are generally not activists. In no place have I said that all people who "believe in evolution" are atheist, and in fact I've said that many Christians believe in evolution (small 'e'), but most don't fully accept Evolution (capital 'E') - and for damned good reason: it's incomplete study.I think it's a bit more correct to say that many Christians believe in The Theory of Evolution (big E) but don't believe in abiogenisis. And many don't even believe in small "e" evolution and believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old.

darkfrog

08-20-2009, 06:44 PM

Evolutionary findings? What always is contested is the nature of the findings, and the conclusions drawn as a result of those findings. Findings are findings. Those who study evolution can enlighten us on their discoveries, but must drawn the line on passing on those discoveries in the trappings of what it is supposed to mean.

This just demonstrates your lack of knowledge about science. A scientific theory is the meaning behind the findings. Theories are devised expressly to make sense of the data, to make sense of it in some explainable model of nature. To say that scientists must draw the line at giving meaning is to deny all of science. What does it mean that sunlight is separated into a rainbow of colors by a prism? When Maxwell realized that electromagnetism propagated at the speed of light, he didn't stop there, he made the logical leap to hypothesize that light and magnetism are part of the same phenomena. He, of course, was shown to be correct. When a young man in the Swiss Patent office pondered what Galileo means that no privileged frame of reference wrt light, applying Maxwell's equations we get Special Relativity.
Theories are powerful because of their explanatory powers. They give us the meaning behind the facts, the data.
It was Darwin asking himself the meaning behind the beak variation in the Gal�pagos finches (among other things) that he theorized natural selection.

Facts are boring and are meaningless without a framework to explain them. It is the models, the theories that explain facts that are exciting.

bonkman

08-20-2009, 08:15 PM

Facts are boring and are meaningless without a framework to explain them. It is the models, the theories that explain facts that are exciting.

G-d is more exciting.

riptide_slick

08-20-2009, 08:26 PM

G-d is more exciting.FSM has a better sense of humor though. ;)

Ammiddeon

08-21-2009, 06:51 AM

Creation is one of Gods attributes.
God attains His perfectness through His attributes.
Gods perfectnedss in ultimate and is always present.

For God to always be ultimately perfect His attributes of perfectness have to always be in effect.

Therefore, God has always been creating and there was no point in time when there was no creation.

What do you think?

Libertarian

08-21-2009, 06:56 AM

What do you think?

lol..

IMMensaMind

08-21-2009, 10:09 AM

http://www.answersingenesis.org/about

You gave me a link with a shitton of information in it. What exactly in that link supports your claim?

My apologies - I changed the sentence and didn't grammar check it. How about "You [seem to] believe that evolutionists have an agenda to prove God wrong because it contradicts scientific theories even though not all evolutionists are athiest..."

As you can see, I'm not attempting - or ever have - to impugn "all evolutionists". I specifically targeted activist atheists.

I made up something I believe? The nerve of me! ;)

Yes: you made up something, and you choose to believe it. I'll now ask you for substantiation of your belief. It is obvious to anyone who follows the issue that ID'ers are not on offense. They are fighting to have their field even be included, as they should be, along side evolutionary teaching.

It doesn't. Attempting to equate it's various findings (i.e. "it's that way because it was designed that way") to scientific ones is the attempt to invalidate findings of evolution in order to discredit the theory as a whole. See link above for this quote:

"...seek to expose the bankruptcy of evolutionary ideas, and its bedfellow, a �millions of years old� earth (and even older universe)."

If you can defend every statement made by every activist atheist evolutionist - which you won't - then I'll defend every statement made by every activist creationist - which I won't. What's clear is that activist atheism is very mainstream, in society; in the educational system; in the media. "Young Earthers", as you've linked here, are not.

I do not know exactly how old the earth is, though my own instinct tells me that the "Young Earth" movement doesn't know wtf it's talking about. The quoted statement above wrt to evolution - the only thing we're talking about - can be interpreted to mean that elements of the statements made by activist atheists wrt to evolution are intellectually bankrupt. And I agree with that part of what was quoted.

Most of this country is Christian. Are they mostly of the belief that the Earth is only 5000-7000 years old? You engage in intellectually dishonest debate by attempting to mainstream an ideology which is clearly not.

The statements, however, regarding how "god is not needed", is the core of the contention of any creationist, regardless how radical. That is the reason I've said that their fight is defensive, and the atheist's fight is the opposite.

Evolution conflicts with ID but ID doesn't conflict with Evolution? I'm confused.

Or you're being intentionally obtuse. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt. The Study of Evolution does not conflict with ID, nor is the reverse true. IDer's are not opposed to the continued study of evolution (do you really want to engage in the fallacy of isolated examples, or just move on and accept that the vast majority of IDer's simply want ID taught along side Evolution?).

Activist Atheists are attempting to invalidate the study of ID. For obvious reasons: they do not want the idea of God continue to be inculcated in this world. They would hope that "we would grow out of it" (to be read in fully elitist smarmy voice). Every high school i the land teaches Evolution. How many teach ID?

Point made.

If you're trying to say that belief in a deity as a creator doesn't conflict with evolution then I'd wholeheartedly agree. But the reverse is also true in that case.

I have already said that. Evolution as pure study does not conflict with ID; ID as pure study does not conflict with Evolution.

Activist Atheists are attempting to create the conflict, attempting to make the entire process of Evolution a "Natural" phenomenon (read: no God); calling ID illegitimate, and doing things like - as I've already established - attempting to squash Big Bang acceptability, the acknowledgement of intricate designs and patterns as an earmark of intelligence, etc.

Evolution proponents aren't seeking to eliminate the study of ID - they're not proponents of teaching in in science class as a competing theory.

They're threatened (as you are), because only atheists have attempted to call ID competing.

You just made my case. You claimed just a bit ago that ID is not in conflict, and now you admit that atheists view it as competing.

That's the nice thing about good debate, rip: an opponent on the wrong side of the debate can only tiptoe around the facts so long before stepping right into the light. :D

And let's call it what it is - relabeled creationism. And I personally have issues with that being taught as science, because it's not.

You have issues with something you and other atheists just created out of thin air. Here's a fact: just like any scientist who starts with a hypothesis (in this case, that life was Created by an Intelligent Designer) you cannot eliminate the hypothesis as unScientific as an excuse to reject the study. That's what's unScientific.

You should support that the Scientific Method be followed in pursuit of substantiating this hypothesis, just like you do anything else. Because of your faith in the lack of a God, however, you are unwilling to even try.

This is a priori evidence that what I've been saying about Atheists in general throughout these threads is correct:

It is Atheists, not Creationists, who shelve study because of what they believe - not the opposite, as you and others have claimed in SD threads
It is Atheists who are offensively trying to eliminate belief in God from the mainstream, not the opposite as Atheists have contended
it is Atheists, not those who believe in God, who are closeminded

Teach it as a religious elective for those that wish to learn about it if you'd like. But if we're talking about public schools, then be prepared to offer electives in *any* religion that's demanded. Anything less would be preferential treatment and unconstitutional.

Nope: this is a construct you and other atheists have created in order to attempt to smear IDers as religious. The pursuit of the discovery of a predecessor who left the building blocks of life and other matter can easily be separated from religious belief. Only your ideology is attempting to stop it, because of your religious belief.

We're not arguing about scientists - we're arguing about a scientific theory. If you want to call out specific scientists as "having an agenda" then fine - go ahead. But you seem to be insinuating that it's science that has the agenda by saying things like "[science] becomes bastardized and manipulated to political/propagandic ends, just as anything else is."

:rolleye2: - I did nothing of the sort.

This is an intentional misstatement of words with very clear meanings. How many times have I said that "science" is no different than a gun in this regard? A gun, by itself, cannot do harm. Only a user of a gun can do so. I've very clearly delineated the actions of scientists from scientific study. Science is agnostic. Knowledge and Information derived from science is subject to interpretation, and that is where the nature of Man interjects his own flavor. If someone has biases, that person can easily twist and warp any information to support their own biases.

How could that be made more clear for you? :dontknow:

If we are to take such an accusation at face value, do we never believe any evidence that science (or scientists) provide because they are man-made and therefore corruptable?

Of course! Do you think I'm taking issue with every scientific discovery? Are you muddying the issues here to intentionally obscure the tactics of secularists?

As an aside, is the Bible more authoritative than scientists?

This is exactly the type of attack that supports what I'm saying. The Bible and Scientists are not supposed to be competition: only your side as made it so. What point are you trying to make here?

I think it's a bit more correct to say that many Christians believe in The Theory of Evolution (big E) but don't believe in abiogenisis.

Young Earthers are not "many". Abiogenesis is an extremely speculative field, with hypotheses created through use of faith to the same degree that those of religious faith construct their beliefs. I say: study away - I don't care if atheists form opinions and pursue research based upon their beliefs. I do care if they attempt to shape public policy (ie: what we should be teaching in schools: do we teach abiogenesis study in schools? Yes we do! Why? Because those pursuing the field are following the Scientific Method [or are supposed to be], just as ID proponents do. Both, however, have as their basis a core belief: one believes that all life rose naturally, and one does not. Yet one is allowed, and the other is not supposed to be?) based upon the faith based premises.

DOUBLE STANDARD.

And many don't even believe in small "e" evolution and believe that the earth is only 6,000 years old

It's funny how wacky and radical you want to make them when looking to defeat a position they hold, but how big and important and mainstream you want to make them appear when defending the idea that "Science" is under attack. Regardless how "many" (:rolleye2:) there are, who cares what they believe? They simply want their argument heard, just like anyone else.

riptide_slick

08-21-2009, 11:44 AM

You gave me a link with a shitton of information in it. What exactly in that link supports your claim? It's group whose agenda is to discredit scientific findings. That's their stated goal. You wanted a link for people that do that and I provided one. Wouldn't you agree that they fit that criteria?

As you can see, I'm not attempting - or ever have - to impugn "all evolutionists". I specifically targeted activist atheists. You're making a lot of assumptions about people though. You've already assumed in this post that I'm an atheist. ;)

Yes: you made up something, and you choose to believe it. I'll now ask you for substantiation of your belief. It is obvious to anyone who follows the issue that ID'ers are not on offense. Well let's clarify what "offense" means to make sure we're talking about the same thing. "Offense" to me means that they're actively trying to promote their un-scientific beliefs in a science classroom setting. And I'm opposed to that, so using the definition of "offense" then people like me are on the "defense" of keeping scientific study to things that are scientific, like evolution. ID is not scientific.

They are fighting to have their field even be included, as they should be, along side evolutionary teaching. But it should not be included with scientific teaching because it's not a scientific teaching. ID is an argument from faith, not scientific discovery. Therefore, it belongs in religion or philosophy classes. Not science ones.

What's clear is that activist atheism is very mainstream, in society; in the educational system; in the media. "Young Earthers", as you've linked here, are not. Those are two wholly subjective arguments that we're probably never going to be able to prove to the other's satisfaction. I don't believe that the ID movement is "mainstream" per se, but I don't believe the "activist atheism" movement to be that mainstream either. I do see a mainstream movement to keep ID discussions out of science classes though.

Most of this country is Christian. Are they mostly of the belief that the Earth is only 5000-7000 years old? You engage in intellectually dishonest debate by attempting to mainstream an ideology which is clearly not. I'm not attempting to "mainstream" it - I don't need to. I don't care if it's one school district amongst all of them that want to include ID in their science classes - I'd still oppose it.

The statements, however, regarding how "god is not needed", is the core of the contention of any creationist, regardless how radical. That is the reason I've said that their fight is defensive, and the atheist's fight is the opposite.Their "fight" is offensive by definition because they're trying to change the status quo. And by the same definition, the evolutionists's argument (of keeping science classes limited to teaching science) is therefore a defensive posture, since that's how it is now.

Or you're being intentionally obtuse. I'll grant you the benefit of the doubt. The Study of Evolution does not conflict with ID, nor is the reverse true. IDer's are not opposed to the continued study of evolution (do you really want to engage in the fallacy of isolated examples, or just move on and accept that the vast majority of IDer's simply want ID taught along side Evolution?). I'll accept that the vast majority of IDers simply want ID taught along side Evolution. I need you to accept that people like me are wholly opposed to such a notion because ID is not science and therefore doesn't belong being taught in a science class.

Activist Atheists are attempting to invalidate the study of ID. What "study" is there involved in ID anyway? All of the conclusions can be traced back to "god did it." What's there to study? Why god did it?

For obvious reasons: they do not want the idea of God continue to be inculcated in this world. They would hope that "we would grow out of it" (to be read in fully elitist smarmy voice). Every high school i the land teaches Evolution. How many teach ID? Misleading vividness. You're saying that activist atheists are attempting to challenge the idea of God by opposing ID being taught in the classrooms. That would have to assume that all of the people opposed to ID being taught in the classroom were atheists. Activist atheists at that.

Activist Atheists are attempting to create the conflict As you stated above (and I agreed with) there is no inherent conflict. The conflict is created by ID proponents though when they attempt to equate their philosophy with science and push for it to be taught alongside a scientific theory.

They're threatened (as you are), because only atheists have attempted to call ID competing. I'm not an atheist (I'm agnostic that leans atheist) and I admit that as a philosophy ID doesn't "compete" with Evolution because they're two different things. They are being made to compete for visibility within science class though. And only one of them is a scientific theory.

I say: study away - I don't care if atheists form opinions and pursue research based upon their beliefs. I do care if they attempt to shape public policy (ie: what we should be teaching in schools: do we teach abiogenesis study in schools? Yes we do! Why? Because those pursuing the field are following the Scientific Method [or are supposed to be], just as ID proponents do. In all of the elementary and HS classes I had that even dealt with evolution, abiogenisis wasn't covered other than being mentioned. And I went to Catholic school.

darkfrog

08-21-2009, 03:35 PM

"By the terms of the advocates of Intelligent Design themselves, The Designer creates outside of nature, supernaturally, by means which are undetectable. And if those means are undetectable, they are not susceptible to scientific observation or analysis and therefore the whole idea is not science. A theory that explains everything in fact explains nothing and that's the central flaw of Intelligent Design"
-- Kenneth Miller, Professor of Biology (Catholic)

Nova- Judgment Day: Intelligent Design on Trial (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/program.html)
Excellent documentary on the Kitzmiller v. Dover trial
mensa, if you watch this, please try to keep track of all of the atheists for the plaintiff. ;)
Also, why would Judge Jones III, a Lutheran Republican appointed by George W. Bush rule in favor of those evilutionists?

darkfrog

08-21-2009, 03:41 PM

The Collapse of Intelligent Design:Kenneth R. Miller Lecture (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU)

Although this appears very long, the last half is all Q&A, the main lecture is much shorter. Mensa, you really should watch this. This Catholic professor gives a very good overview of some of the evidence we have for Darwinian evolution and the multitude of problems with ID.

IMMensaMind

08-21-2009, 04:24 PM

This just demonstrates your lack of knowledge about science. A scientific theory is the meaning behind the findings.

First of all, this is just an ad hominem. I've studied a whole lot of science in my time. Your last sentence is very misleading, because clearly people can disagree on the "meaning" of anything.

Theories are devised expressly to make sense of the data, to make sense of it in some explainable model of nature. To say that scientists must draw the line at giving meaning is to deny all of science.

The meaning is given arbitrarily, and heavily seasoned with the bias of the scientist. That is inescapable, and central to the points I've made. All theories are not in question here; all meanings are not invalid, or unassailable.

What does it mean that sunlight is separated into a rainbow of colors by a prism? When Maxwell realized that electromagnetism propagated at the speed of light, he didn't stop there, he made the logical leap to hypothesize that light and magnetism are part of the same phenomena. He, of course, was shown to be correct. When a young man in the Swiss Patent office pondered what Galileo means that no privileged frame of reference wrt light, applying Maxwell's equations we get Special Relativity.
Theories are powerful because of their explanatory powers. They give us the meaning behind the facts, the data.

I quoted a scientist who is looking to defeat the Theory of the Big Bang because of its underlying meaning. There is an example of a guy in science who is using his preconceived biases to squash one direction scientific study can take. Why - if all scientists are supposed to be strictly "scientific", would they look to avoid one course of study?

It was Darwin asking himself the meaning behind the beak variation in the Gal�pagos finches (among other things) that he theorized natural selection.

Of course, and nothing I'm saying assails a scientist pursuing research based upon their own proclivities - or hunches. In fact, what I've been saying is the opposite. I've said that the science cannot be separated from scientists, which means that the clinical impartiality of the Scientific Method isn't the issue: the derived meanings are, both in prejudicing certain directions of study (aka MMGW), and certain propagandic conclusions used to browbeat society (aka Evolution as a support mechanism for atheists).

Facts are boring and are meaningless without a framework to explain them. It is the models, the theories that explain facts that are exciting.

I'm in favor of truth.

darkfrog

08-21-2009, 04:53 PM

First of all, this is just an ad hominem. I've studied a whole lot of science in my time. Your last sentence is very misleading, because clearly people can disagree on the "meaning" of anything.
You say you studied science but you don't appear to demonstrate that knowledge when you make your assertions. A theory has well-defined meanings associated with it. Sure, one can disagree with the meanings a theory gives but that doesn't change the fact that the meaning is clear within the context of that theory.The meaning is given arbitrarily, and heavily seasoned with the bias of the scientist. That is inescapable, and central to the points I've made. All theories are not in question here; all meanings are not invalid, or unassailable.
I don't disagree that the meaning is flavored by the scientists views but theories are hardly arbitrary. You fail to acknowledge one of my previous posts however, when I explain how the scientific method, beginning with the scientist himself asking where the biases and flaws are in his hypothesis, and then includes other scientists, many of whom will attempt to disprove the idea for in favor of their own ideas. It is only with testing and experimentation do we find the answers of who is more correct.

I quoted a scientist who is looking to defeat the Theory of the Big Bang because of its underlying meaning. There is an example of a guy in science who is using his preconceived biases to squash one direction scientific study can take. Why - if all scientists are supposed to be strictly "scientific", would they look to avoid one course of study?

As I keep pointing out and will continue to do so until you understand is that no individual scientist can move science in any direction with their opinion alone. I have acknowledged your contention that some scientists have a particular bias against religion. However, their opinion carries absolutely no weight scientifically unless they propose a mechanism to counter already accepted consensus.
You have quoted exactly one person yet continue to claim there are multitudes of these people doing similar things.

Of course, and nothing I'm saying assails a scientist pursuing research based upon their own proclivities - or hunches. In fact, what I've been saying is the opposite. I've said that the science cannot be separated from scientists, which means that the clinical impartiality of the Scientific Method isn't the issue: the derived meanings are, both in prejudicing certain directions of study (aka MMGW), and certain propagandic conclusions used to browbeat society (aka Evolution as a support mechanism for atheists).
Just because some atheists find comfort in the understanding that there is a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life on earth and realize that there is no need for a creator does not invalidate the theory that has 150 years of testable evidence supporting it. You appear to keep ignoring the fact that science CAN be separated from the scientist through the scientific method. If a scientist's own bias is introduced, it will be removed by the processes that follow it. Einstein had a bias against QM because he didn't want to believe in a cosmos that acted in such strange and probabilistic ways. "God does not play dice with the universe." However, his bias has been shown to be refuted by the many experiments that confirm the findings in QM. He also wrote, "Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. " Yet is was Einstein that was partly responsible for the discovery of photons, the discrete particles of light. This is only a few examples of how a scientist's own personal bias is eliminated by the use of the scientific method, which includes a conglomeration of other scientists all over the world with their own personal bias working to counter one another.

There are scientists that disagree with Darwinian evolution, I've seen the list on Discovery Institute's website ;)
Why is it they refuse or are unable to publish in peer reviewed journals to propose their counter arguments? It is because their ideas are not science. Watch the videos above for more detail that would be much too long to post here in writing.

I'm in favor of truth.
me2! :woot2:

IMMensaMind

08-21-2009, 05:32 PM

It's group whose agenda is to discredit scientific findings. That's their stated goal. You wanted a link for people that do that and I provided one. Wouldn't you agree that they fit that criteria?

No, they do not exist to discredit scientific findings; I've read quite a bit there. Here's a quote:

AiG teaches that �facts� don�t speak for themselves, but must be interpreted. That is, there aren�t separate sets of �evidences� for evolution and creation�we all deal with the same evidence (we all live on the same earth, have the same fossils, observe the same animals, etc.). The difference lies in how we interpret what we study.

Perhaps you are parsing a difference between "scientific findings" and "scientific discoveries". As the quote indicates, we all deal with the same evidence. What is at issue is how different people interpret the evidence, and what their biases are.

You're making a lot of assumptions about people though. You've already assumed in this post that I'm an atheist. ;)

You are, as you've admitted, both later (you're an agnostic that leans atheist? Is that like "kind of pregnant"? You may operate in conscious denial, but that will not stop me from judging and declaring what you are), and previously. Why would you play coy? Further, why question my assumptions and then demonstrate I am correct?

Well let's clarify what "offense" means to make sure we're talking about the same thing. "Offense" to me means that they're actively trying to promote their un-scientific beliefs in a science classroom setting. And I'm opposed to that, so using the definition of "offense" then people like me are on the "defense" of keeping scientific study to things that are scientific, like evolution. ID is not scientific.

I'm shocked. An atheist calling ID unscientific? :dontknow:

ID is as scientific as abiogenesis. ID is scientific because it makes use of the Scientific Method to establish its claims, and infers design by testing its positive predictions. (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1471)

If a scientist was merely convinced that a previous civilization left the building blocks of life here on this globe, and endeavored to discover evidence to establish that hypothesis as a proof/theory, he would be no different than any other scientist pursuing their own beliefs via the Scientific Method. In fact, that scientist may be called an Archeologist (which is a science, obviously). A scientist studying abiogenesis is doing something extremely similar, but because the circumstances of the origin of everything can never be established, tested, or repeated, he is left with a curious void, filled with scientific experiments which can never truly be falsified due to the impossibility of recreating a condition about which no knowledge exists, or can exist.

It is the same. Both, however, remain scientific pursuits.

But it should not be included with scientific teaching because it's not a scientific teaching.

Yes, you said that. Repeating yourself does not make it any more true.

ID is an argument from faith, not scientific discovery.

This is a wholly nonsensical argument. Examples of hunches (faith) pursued with scientific research are legion in science. That invalidates nothing. It doesn't matter if what motives scientific study is faith (as many IDers believe in God, but some merely believe in a superior Intelligence, which itself is an expression of faith as well), what matters is if the faith (let's call it a hunch, so you see the point) is justified through the proper use of the Scientific Method.

Therefore, it belongs in religion or philosophy classes. Not science ones.

You are offering no argument at all, except claiming something isn't science. I am establishing why it is, using a real argument.

Those are two wholly subjective arguments that we're probably never going to be able to prove to the other's satisfaction. I don't believe that the ID movement is "mainstream" per se, but I don't believe the "activist atheism" movement to be that mainstream either. I do see a mainstream movement to keep ID discussions out of science classes though.

Both movements are mainstream. Both are found in a large percentage of our society.

I'm not attempting to "mainstream" it - I don't need to. I don't care if it's one school district amongst all of them that want to include ID in their science classes - I'd still oppose it.

Of course you do: it challenges your faith. That doesn't make you correct.

Their "fight" is offensive by definition because they're trying to change the status quo.

All defensive postures involve some form of offense; your point is fallacious. Someone who knocks out a mugger obviously used a fist in an offensive move, but clearly their actions were defensive. You're waterboarding logic itself.

And by the same definition, the evolutionists's argument (of keeping science classes limited to teaching science) is therefore a defensive posture, since that's how it is now.

More tortured logic, and I challenge the premise as incorrect: ID is scientific, as I've already argued and supported. There is nothing in Science, or the Scientific Method, which would render it incapable of providing the means to research if indeed we were "planted" or "grown" here.

Science classes are full of bullshit regardless ("Earth Day", which is the promotion of a religion, for instance :rolleye2:); the argument is an excuse to shield the real agenda.

I'll accept that the vast majority of IDers simply want ID taught along side Evolution. I need you to accept that people like me are wholly opposed to such a notion because ID is not science and therefore doesn't belong being taught in a science class.

What I'm addressing is what I am intuiting is your real motivation, which I believe isn't about the claim that ID isn't science (it is regardless, and the argument is good enough to allow the pursuit, save the serious motivation - the threat of actually legitimizing awareness of a force greater than us which is Intelligent), but rather a perceived threat to the "idea of Man", and the active effort to eradicate religion, regardless the legitimacy of seeing "religion" in ID.

Nothing would drive a stake in the heart of people with this motivation than to see religious faith legitimized through scientific evidence - and there is the truth.

What "study" is there involved in ID anyway? All of the conclusions can be traced back to "god did it." What's there to study? Why god did it?

A complete mischaracterization. The link I provided gives some good information; there is plenty of good information elsewhere on the 'net. The question is: why haven't you chosen to learn more, but still have such an irresponsible position to forbid its research and conclude its not scientific?

Misleading vividness. You're saying that activist atheists are attempting to challenge the idea of God by opposing ID being taught in the classrooms. That would have to assume that all of the people opposed to ID being taught in the classroom were atheists. Activist atheists at that.

Misleading vividness requires that dramatic events take place which are isolated. It's obvious - as you've admitted - that the attack on ID is mainstream.

In addition, why would it have to assume anything? This is about facts in evidence. I believe that many movements contain people with differing motives, and some can be useful idiots. That doesn't disqualify the justifiable condemnation of those with the most insipid motivations. The rest, after all, could simply be misled.

As you stated above (and I agreed with) there is no inherent conflict. The conflict is created by ID proponents though when they attempt to equate their philosophy with science and push for it to be taught alongside a scientific theory.

Again: repeating the assertion does not lend weight to it. And again (are you being intentionally obtuse, or is this really an accident?), there should be no conflict, because evolutionists should be able to study evolution and still assume that there is a God (and many do), and those of religious faith should easily be able to accept that God can Create anything, including a complex mechanism which can evolve.

The problem is with those who don't do that. And the bigger and more numerous offenders are on the secular side.

I'm not an atheist (I'm agnostic that leans atheist) and I admit that as a philosophy ID doesn't "compete" with Evolution because they're two different things. They are being made to compete for visibility within science class though. And only one of them is a scientific theory.

Visibility? Canard. There is ample room for both, just as room is made for new discoveries. ID absolutely is scientific theory. (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154)

Is it a conscious effort with you to repeat something until you think it becomes truth?

In all of the elementary and HS classes I had that even dealt with evolution, abiogenisis wasn't covered other than being mentioned. And I went to Catholic school.

Hasty Generalization fallacy. Your personal experience means nothing to this debate.

IMMensaMind

08-21-2009, 05:49 PM

darkfrog

08-21-2009, 05:51 PM

Visibility? Canard. There is ample room for both, just as room is made for new discoveries. ID absolutely is scientific theory. (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154)
Interesting website. Here's a quote from their FAQ:

Intelligent design proponents claim that CSI is always the result of intelligent action. If we presume that an intelligent designer itself must contain more CSI than its designs, doesn't this imply that the CSI inherent in the first designer must have come from a non-intelligent source? (i.e. Either the very first original intelligent designer had a natural origin, or itself was uncaused.) Doesn't this at least imply an exception to the rule that CSI is always the result of intelligent action?"
We would like to try to address it here:

Response:

1) Firstly, recall that we don't have to account for the origin of the designer to infer design. One point made in the "Who Designed the Designer" FAQ is:
"Now let's say you are walking in a field and find a TV set. You don't necessarily know anything about who or what designed that TV set, but you can tell it is designed because, at some fundamental level, it exhibits specified complexity. But scientifically speaking, that's all you can infer--that it was designed! Now let's say that you work for SETI and detect a signal coming from outer space that looks like it was sent by an intelligent extraterrestrial source. You don't have to know where the extraterrestrial intelligent agent (EIA) which produced the signal came from to know that the signal was designed."

The scientific theory of intelligent design need not account for the origin of the designer for it to be able to infer design.
Yet you claim that the scientific theory of evolution infers the origin of the first life and must account for that. You can't have it both ways.

Is it a conscious effort with you to repeat something until you think it becomes truth?
Sounds like a good description of what you do.
A link to an ID think tank claiming that ID is science, does not in fact make ID science.

ID fails as science because they DO NOT follow the scientific method and completely ignore it when their pet ideas like irreducible complexity is falsified. A real scientist does not continue on a path when they have shown it to be incorrect. However, ID scientists do, since they are following dogma, not science.

What I wonder is why the professor felt that Darwinian Evolution could possibly be threatened by ID.
Maybe if you actually watch the video, he will explain it to you. :rolleyes:

(BTW, he sees it as an assault on science in general, not just evolution. Same as with the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller trial.

IMMensaMind

08-21-2009, 05:54 PM

You say you studied science but you don't appear to demonstrate that knowledge when you make your assertions. A theory has well-defined meanings associated with it. Sure, one can disagree with the meanings a theory gives but that doesn't change the fact that the meaning is clear within the context of that theory.I don't disagree that the meaning is flavored by the scientists views but theories are hardly arbitrary. You fail to acknowledge one of my previous posts however, when I explain how the scientific method, beginning with the scientist himself asking where the biases and flaws are in his hypothesis, and then includes other scientists, many of whom will attempt to disprove the idea for in favor of their own ideas. It is only with testing and experimentation do we find the answers of who is more correct.

I bolded the only point I was making on the topic, and since you have now agreed, my work is done on it. Clearly - as the MMGW debate evidences, those scientists are who attempting to take issue with so many of the "theories" are experiencing stigmatization.

As I keep pointing out and will continue to do so until you understand is that no individual scientist can move science in any direction with their opinion alone.

I disagree, and I think people like Hawking demonstrate that. In addition, it isn't even that particularly an important point, because politics can harness a particular scientist's position, and magnify it manifold, as Al Gore has done with positions offered through the IPCC, a purely political group which has usurped the opinions of scientists and granted weight where it felt politically expedient to do so.

I have acknowledged your contention that some scientists have a particular bias against religion. However, their opinion carries absolutely no weight scientifically unless they propose a mechanism to counter already accepted consensus.

And I've said that it is the politics behind it which lend more weight. In academia, for instance, liberal professors sit on boards and shape curriculum. These are scientists playing a wholly different role, and socially engineering in the process.

You have quoted exactly one person yet continue to claim there are multitudes of these people doing similar things.

You cannot hold the position that the position is rare, could you?

Just because some atheists find comfort in the understanding that there is a naturalistic explanation for the diversity of life on earth and realize that there is no need for a creator does not invalidate the theory that has 150 years of testable evidence supporting it.

So here you are asserting that there is an explanation that supports a non-deistic view of our existence? I take issue, as nothing in science does anything of the sort. At most, science can only uncover a mechanism, not a cause.

This is where your claims exhibit the truth of my position: that secular scientists use their research to attempt to validate a natural mechanism that requires no Creator, and that secularists attempt to use evidence collected by scientists of the mechanism, and project it - fallaciously - to mean that God could not have been involved.

You appear to keep ignoring the fact that science CAN be separated from the scientist through the scientific method.

No, only that it limits the corruption, as Checks and Balances do in Government.

If a scientist's own bias is introduced, it will be removed by the processes that follow it. Einstein had a bias against QM because he didn't want to believe in a cosmos that acted in such strange and probabilistic ways. "God does not play dice with the universe." However, his bias has been shown to be refuted by the many experiments that confirm the findings in QM. He also wrote, "Since the theory of general relativity implies the representation of physical reality by a continuous field, the concept of particles or material points cannot play a fundamental part, nor can the concept of motion. " Yet is was Einstein that was partly responsible for the discovery of photons, the discrete particles of light. This is only a few examples of how a scientist's own personal bias is eliminated by the use of the scientific method, which includes a conglomeration of other scientists all over the world with their own personal bias working to counter one another.

All true: however, the concept of God, and the disqualification of same, doesn't fall under that same banner, as neither claim falsifiable.

But that's not the purpose of those with the agenda is it? They just want the belief to end. Propaganda doesn't have to be true, does it?

There are scientists that disagree with Darwinian evolution, I've seen the list on Discovery Institute's website ;)
Why is it they refuse or are unable to publish in peer reviewed journals to propose their counter arguments?

What scientists? Link? Darwinian evolution as a whole, or in parts? Link - how the hell am I supposed to argue defense of a position when you've been so vague?

It is because their ideas are not science. Watch the videos above for more detail that would be much too long to post here in writing.

*sigh*. For someone who is part of a group which claims that there is no conflict b/w evolution and ID, you sure do like to post videos which claims such.

me2! :woot2:

For someone who would not allow the Scientific Method to be utilized to pursue research which attempts to establish whether our surroundings were created by an intelligence, that's an interesting claim. :D

bonkman

08-21-2009, 05:59 PM

No, they do not exist to discredit scientific findings; I've read quite a bit there. Here's a quote:

you failed to post this part: Answers in Genesis is an apologetics (i.e., Christianity-defending) ministry, dedicated to enabling Christians to defend their faith and to proclaim the gospel of Jesus Christ effectively.

That line right there says that they have no interest in the truth. They have an interest in defending religion.

Visibility? Canard. There is ample room for both, just as room is made for new discoveries. ID absolutely is scientific theory. (http://www.ideacenter.org/contentmgr/showdetails.php/id/1154)

Doesn't matter if you bold it, underline it, italicize it, or do some combination, ID is NOT a scientific theory by definition. Their "experiments" are to show something is infallible -- like the idea of irreducible complexity, which they unsurprisingly use to claim experimentalism. That's not an experiment.

Contrary to the ID website, ID starts with the belief that there's a creator. Why? Because -- as they admit -- their experiments CANNOT SHOW THERE IS A CREATOR. The best they can do is show something is complicated and then wave their hands and say it's too complicated to arrive naturally. Nowhere do they actually demonstrate that it is impossible for that to happen. What they DO do is take away a part, show it doesn't work, and then say "it doesn't work." However, all they have shown is that it didn't form naturally in the manner of "everything was the same except that one part they removed and then the part appeared." In order to disprove natural evolution in this manner, they would have to repeat their experiment for all combinations of parts and THEN show that all predecessors of those parts fail in all combinations as well. Sincere there are an infinite number of possibilities, this is an impossible method of experimentation.

But, your extensive science knowledge should have told you that. Or did you not learn experimentalism and research in your engineering classes?

Oh -- and here's a hint. It's been thoroughly traced that the ID movement is the Creationist movement in a new name. One guy was even on the daily show talking about it. If you think Creationism is science, then for the love of all that's holy, stop posting in this thread.

Epiphyte

08-21-2009, 06:03 PM

ID is as scientific as abiogenesis.
...
ID absolutely is scientific theory.

Abiogenesis is NOT a scientific theory.

But, abiogenesis makes predictions. If we can create life from non-life by replicating a natural environment, that would be evidence that supports abiogenesis. Also, if we observe abiogenesis in the natural world, that would support abiogenesis. If these prove true, abiogenesis may be elevated to the status of a scientific theory.

The only "predictions" I've heard for ID are arguments that attempt to discredit evolution. If evolution proves false, that does not infer that ID is true. If ID is to be elevated to the status of a scientific theory we would need to actually see that intelligent designer in action, even if it was only on the microscopic scale.

Also, I'm waiting on your response to my last reply.

IMMensaMind

08-21-2009, 06:07 PM

Interesting website. Here's a quote from their FAQ:
Yet you claim that the scientific theory of evolution infers the origin of the first life and must account for that. You can't have it both ways.

Nonsense! One (secular evolutionists) has demanded of it only the lack of dismissal of the existence of a Creator, and the other (IDers) has demanded of it an understanding of the nature of it! If you cannot see the tortured logic used in your claim, this conversation must come to an end.

Sounds like a good description of what you do.
A link to an ID think tank claiming that ID is science, does not in fact make ID science.

Fallacy: the argument given is what establishes it. The truth is self-evident.

ID fails as science because they DO NOT follow the scientific method and completely ignore it when their pet ideas like irreducible complexity is falsified. A real scientist does not continue on a path when they have shown it to be incorrect. However, ID scientists do, since they are following dogma, not science.

You are obviously very anxious to refute the concept of IC. Not so fast. (http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/08/ken_miller_attacks_a_straw_man.html) There are errors throughout attempts to do so.

Maybe if you actually watch the video, he will explain it to you. :rolleyes:

I know who the guy is, and I know what he says. As my link above demonstrates, the guy is a hack.

(BTW, he sees it as an assault on science in general, not just evolution. Same as with the plaintiffs in the Kitzmiller trial.

He sees it as an assault on science because he's been committed to not allowing a concept of God to be considered, even though God is clearly one of the possible outcomes.

That alone invalidates his positions.

darkfrog

08-21-2009, 06:13 PM

I know who the guy is, and I know what he says. As my link above demonstrates, the guy is a hack.

One of the most preeminent biologists in the world is a hack and your evidence is an ID website? :lmao: :lmao:

bonkman

08-21-2009, 06:17 PM

I
So here you are asserting that there is an explanation that supports a non-deistic view of our existence? I take issue, as nothing in science does anything of the sort. At most, science can only uncover a mechanism, not a cause.

This is where your claims exhibit the truth of my position: that secular scientists use their research to attempt to validate a natural mechanism that requires no Creator, and that secularists attempt to use evidence collected by scientists of the mechanism, and project it - fallaciously - to mean that God could not have been involved.

We've discussed this plenty. You can always say "G-d did it." G-d used evolution. G-d uses the laws of gravity. Absolutely -- why not? Science has no comment on this, as it's impossible to show with any experiment. At worst, there are scientists who want people to realize that you don't need to have the "G-d does it" explanation. If you want to claim that scientists singularly want to show that G-d doesn't exist, even though they're fully aware they can't do that via an experiment, back up your assertion.

No, only that it limits the corruption, as Checks and Balances do in Government.

How about you actually support your assertions, rather than claiming that your conspiracy theories are the truth.

All true: however, the concept of God, and the disqualification of same, doesn't fall under that same banner, as neither claim falsifiable.

But that's not the purpose of those with the agenda is it? They just want the belief to end. Propaganda doesn't have to be true, does it?

Right. :rolleyes: Those big meanie scientists, caring what people think about G-d. Call the waaambulance.

What scientists? Link? Darwinian evolution as a whole, or in parts? Link - how the hell am I supposed to argue defense of a position when you've been so vague?

Here's a list of some scientists. (http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html) I particularly love how they also add a (much shorter) list of evolutionists. :lol:

Oh -- and fwiw, there's at least one PhD student who believe the earth is flat. Care to debate that as well?

*sigh*. For someone who is part of a group which claims that there is no conflict b/w evolution and ID, you sure do like to post videos which claims such.

For someone who would not allow the Scientific Method to be utilized to pursue research which attempts to establish whether our surroundings were created by an intelligence, that's an interesting claim. :D

I think you misunderstand DF. Of course there's a conflict between evolution and ID. There's not a conflict between evolutionists and theists. And, as explained above, you can't use the scientific method to show creation.

IMMensaMind

08-21-2009, 06:17 PM

you failed to post this part:

That line right there says that they have no interest in the truth. They have an interest in defending religion.

Which they believe is the truth, just as anyone else who defends their positions.

Doesn't matter if you bold it, underline it, italicize it, or do some combination, ID is NOT a scientific theory by definition. Their "experiments" are to show something is infallible -- like the idea of irreducible complexity, which they unsurprisingly use to claim experimentalism. That's not an experiment.

Says you. The problem is obviously the obstinate refusal of atheists to acknowledge the parallel between recognizing patterns in all man-made items as Intelligent origin, and see the search for patterned radio waves in the SETI program as a priori evidence of an Intelligence, but not apply that same standard to increased discovery of repeated mechanisms of incredible complexity and simplicity as something with an Intelligent origin.

Contrary to the ID website, ID starts with the belief that there's a creator. Why? Because -- as they admit -- their experiments CANNOT SHOW THERE IS A CREATOR. The best they can do is show something is complicated and then wave their hands and say it's too complicated to arrive naturally. Nowhere do they actually demonstrate that it is impossible for that to happen. What they DO do is take away a part, show it doesn't work, and then say "it doesn't work." However, all they have shown is that it didn't form naturally in the manner of "everything was the same except that one part they removed and then the part appeared." In order to disprove natural evolution in this manner, they would have to repeat their experiment for all combinations of parts and THEN show that all predecessors of those parts fail in all combinations as well. Sincere there are an infinite number of possibilities, this is an impossible method of experimentation.

Many scientists begin with preconceived belief, and become more convinced as they research. ID is no different.

But, your extensive science knowledge should have told you that. Or did you not learn experimentalism and research in your engineering classes?

Who do you think you're convincing with your ad hominems?

Oh -- and here's a hint.

Who do you think you're impressing or influencing with your condescension?

It's been thoroughly traced that the ID movement is the Creationist movement in a new name. One guy was even on the daily show talking about it. If you think Creationism is science, then for the love of all that's holy, stop posting in this thread.

Thoroughly traced. Wow. Links?

How about realizing that it doesn't matter what the motivation of the science is, as long as it follows scientific principles?

Spare the "it doesn't! It's not scientific!" I've heard it before. I disagree.

Those who believe that Science is incapable of discovering that there really may be a Creator - and do not wish to allow any pursuit with that goal - have invalidated their position, and hopelessly closed their minds.

IMMensaMind

08-21-2009, 06:20 PM

One of the most preeminent biologists in the world is a hack and your evidence is an ID website? :lmao: :lmao:

It is my opinion. What part do you not understand? The guy is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, in an attempt to keep his belief system insulated.

I've said all that I can say in this thread.

darkfrog

08-21-2009, 06:27 PM

It is my opinion. What part do you not understand? The guy is sticking his nose where it doesn't belong, in an attempt to keep his belief system insulated.

I've said all that I can say in this thread.
:wave: :bye:

IMMensaMind

08-21-2009, 06:49 PM

:wave: :bye:

http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/myspace-graphics/funny-pictures/kid-middle-finger.jpg

:lol:

darkfrog

08-21-2009, 06:56 PM

http://www.myspaceantics.com/images/myspace-graphics/funny-pictures/kid-middle-finger.jpg

:lol:
That's right! I'm Number One! :bounce:

bonkman

08-21-2009, 06:59 PM

Which they believe is the truth, just as anyone else who defends their positions.

Except scientists don't BELIEVE it's the truth. It's confirmed experimentally. Please show me ONE scientific experiment that shows there's a creator. The ONLY piece of evidence for creation is a book. As epiphyte told you, it's not a dichotomy. Even if evolution doesn't explain something doesn't mean that there must be a creator.

Says you. The problem is obviously the obstinate refusal of atheists to acknowledge the parallel between recognizing patterns in all man-made items as Intelligent origin, and see the search for patterned radio waves in the SETI program as a priori evidence of an Intelligence, but not apply that same standard to increased discovery of repeated mechanisms of incredible complexity and simplicity as something with an Intelligent origin.

No. Says people who understand the scientific method. The problem with that "recognition" is that it's not evidence of anything. By the same manner, you would think a picture painted by an elephant was done by a post-modern human artist. Those brushstrokes sure are recognizable! You can't trust your eyes. Ever see an optical illusion? Or the underwater reefs off Japan that look man made because every line is perfectly straight? You can't use induction if there are multiple paths to take from small to large.

The reason why SETI seems to be "immune" to this rule is that they search for frequencies that aren't found naturally. Ergo, the only way to send them is via intelligence. Even if we find those frequencies, that's not proof of ET intelligence. Perhaps there's some other source of the frequency we didn't know about. But we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.

Many scientists begin with preconceived belief, and become more convinced as they research. ID is no different.

No. If a scientist has a preconceived belief, it's because of research. And if they have one that biases their research, it is quickly pointed out. ID is COMPLETELY different because there's no evidence FOR A CREATOR. They start out with that belief and try to come up with experiments that disprove a "competing" theory, falling into the fallacy of false dichotomy.

Simply, if you think the two are the same, you have no idea about what science is or how it works. Sorry, but either your classes weren't good or you didn't pay attention.

Who do you think you're convincing with your ad hominems?

Why should I patronize you? You have no idea what you're talking about.

Who do you think you're impressing or influencing with your condescension?

Then you shouldn't have a problem ignoring it :)

Thoroughly traced. Wow. Links?

How about realizing that it doesn't matter what the motivation of the science is, as long as it follows scientific principles?

Spare the "it doesn't! It's not scientific!" I've heard it before. I disagree.

Those who believe that Science is incapable of discovering that there really may be a Creator - and do not wish to allow any pursuit with that goal - have invalidated their position, and hopelessly closed their minds.

Please -- describe an experiment that will discover the existence of a being who can do anything he wants to the universe. What you just said is that you believe scientists are UNWILLING to do such an experiment. That's the most ridiculous notion in the world. Do you know how many Nobel Prizes would exist for that experiment? It's flabbergasting you think yourself intelligent and yet you haven't reasoned the reason those experiments aren't done is because they're impossible, instead believing in your nonsensical conspiracy theories. :jawdrop:

Whether or not you agree is irrelevant, and it's pretty arrogant to pretend it is. It simply shows you have no idea about the scientific method or how proper science is conducted. Perhaps you should get a research job. It may be an eye-opening experience. With you engineering degrees, you would probably be qualified enough. The knowledge you gain would certainly be invaluable. But anyone who knows anything will tell you that just because YOU don't feel that something doesn't found scientific principles doesn't mean it's the case.

Here's one link: http://www.centerforinquiry.net/uploads/attachments/intelligent-design.pdf

Also, look at the Kitzmiller v Dover Area School District case.

I've said all that I can say in this thread.

Right here. Evidence that G-d most definitely exists.

Phreaker47

08-22-2009, 03:06 PM

Um...you have to wonder about the strength of your position if you have to resort to supporting each other's stance by attacking with ad-hominem.

Nope, not really. :D
It was only a reference to one particular type of contradiction, which clearly appears to hide in plain sight.

There's a reason why you are all teaching each other how to claim that religious views aren't the motivating force behind attacking science. It's the same reason the term "Intelligent Design" was coined to replace Creationism: to sneak the agenda into public schools while claiming it is fair, constitutional, and most absurdly, that it is science.

superdan54

08-27-2009, 10:04 AM

Canadian scientist aims to turn chickens into dinosaurs

MONTREAL (AFP) – After years spent hunting for the buried remains of prehistoric animals, a Canadian paleontologist now plans to manipulate chicken embryos to show he can create a dinosaur.

Hans Larsson, the Canada Research Chair in Macro Evolution at Montreal's McGill University, said he aims to develop dinosaur traits that disappeared millions of years ago in birds.

Larsson believes by flipping certain genetic levers during a chicken embryo's development, he can reproduce the dinosaur anatomy, he told AFP in an interview.

Though still in its infancy, the research could eventually lead to hatching live prehistoric animals, but Larsson said there are no plans for that now, for ethical and practical reasons -- a dinosaur hatchery is "too large an enterprise."

"It's a demonstration of evolution," said Larsson, who has studied bird evolution for the last 10 years.

"If I can demonstrate clearly that the potential for dinosaur anatomical development exists in birds, then it again proves that birds are direct descendants of dinosaurs."

The research is funded by the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, the Canada Research Chairs program and National Geographic.

The idea for the project, Larsson said, came about during discussions with renowned American paleontologist Jack Horner, who served as technical advisor for the Jurassic Park films.

Horner recently wrote a book entitled "How to Build A Dinosaur," in which he refers to the embryo experiment as part of a quest to create a "chickenosaurus."

Larsson's team has previously worked to uncover prehistoric animal remains, including eight unknown species of dinosaurs and five new types of crocodile in Niger. He also recently uncovered the remains of a new carnivorous dinosaur in Argentina.

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090825/sc_afp/canadascienceresearchpaleontologyoffbeat)

Interesting...though I'm sure the results would be far from what we imagine.

3dfan

08-28-2009, 07:07 AM

I have read here a lot of logical statements for both theories - but I still stick to Evolution - for me it is more logical and besides I am atheist

talgot

08-28-2009, 08:12 AM

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090825/sc_afp/canadascienceresearchpaleontologyoffbeat)

Interesting...though I'm sure the results would be far from what we imagine.

Awww crap.. now you just opened up the chicken or egg arguement! :P lol

ZanDatsu

08-29-2009, 12:23 AM

I support both and the movie Knowing....

Phreaker47

08-30-2009, 10:07 PM

link (http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20090825/sc_afp/canadascienceresearchpaleontologyoffbeat)

Interesting...though I'm sure the results would be far from what we imagine.

Artist's concept:

http://www.software-dungeon.co.uk/images/3448_jurassic-park-rampage-edition-3.png

CycnuS

08-31-2009, 05:15 AM

talgot

08-31-2009, 05:27 AM

I'm hoping a young-earth creationist can help me out with my logic here. I have not read through the entire thread, so my apologies if this has already been answered.
I have been reading Stephan Hawking's "A Brief History of Time" and something dawned on me 'the speed of light'.
Based on his book, using the "Big Bang" theory model and assuming that we are accurately measuring the speed of light: other stars are light years away.
Did God create it this way?
If so, why put stars so far away that it takes millions of light years for their light to reach us while the earth (and for that matter the entire universe) is less than 10K years old.
Assuming that the Earth is 10K years old and God created everything as mention above, why even bother trying to "prove" creation when it takes Faith?
So if God created everything then He obviously created all the laws governing everything. In doing so it would appear the Earth is older than it actually is thus requiring Faith to believe and making any creationist "proof" irrelevant and the entire debate pointless as science is correct.

In the begining God created man, earth and all we see fully matured. Why would the light we see be any different? Creationism is generally not a science... it is a historical science. It does use science to help support its theory. There is no difference in the faith to believe God created everything we see and the faith it takes for you to believe we all came from a dot. There is a point where we all take things on faith... that the ones that study and bring forth the evidences we use on both sides is accurate and not biased to the point of poisoning the well.

You just proved in your last line your faith. "as science is correct" Even the strongest advocates of science here have often told us that science is everchanging. What we thought correct today may be shown not to be in the future. To say that as difinitive as you did shows where your faith is... It is in science. Which by the way is yours to have.

bobcat255

08-31-2009, 08:45 AM

Aww man, I'm over 2000 posts late to this party. The thread should be renamed to "Creation Myth or Theory of Evolution" for sake of accuracy.

Libertarian

08-31-2009, 09:16 AM

Even the strongest advocates of science here have often told us that science is everchanging. What we thought correct today may be shown not to be in the future. To say that as difinitive as you did shows where your faith is... It is in science. Which by the way is yours to have.

It is more credible and logical to have "faith" in science precisely BECAUSE it is everchanging isn't it? "Faith" in science is faith in the human mind. It is faith in a process of observation, prediction, experimentation, and verification of ideas. Science possesses these things while religion does not.. Scientific "faith" is a process of gaining knowledge and increasing the sphere of human perception. Religious faith is a process of memorizing a book.

redmaxx

08-31-2009, 09:19 AM

Aww man, I'm over 2000 posts late to this party. The thread should be renamed to "Creation Myth or Theory of Evolution" for sake of accuracy.

Well, at least you show your bias up front. :ermm:

darkfrog

08-31-2009, 09:22 AM

Well, at least you show your bias up front. :ermm:
It's shows bias to be more accurate about the wording?

bobcat255

08-31-2009, 09:24 AM

Well, at least you show your bias up front. :ermm:

It's not a bias, it's a fact.

redmaxx

08-31-2009, 09:25 AM

It's shows bias to be more accurate about the wording?

It's not a bias, it's a fact.

Link to rigorous proof that the Bible is fiction or half-truth?

darkfrog

08-31-2009, 09:30 AM

Link to rigorous proof that the Bible is fiction or half-truth?
Link (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=22587197):lmao:

redmaxx

08-31-2009, 09:33 AM

Link (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?p=22587197):lmao:

I rest my case. There's no proof that the worth myth is justified.

darkfrog

08-31-2009, 09:41 AM

I rest my case. There's no proof that the worth myth is justified.
What are you talking about?

myth
/mɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mith] Show IPA
Use myth in a Sentence
See web results for myth
See images of myth
–noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

redmaxx

08-31-2009, 09:50 AM

What are you talking about?

myth
/mɪθ/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [mith] Show IPA
Use myth in a Sentence
See web results for myth
See images of myth
�noun
1. a traditional or legendary story, usually concerning some being or hero or event, with or without a determinable basis of fact or a natural explanation, esp. one that is concerned with deities or demigods and explains some practice, rite, or phenomenon of nature.
2. stories or matter of this kind: realm of myth.
3. any invented story, idea, or concept: His account of the event is pure myth.
4. an imaginary or fictitious thing or person.
5. an unproved or false collective belief that is used to justify a social institution.

In my experience when people use Christianity and the word 'myth' together they mean 3, 4 or 5. My apologies if this was not the intended usage.

darkfrog

08-31-2009, 09:52 AM

In my experience when people use Christianity and the word 'myth' together they mean 3, 4 or 5. My apologies if this was not the intended usage.
I don't recall him using the word Christianity at all. He said creation myth, which could refer to any one of hundreds of different ones, including the biblical account.

You might want to zip up, your bias is showing. :lol:

redmaxx

08-31-2009, 09:55 AM

I don't recall him using the word Christianity at all. He said creation myth, which could refer to any one of hundreds of different ones, including the biblical account.

You might want to zip up, your bias is showing. :lol:

Maybe the Christian version of creation should be capitalized to avoid confusion. :lol:

OK seriously, most of this thread (90+%?) has dealt with Christian creation. Typically when people talk about 'creation' they refer to it in the Christian sense of the word.

darkfrog

08-31-2009, 10:04 AM

Maybe the Christian version of creation should be capitalized to avoid confusion. :lol:

OK seriously, most of this thread (90+%?) has dealt with Christian creation. Typically when people talk about 'creation' they refer to it in the Christian sense of the word.
That may be true but it doesn't negate the fact that he never did use the word Christian associated with creation yet you claimed he did. Even if he did, the point is still the same, it IS a myth by the definition of the word. Besides, I thought you accepted evolution by natural selection as the most likely mechanism for us being here. Change your mind again?

redmaxx

08-31-2009, 10:10 AM

That may be true but it doesn't negate the fact that he never did use the word Christian associated with creation yet you claimed he did.

My apologies if this was not the intended usage.

Besides, I thought you accepted evolution by natural selection as the most likely mechanism for us being here. Change your mind again?

No, I haven't. I also have said I don't think the two are incompatible. :)

CycnuS

08-31-2009, 10:20 AM

In the begining God created man, earth and all we see fully matured. Why would the light we see be any different? Creationism is generally not a science... it is a historical science. It does use science to help support its theory. There is no difference in the faith to believe God created everything we see and the faith it takes for you to believe we all came from a dot. There is a point where we all take things on faith... that the ones that study and bring forth the evidences we use on both sides is accurate and not biased to the point of poisoning the well.

You just proved in your last line your faith. "as science is correct" Even the strongest advocates of science here have often told us that science is everchanging. What we thought correct today may be shown not to be in the future. To say that as difinitive as you did shows where your faith is... It is in science. Which by the way is yours to have.
If God created everything then He also created science.
If science shows that we evolved, or that we have been here millions of years or whatever it may prove - how can we be so sure God does not want us to believe that? How does that contradict anything in the Bible?
I am not saying that we were not created, or that the earth is older that 10K years. What I am suggesting is that the laws and theories of science are all true, they are all based in fact and they are all observable - BUT - they were all created by God.

Mixels

08-31-2009, 10:29 AM

Gavica

08-31-2009, 10:31 AM

Jurassic Park beat you to it, and in fewer words to boot.

dinosaurs eat men

Mixels

08-31-2009, 10:49 AM

dinosaurs eat men

Can you blame them? <3

bobcat255

08-31-2009, 11:53 AM

Link to rigorous proof that the Bible is fiction or half-truth?

Doesn't "half-truth" imply some truth? The literal interpretation of the creation myth in the Bible is factually false according to all of the evidence we have and there are plenty of articles on the web if you're interested in the proof. You can also just open the Bible to the first page of Genesis, read it and see how ridiculous it sounds just as well.

I have not looked for proof that the [entire] Bible is fictional or half-truth in much the same way as I haven't looked for proof that Santa and Tooth Fairy tales aren't fictional or half-truths. I though it was a given and would have been a waste of time. Once a person enters an age where they can reason and think for themselves they usually shed baseless previous beliefs. If they haven't then no proof will do, as evidenced by the creationist/ID movement.

redmaxx

08-31-2009, 02:19 PM

I have not looked for proof that the [entire] Bible is fictional or half-truth in much the same way as I haven't looked for proof that Santa and Tooth Fairy tales aren't fictional or half-truths. I though it was a given and would have been a waste of time. Once a person enters an age where they can reason and think for themselves they usually shed baseless previous beliefs. If they haven't then no proof will do, as evidenced by the creationist/ID movement.

Tell me you didn't just equate Santa Claus with the Bible and say that anyone who doesn't agree can't reason and think for themselves. :rolleyes:

Looks like I was right darkfrog. :nod:

Libertarian

08-31-2009, 04:49 PM

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f144/theonetruedoddy/creationistmethods.png

:lmao:

Phreaker47

08-31-2009, 05:30 PM

talgot

08-31-2009, 06:52 PM

If God created everything then He also created science.
If science shows that we evolved, or that we have been here millions of years or whatever it may prove - how can we be so sure God does not want us to believe that? How does that contradict anything in the Bible?
I am not saying that we were not created, or that the earth is older that 10K years. What I am suggesting is that the laws and theories of science are all true, they are all based in fact and they are all observable - BUT - they were all created by God.

Let me first say I would be considered a young earther I guess, but I am not necessarly locked in on 10k or younger.

You have alot of ifs in there. There is no question some things appear to be old. But lets for sake of arguement agree God created adam as in the bible. We know he was made fully mature yes? So lets just throw a number out there.... say hes 35 ok? And lets say you traveled back or got the God DVD collection of the creation.:) but you only were able to go back just after Adam was already there. Would you have thought knowing God created him that God just got done creating him? Or assume God must have 35 years prior?

My point is we see things after the fact. What may seem old such as the universe or our planet may very well have been created in a mature state like the example above. Now the real question is is there other reasons for believing God exists? For if you have reason in your life to preclude his existence, the idea of the creation account doesn't conflict with some of the evidences we see. If you come on the side of God being a myth or fabrication only a naturalistic creation will do. So I guess it first matters how much we entertain the possibilities of God truely existing to how we will interpret evidences.

In my personal view millions of years and evolution( single cell to what we have now) is in total contradiction to the bible. Evolution is death brought us into the world. Creation is we brought death into the world.Evolution is in the begining nothing.... Creation in the begining God. Evolution is single cell brings forth every kind... Creation every thing brings forth its own kind. Evolution is great great ...... grandpa cell. Creation great great .... grandpa Adam. There truely is a stark difference and As some here will disagree with me here, that the bible truely is not compatible with pretty much most of evolution. Now notice I didn't say with science. Just evolution in my view.

There is no question there is this common theme in nature... there seems to be rules and laws that govern all things. Some known.. some unknown. To me reason tells me there is a law giver... Chaos doesn't lend itself very well to order. :)

Libertarian

08-31-2009, 06:55 PM

This evidence should pretty much end the debate over evolution..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&fmt=18

talgot

08-31-2009, 07:00 PM

Jurassic Park beat you to it, and in fewer words to boot.

Reason prefers Malcolm's snippet over yours. The Judeo-Christian God (and lawdy, I know I'm going to get it for this), by virtue of his demonstrated traits (as opposed to claimed or alleged ones), is covetous, vain, malicious, and proud. Apparently he gets a get out of hell free card with regard to these dogmatically "deadly" sins since, as you know, he's God and all, and, since the get out of hell free card is a product of his own godly omni-correctness, this, if he does exist, also makes him a hypocrite.

I should also point out that the presence of these traits, since they are inconsistent to a fatal degree with the Judeo-Chritian definition of God, essentially means that the existence of the Judeo-Christian God is inconsistent with Judeo-Christian dogma, meaning that God can't exist, by virtue of a definitive paradox. But I won't because I'm a nice guy.

Admittedly a clever post. Unless intentionally ment to be sarcastic, I think things you attribute to God are your interpretations that appear to be lacking in understanding or study of him in a great way while conveniently leave out others.

talgot

08-31-2009, 07:14 PM

This evidence should pretty much end the debate over evolution..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dK3O6KYPmEw&fmt=18

Hmm tell that to pigs and cats who both have 19 chromosones. I don't think they are alike,do you? Just because we may have had the same doesn't mean we would be anything alike. It is an absured evidence to say that it ends the debate.

Libertarian

08-31-2009, 07:17 PM

Hmm tell that to pigs and cats who both have 19 chromosones. I don't think they are alike,do you? Just because we may have had the same doesn't mean we would be anything alike. It is an absured evidence to say that it ends the debate.

Nobody has argued a common ancestry between those species. Their genetic code is quite different, while ours is nearly identical to the primate. Evolutionary theory has been predicting a common ancestry between humans and apes for a century, but it hasn't been proven until the the genome was mapped last year.

123er

08-31-2009, 07:22 PM

Libertarian

08-31-2009, 07:24 PM

The full lecture is 2 hours long...Here it is if anyone wants to hear it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JVRsWAjvQSg&fmt=18

talgot

08-31-2009, 07:26 PM

Nobody has argued a common ancestry between those species. Their genetic code is quite different, while ours is nearly identical to the primate. Evolutionary theory has been predicting a common ancestry between humans and apes for a century, but it hasn't been proven until the the genome was mapped last year.

That still is rediculous. having the same amount of chromosomes doesn't mean we would be anything like the other. That is the point. Your prediction is made with the assumption evolution is true. which is why it falls short of being very scientific. But if I say look it shows a common designer you would get bent out of shape and tell me how unscientific it is. This means little. You can only say it is possible but have no idea if we always were fused at #2 or even if we ever had a separated chromosome. All you can say is there is some simularities.. thats it.

Did you even watch the whole video?

Yes I did.

darkfrog

08-31-2009, 07:29 PM

Nobody has argued a common ancestry between those species. Their genetic code is quite different, while ours is nearly identical to the primate. Evolutionary theory has been predicting a common ancestry between humans and apes for a century, but it hasn't been proven until the the genome was mapped last year.I have been posting and asking about Human Chromosome Number 2 (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=20164429&postcount=1896) for about a year. I have never received an answer from any Creationist/IDer as to an explanation that fits with their theory.

Talgot, you obviously don't understand the implication if all you can point to is similar number of chromosomes in different species.

Did the designer/god create the fusion on purpose? Was it merely a deception to make it appear we are descended from the same ancestor? If so why?

123er

08-31-2009, 07:31 PM

Yes I did.

What time was the claim that having the same number of chromosomes implied being similar? The claim was that being similar implied having the same number of chromosomes. Then it said that humans do not have the same number of chromosomes as the animals believed to be our closest relatives. Then it reconciled that apparent inconsistency.

darkfrog

08-31-2009, 07:34 PM

That still is rediculous. having the same amount of chromosomes doesn't mean we would be anything like the other. That is the point. Your prediction is made with the assumption evolution is true. which is why it falls short of being very scientific. But if I say look it shows a common designer you would get bent out of shape and tell me how unscientific it is. This means little. You can only say it is possible but have no idea if we always were fused at #2 or even if we ever had a separated chromosome. All you can say is there is some simularities.. thats it.
.
It is not simple similarities. Telomeres and centromeres in the correct position is evidence they were separate at one time. Of course you start with the assumption evolution is true, that IS how science works. You say, if evolution is true, then we expect this. If we don't find it, then evolution is not true. Simple. We do the same thing in every single branch of science. All hypotheses are tested on the assumption they are true. To say that's not scientific is a gross misunderstanding of how science works in spite of the thousands of words in this very thread trying to explain this to non-scientists such as yourself.

talgot

08-31-2009, 07:54 PM

I have been posting and asking about Human Chromosome Number 2 (http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=20164429&postcount=1896) for about a year. I have never received an answer from any Creationist/IDer as to an explanation that fits with their theory. [QUOTE] How does it not fit our theory? It doesn't disprove anything?

[QUOTE]Talgot, you obviously don't understand the implication if all you can point to is similar number of chromosomes in different species. How so? Even if we believe we once had 24 pairs it doesn't mean we would be anything like apes. You can not say we ever had 24... nor can you say that even if we did we would have descended from apes. This is not proof of evolution.

Did the designer/god create the fusion on purpose?
Might have.

Was it merely a deception to make it appear we are descended from the same ancestor? If so why? Why is it a deception? Is everything that is simular a deception? You must have issues with car makers... machine designers...etc..

Libertarian

08-31-2009, 07:59 PM

Have any creationists given an answer to why we have vestigial structures? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html)..up to 180 different types in humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestigiality).. Why do we have tailbones? Why do whales grow (then lose) functioning legs while in the womb? Did God make these things happen just to lol @ the confused look on our face when we discovered them?

talgot

08-31-2009, 07:59 PM

What time was the claim that having the same number of chromosomes implied being similar? The claim was that being similar implied having the same number of chromosomes. Then it said that humans do not have the same number of chromosomes as the animals believed to be our closest relatives. Then it reconciled that apparent inconsistency.
Implication is that simularities and a reconciliation of the numbers of chromosones = related. That is a call that goes beyond what we see. All we can see is it appears to have a fused chromosome that might have been apart at one time even though there is no evidence or proof it was. It is all assumption. And it goes back to people like Libertarian trying to say the debate is over because of this. That in itself is not scientific or ration given this is proof of nothing.

talgot

08-31-2009, 08:05 PM

Have any creationists given an answer to why we have vestegial structures? (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/section2.html) Why do humans have tailbones? Why do whales grow (then lose) functioning legs while in the womb? Did God make these things happen just to lol @ the confused look on our face when we discovered them?
First you assume they were legs.. again you stop being scientific and assume. Second they are used for reproduction. They have a purpose. You can remove the coccyx and still live and function but much more limited than normal. Just as you can remove the appendix and live, doesn't mean they do not have a function and purpose. I am not aware of a whale needing to reproduce in the womb.

superdan54

08-31-2009, 08:12 PM

http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f144/theonetruedoddy/creationistmethods.png

:lmao:

Honestly, I don't see anything wrong with the ID flowchart as long as it is a department of one's personal worldview and not the foundation of scientific endeavor.

This evidence should pretty much end the debate over evolution..

Interestingly enough, my friend sent me pretty much the exact same vid on this subject earlier today. Maybe God really wants me to know how we got 23 chromosomes. Here's (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FGYzZOZxMw) the vid I was sent earlier...it's shorter and has pretty visuals.

FWIW - Ken Miller is a devout Catholic.

Libertarian

08-31-2009, 08:17 PM

First you assume they were legs.. again you stop being scientific and assume.

First of all, they are legs. The legs grow on the fetus, then retract before it is born..serving no apparent purpose, just like thousands of other vestigial structures we have discovered in "God's final creations". We have the fossils showing that the ancestors of today's whales had 4 legs and were large land-bearing animals before evolving into their current form.

http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/series/morphed/3001/Videos#tab-Videos/06300_00
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2008/09/12/researchers-determine-when-whales-legs-turned-into-a-tail/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=when-whales-had-legs
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/05/060523092737.htm

Were those fossils put here to test our faith like the dinosaurs? If God is perfect and his creations final (not evolving over time), why would he leave ANY vestigial structures anywhere??

superdan54

08-31-2009, 08:21 PM

Off topic a bit, but an interesting (although disputed) theory of Hawking's is that the origin of the big bang could be the result of a giant singularity... or in other words, a black hole's ass took a dump.

I've read & heard some about this recently. The problem from what I understand is that he uses imaginary numbers to arrive at this conclusion. That's all fine & dandy except that imaginary numbers have no real equivalent in reality. In mathematics they must resolve to natural numbers before the solution. I'll have to find the quote but apparently Hawking himself admits that if they are resolved to natural numbers then it basically takes us back to square one, i.e. the traditional view of the Big Bang.

Sorry for lack of references, but I'm getting ready to watch me some Stargate.

talgot

08-31-2009, 08:31 PM

It is not simple similarities. Telomeres and centromeres in the correct position is evidence they were separate at one time. Of course you start with the assumption evolution is true, that IS how science works. You say, if evolution is true, then we expect this. If we don't find it, then evolution is not true. Simple. We do the same thing in every single branch of science. All hypotheses are tested on the assumption they are true. To say that's not scientific is a gross misunderstanding of how science works in spite of the thousands of words in this very thread trying to explain this to non-scientists such as yourself. That is not true. The scientific method or science in general doesn't say you assume anything is true. The truth is in the findings. True science has no preconceived notions. That is not how science should work... but sadly the science you and many others practice is indeed how it works. Thousands of words in a paper or in a forum do not make something true no matter how you sugarcoat it. Tell me, does this finding prove evolution? Does it prove common ancestry? Do you know that chromosome #2 was ever unfused? I would bet the answer to all is no. The number and position has little to do with anything. It is the information on the molecular level that makes the difference.There are examples in both goats and sheep where individuals with one or more centric fusions are phenotypically indistinguishable from other animals.

darkfrog

08-31-2009, 08:35 PM

[URL="http://forums.slickdeals.net/showpost.php?p=20164429&postcount=1896"]I have been posting and asking about Human Chromosome Number 2 for about a year. I have never received an answer from any Creationist/IDer as to an explanation that fits with their theory. How does it not fit our theory? It doesn't disprove anything?

How so? Even if we believe we once had 24 pairs it doesn't mean we would be anything like apes. You can not say we ever had 24... nor can you say that even if we did we would have descended from apes. This is not proof of evolution.

Might have.

Why is it a deception? Is everything that is simular a deception? You must have issues with car makers... machine designers...etc..Again, maybe you need to learn more about genetics and mapping. It isn't as simple as saying there are similarities. The old argument that the designer/deity just reuses code doesn't work because of the traceability of the changes. We can see the where there have been changes in genetic code and have explanations of how they occurred, such as insertions or deletions causing frame-shift, point mutations, inversions, amplifications, etc. These can be traced back in lineage and it is the same way we understand genetic diseases as well. So yes, we can say with reasonable certainty that our species once had 24 pairs like the great apes and we can see where ape and human genetic codes diverged, so, along with all of the other evidence that we share a common ancestor, this is just icing on the cake. Your lack of understanding is okay as I wouldn't expect anyone not in the field to fully grasp what we now know about our genome (and other species), but the information is there, you could take the time to understand it at least on a basic level. However, closing your eyes and saying "no, no" isn't a good defense anymore.

darkfrog

08-31-2009, 08:47 PM

That is not true. The scientific method or science in general doesn't say you assume anything is true.
You are misunderstanding and misrepresenting what the scientific method is about. Show me where in the scientific method that we should not assume a theory to be true. ALL theories and laws are assumed true until proven otherwise. All science depends on the framework that came from the scientists previously. We don't need to reconfirm Newton's or Einstein's theories every time we study some aspect of motion or gravitation. We begin with the understanding those ideas are true, yet we don't assume they cannot be falsified which is what you seem to be confused about. If you noticed in Miller's testimony, he gave some conditions that if we found those, they would in fact falsify evolution. THAT is what is meant by not assuming things are true. However, finding evidence that continues to support your theory is science and follows the scientific method just fine.

djjoey

08-31-2009, 08:54 PM

darkfrog

08-31-2009, 08:57 PM

I've read & heard some about this recently. The problem from what I understand is that he uses imaginary numbers to arrive at this conclusion. That's all fine & dandy except that imaginary numbers have no real equivalent in reality. In mathematics they must resolve to natural numbers before the solution. I'll have to find the quote but apparently Hawking himself admits that if they are resolved to natural numbers then it basically takes us back to square one, i.e. the traditional view of the Big Bang.

Sorry for lack of references, but I'm getting ready to watch me some Stargate.
Actually, he doesn't use imaginary numbers, they occur naturally as a result of the equations. There is nothing imaginary about imaginary numbers and to say they don't reflect reality is misunderstanding their use in mathematics and physics. It is necessary when exploring multiple dimensions. It is unfortunate that the term 'imaginary' was coined to describe these numbers. We could have just as easily called them superreal numbers, or hyper numbers but Bombelli used the term imaginary (at one point in time zero was considered fictitious and useless). Imaginary time is not made up or fictitious, it is another dimension perpendicular to real time.

bobcat255

08-31-2009, 08:59 PM

Tell me you didn't just equate Santa Claus with the Bible and say that anyone who doesn't agree can't reason and think for themselves. :rolleyes:

Looks like I was right darkfrog. :nod:

Don't put words in my mouth.

First of all, this discussion started with the creation myth. YOU brought in the Bible and made this about the Christian creation myth. I was talking in general about the many different creation myths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth) (darkfrog's assertion was correct).

Second of all, I stated that I have not looked for evidence to refute the entire Bible is untrue, which was your question to me. I stated why taking on such an endeavor is useless. I'm not comparing the meaning many people place on the Bible to other works of fiction, all I'm stating is that it's not worth one's time proving something as false when it's never been proven as true. To be fair, the Bible isn't the only such book. Sorry if the comparison offends you. The burden of proof falls on the one making a claim.

Thirdly, I didn't state that anyone who doesn't agree that "the Bible and Santa are equivalent" is stupid**. What I said was that if someone grows up and is presented with evidence that something they previously thought as true is no longer true (i.e. Santa, Tooth fairy) and their position on the matter does not change (or worse, is unquestionable) then those people are stupid. This is why I mentioned creationists/IDers. In all fairness, I should have said ignorant instead of stupid. Stupid implies the person has no choice in the matter (kind of like gay people); ignorant means the person is just unlearned.

I hope that clarifies my post to you.

** I would actually argue such people are smart as they can see the difference between a book and the main character in the book.

darkfrog

08-31-2009, 09:01 PM

The One True Faith:
http://catholictelevision.org/mai...content=20
Download and listen to at least 3 episodes and you will realize The One True Faith.
Christian is our religion
Catholic is our faith

Check it out...it can only make you better!
Check it out - it can only make you understand
Penn & Teller - The Vatican is Bullshit (http://www.atheistmedia.com/2009/08/penn-and-teller-bullshit-vatican.html)

redmaxx

08-31-2009, 10:13 PM

Don't put words in my mouth.

I didn't.

First of all, this discussion started with the creation myth. YOU brought in the Bible and made this about the Christian creation myth.

Pages upon pages upon pages of discussion before me made this about the "Christian creation myth".

I was talking in general about the many different creation myths (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_myth) (darkfrog's assertion was correct).

I didn't say that he wasn't. The part I meant I was correct about was you saying there's no truth in it.

Thirdly, I didn't state that anyone who doesn't agree that "the Bible and Santa are equivalent" is stupid**.

I said that you said that they couldn't use reason and think for themselves. And you did say that.

CycnuS

09-01-2009, 05:19 AM

You have alot of ifs in there. There is no question some things appear to be old. But lets for sake of arguement agree God created adam as in the bible. We know he was made fully mature yes? So lets just throw a number out there.... say hes 35 ok? And lets say you traveled back or got the God DVD collection of the creation.:) but you only were able to go back just after Adam was already there. Would you have thought knowing God created him that God just got done creating him? Or assume God must have 35 years prior?
That is the point I am trying to understand. I would assume that he must have created him 35 years prior because there is observable evidence, even though he was just created.
My point is we see things after the fact. What may seem old such as the universe or our planet may very well have been created in a mature state like the example above.
I understand this, what I don't understand is if the above is true then both creation and evolution are true. Evolution would be by observable traits, creation by faith. God would have created a mature universe with all the laws in it.
In this scenario there is no way for the creationist to "prove" creation as it is by faith. The evolutionist will still have a long hard road ahead, but there are observable traits.
In my personal view millions of years and evolution( single cell to what we have now) is in total contradiction to the bible. Evolution is death brought us into the world. Creation is we brought death into the world.Evolution is in the begining nothing.... Creation in the begining God. Evolution is single cell brings forth every kind... Creation every thing brings forth its own kind. Evolution is great great ...... grandpa cell. Creation great great .... grandpa Adam. There truely is a stark difference and As some here will disagree with me here, that the bible truely is not compatible with pretty much most of evolution. Now notice I didn't say with science. Just evolution in my view.
I agree. But mabye that was the point when God created a mature universe. If you can prove creation, what is the point of faith?

IMMensaMind

09-01-2009, 07:14 AM

Here's a question, asked from a Creationist perspective:

Did the Laws of Nature evolve, were they created, or did they just appear - fully functional, and out of no where? :ermm: :reading: :scratch:

Mixels

09-01-2009, 08:29 AM

Admittedly a clever post. Unless intentionally ment to be sarcastic, I think things you attribute to God are your interpretations that appear to be lacking in understanding or study of him in a great way while conveniently leave out others.

Maybe, but I could say the same thing about the Judeo-Christian interpretation of God. You can't ignore the Old Testament, and the doom and gloom surrounding the whole Adam and Eve thing (and subsequently affecting the rest of history), if you really think about it, is beyond cruel. It's plainly malicious. The fact is, one thing all Judeo-Christian theologies have in common is that they require that God be wholly good and benign--it's pretty much the reason people worship him--and the dogma itself fails to support that. It amazes me how people can reconcile the current state and the history of the world with claims of an entirely good God. They don't pan out, not even a little bit, and all other rational concerns aside regarding how or if such a God could exist (and there are a whole, whole lot), this one should have people asking themselves how any of this makes any sense at all.

talgot

09-01-2009, 08:56 AM

Maybe, but I could say the same thing about the Judeo-Christian interpretation of God. You can't ignore the Old Testament, and the doom and gloom surrounding the whole Adam and Eve thing (and subsequently affecting the rest of history), if you really think about it, is beyond cruel. It's plainly malicious. The fact is, one thing all Judeo-Christian theologies have in common is that they require that God be wholly good and benign--it's pretty much the reason people worship him--and the dogma itself fails to support that. It amazes me how people can reconcile the current state and the history of the world with claims of an entirely good God. They don't pan out, not even a little bit, and all other rational concerns aside regarding how or if such a God could exist (and there are a whole, whole lot), this one should have people asking themselves how any of this makes any sense at all.

You are implying Judgment and anger are in and of itself evil or immoral. Then you take issue with parents our justice system... etc. If you view judgement and punishment for disobedience as wrong how can you reconcile the world we live in currently? There is no conflict that you suggest there is. This is just one of many selective picking of events without context and without understanding. You are entitled to your opinion of God, but doesn't make it right

bobcat255

09-01-2009, 09:40 AM

I didn't.

You did, you said that I "equate Santa Claus with the Bible." That's not true. I equate the stories/tales of Santa with the Bible.

Pages upon pages upon pages of discussion before me made this about the "Christian creation myth".

Who cares about the Christian creation myth besides the Christians? You think that's the only religion in the world? I plainly said "Creation Myth or Theory of Evolution" referring to the multitude of them. It's like saying "Colors or Shapes" and you say "Blue." That's not an option creation can exist without religion (a man-made concept). Not everyone subscribes to the Christian version, not even all Christians believe in the same things. There are plenty of Christians that have no problem with the Theory of Evolution, but then they probably don't take the Bible literally as well (or just haven't read it, like most Christians).

I didn't say that he wasn't. The part I meant I was correct about was you saying there's no truth in it.

I really don't want to get into a he-said-she-said; completely counter-productive. Bottom line is that darkfrog correctly interpreted my intention whereas you keep twisting my words and meanings around. Unlike the Bible, I'm very literal, I mean everything as written.

I said that you said that they couldn't use reason and think for themselves. And you did say that.

What do you call people who can't think for themselves and can't reason but are no longer kids? Stupid. I typed up my response pretty late, so my mistake for using the word. Regardless, my statement is still accurate (if you substitute stupid for someone who "can't think for themselves"). I said the words, but I didn't mean it in the same way you said it. You said: "Tell me you didn't just equate Santa Claus with the Bible and say that anyone who doesn't agree can't reason and think for themselves." What I said was: "Once a person enters an age where they can reason and think for themselves they usually shed baseless previous beliefs. If they haven't then no proof will do, as evidenced by the creationist/ID movement." I'll restate what I said above a bit clearer.

Once a person grows up and develops the ability to reason and think for themselves (i.e. they're no longer ignorant kids), they usually question things which have no proof/evidence and dismiss it as fairy tales. Kind of like the stories they used to hear about Santa, thoughts that their dad is the most powerful person in the world, etc. If they are not willing to dismiss the stories or worse, if the idea that Santa can't exist is unquestionable, then despite the mountains of evidence their mind will not sway, so there's no point in building a case.

Not to repeat myself, but I'll take this a step further so it's even more clear. What I said was that "Once a person enters an age where they can think they..." What you said is that if someone doesn't agree with (your twisting of my words) "equate Santa Claus with the Bible" I labeled as someone who can't reason for themselves. Do you see the distinction now?

An analogy, to drive it home. I said "Once a girl enters an age when she can wear a bra..." and you said "So you're saying that everyone who doesn't agree with you wears bras?"

I seriously hope I made this clear.

"You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into." - Unknown
"Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out." - Sydney Smith

Get it?

Mixels

09-01-2009, 10:11 AM

You are implying Judgment and anger are in and of itself evil or immoral. Then you take issue with parents our justice system... etc. If you view judgement and punishment for disobedience as wrong how can you reconcile the world we live in currently? There is no conflict that you suggest there is. This is just one of many selective picking of events without context and without understanding. You are entitled to your opinion of God, but doesn't make it right

So your point is that God was right to punish us because he !@#$ed up and made us evil in the first place? I think you'd agree that it is immoral to punish someone who has not committed a crime worthy of the punishment, but here's the funny thing: I would find it obscenely immoral for a police officer to walk a known felon into a convenience store, hand him a pistol, walk away, then come back and shoot the felon while he is robbing the store.

redmaxx

09-01-2009, 10:33 AM

You did, you said that I "equate Santa Claus with the Bible." That's not true. I equate the stories/tales of Santa with the Bible.

That's what I meant.

Who cares about the Christian creation myth besides the Christians?

Seriously? You're saying no one else cares?

You think that's the only religion in the world?

No. :rolleyes:

I plainly said "Creation Myth or Theory of Evolution" referring to the multitude of them.

And I do believe I apologized for misunderstanding you. However, you did go along with it.

I really don't want to get into a he-said-she-said; completely counter-productive. Bottom line is that darkfrog correctly interpreted my intention whereas you keep twisting my words and meanings around. Unlike the Bible, I'm very literal, I mean everything as written.

Look, don't pin it on me. I apologized if I misinterpreted what you said (and I didn't, you are using the word 'myth' to mean something that is entirely untrue). But the fact remains that you did say what I said you said.

What do you call people who can't think for themselves and can't reason but are no longer kids? Stupid.

And my point to you is that you can show that Santa Claus is a made up tale based on a real man. You cannot show the same of certain "creation myths" and yet you decide to categorically say that anyone who believes in a "creation myth" can't think and reason on their own.

Once a person grows up and develops the ability to reason and think for themselves (i.e. they're no longer ignorant kids), they usually question things which have no proof/evidence and dismiss it as fairy tales. Kind of like the stories they used to hear about Santa, thoughts that their dad is the most powerful person in the world, etc. If they are not willing to dismiss the stories or worse, if the idea that Santa can't exist is unquestionable, then despite the mountains of evidence their mind will not sway, so there's no point in building a case.

This means the same thing. If they don't agree with your reasoning and agree with you that there's "no proof" then you view them as being unable to reason.

That's why I asked you for proof. It appears you just want to sit there and throw stones at anyone that doesn't agree.

An analogy, to drive it home. I said "Once a girl enters an age when she can wear a bra..." and you said "So you're saying that everyone who doesn't agree with you wears bras?"

That is not what I did.

You claimed that once someone enters a certain age where they can reason and think for themselves, they usually shed belief in "creation myths". You further went on to say that if they don't, they're simply ignorant. Don't pretend like I'm chopping up your statements to interject something you didn't say. That is exactly what you said.

"You can’t reason someone out of a position they didn’t reason themselves into." - Unknown
"Never try to reason the prejudice out of a man. It was not reasoned into him, and cannot be reasoned out." - Sydney Smith

Get it?

No, grabbing a couple of quotes doesn't prove anything. I'm perfectly open to reason. I'm not open to attacks and name calling simply because I don't agree with you.

redmaxx

09-01-2009, 10:40 AM

So your point is that God was right to punish us because he !@#$ed up and made us evil in the first place?

That isn't what the Bible says at all. Where did you get the idea that's what it says?

Libertarian

09-01-2009, 10:45 AM

So your point is that God was right to punish us because he !@#$ed up and made us evil in the first place? I think you'd agree that it is immoral to punish someone who has not committed a crime worthy of the punishment, but here's the funny thing: I would find it obscenely immoral for a police officer to walk a known felon into a convenience store, hand him a pistol, walk away, then come back and shoot the felon while he is robbing the store.

I think this is a nice summary of what you are saying..

Damnation is the start of your morality, destruction is its purpose, means and end. Your code begins by damning man as evil, then demands that he practice a good which it defines as impossible for him to practice. It demands, as his first proof of virtue, that he accept his own depravity without proof. It demands that he start, not with a standard of value, but with a standard of evil, which is himself, by means of which he is then to define the good: the good is that which he is not.

It does not matter who then becomes the profiteer on his renounced glory and tormented soul, a mystic God with some incomprehensible design or any passer-by whose rotting sores are held as some inexplicable claim upon him-it does not matter, the good is not for him to understand, his duty is to crawl through years of penance, atoning for the guilt of his existence to any stray collector of unintelligible debts, his only concept of a value is a zero: the good is that which is non-man.

The name of this monstrous absurdity is Original Sin.

A sin without volition is a slap at morality and an insolent contradiction in terms: that which is outside the possibility of choice is outside the province of morality. If man is evil by birth, he has no will, no power to change it; if he has no will, he can be neither good nor evil; a robot is amoral. To hold, as man’s sin, a fact not open to his choice is a mockery of morality. To hold man’s nature as his sin is a mockery of nature. To punish him for a crime he committed before he was born is a mockery of justice. To hold him guilty in a matter where no innocence exists is a mockery of reason. To destroy morality, nature, justice and reason by means of a single concept is a feat of evil hardly to be matched. Yet that is the root of your code.

Do not hide behind the cowardly evasion that man is born with free will, but with a ‘tendency’ to evil. A free will saddled with a tendency is like a game with loaded dice. It forces man to struggle through the effort of playing, to bear responsibility and pay for the game, but the decision is weighted in favor of a tendency that he had no power to escape. If the tendency is of his choice, he cannot possess it at birth; if it is not of his choice, his will is not free.

What is the nature of the guilt that your teachers call his Original Sin? What are the evils man acquired when he fell from a state they consider perfection? Their myth declares that he ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge-he acquired a mind and became a rational being. It was the knowledge of good and evil-he became a moral being. He was sentenced to earn his bread by his labor-he became a productive being. He was sentenced to experience desire-he acquired the capacity of sexual enjoyment. The evils for which they damn him are reason, morality, creativeness; joy-all the cardinal values of his existence. It is not his vices that their myth of man’s fall is designed to explain and condemn, it is not his errors that they hold as his guilt, but the essence of his nature as man. Whatever he was-that robot in the Garden of Eden, who existed without mind, without values, without labor, without love...he was NOT man.

Man’s fall, according to your teachers, was that he gained the virtues required to live. These virtues, by their standard, are his Sin. His evil, they charge, is that he’s man. His guilt, they charge, is that he lives.

They call it a morality of mercy and a doctrine of love for man. No, they say, they do not preach that man is evil, the evil is only that alien object: his body. No, they say, they do not wish to kill him, they only wish to make him lose his body. They seek to help him, they say, against his pain-and they point at the torture rack to which they’ve tied him, the rack with two wheels that pull him in opposite directions, the rack of the doctrine that splits his soul and body.

They have cut man in two, setting one half against the other. They have taught him that his body and his consciousness are two enemies engaged in deadly conflict, two antagonists of opposite natures, contradictory claims, incompatible needs, that to benefit one is to injure the other, that his soul belongs to a supernatural realm, but his body is an evil prison holding it in bondage to this earth-and that the good is to defeat his body, to undermine it by years of patient struggle, digging his way to that gorgeous jail-break which leads into the freedom of the grave.

They have taught man that he is a hopeless misfit made of two elements, both symbols of death. A body without a soul is a corpse, a soul without a body is a ghost-yet such is their image of man’s nature: the battleground of a struggle between a corpse and a ghost, a corpse endowed with some evil volition of its own and a ghost endowed with the knowledge that everything known to man is nonexistent, that only the unknowable exists.

Do you observe what human faculty that’ doctrine was designed to ignore? It was man’s mind that had to be negated in order to make him fall apart. Once he surrendered reason, he was left at the mercy of two monsters whom he could not fathom or control: of a body moved by unaccountable instincts and of a soul moved by mystic revelations-he was left as the passively ravaged victim of a battle between a robot and a dictaphone.

And as he now crawls through the wreckage, groping blindly for a way to live, your teachers offer him the help of a morality that proclaims that he’ll find no solution and must seek no fulfillment on earth. Real existence, they tell him, is that which he cannot perceive, true consciousness is the faculty of perceiving the non-existent-and if he is unable to understand it, that is the proof that his existence is evil and his consciousness impotent.

As products of the split between man’s soul and body, there are two kinds of teachers of the Morality of Death: the mystics of spirit and the mystics of muscle, whom you call the spiritualists and the materialists, those who believe in consciousness without existence and those who believe in existence without consciousness. Both demand the surrender of your mind, one to their revelation, the other to their reflexes. No matter how loudly they posture in the roles of irreconcilable antagonists, their moral codes are alike, and so are their aims: in matter-the enslavement of man’s body, in spirit-the destruction of his mind.

The good, say the mystics of spirit, is God, a being whose only definition is that he is beyond man’s power to conceive-a definition that invalidates man’s consciousness and nullifies his concepts of existence. The good, say the mystics of muscle, is Society-a thing which they define as an organism that possesses no physical form, a super-being embodied in no one in particular and everyone in general, except yourself. Man’s mind, say the mystics of spirit, must be subordinated to the will of God. Man’s mind, say the mystics of muscle, must be subordinated to the will of Society. Man’s standard of value say the mystics of spirit, is the pleasure 0f God, whose standards are beyond man’s power of comprehension and must be accepted on faith. Man’s standard of value, say the mystics of muscle, is the pleasure of Society, whose standards are beyond man’s right of judgment and must be obeyed as a primary absolute. The purpose of man’s life, say both, is to become an abject zombie who serves a purpose he does not know, for reasons he is not to question. His reward, say the mystics of spirit, will be given to him beyond the grave. His reward, say the mystics of muscle, will be given on earth-to his great-grandchildren.

Selfishness-say both-is man’s evil. Man’s good-say both-is to give up his personal desires, to deny himself, renounce himself, surrender; man’s good is to negate the life he lives. Sacrifice-cry both-is the essence of morality, the highest virtue within man’s reach.

Whoever is now within reach of my voice, whoever is man the victim, not man the killer, I am speaking at the deathbed of your mind, at the brink of that darkness in which you’re drowning, and if there still remains within you the power to struggle to hold on to those fading sparks which had been yourself-use it now. The word that has destroyed you is ’sacrifice.’ Use the last of your strength to understand its meaning. You’re still alive. You have a chance..- excerpt from John Galt's radio speech, Atlas Shrugged, 1956

talgot

09-01-2009, 11:12 AM

Mixels

09-01-2009, 11:17 AM

I think this is a nice summary of what you are saying..

- excerpt from John Galt's radio speech, Atlas Shrugged, 1956

'Tis! I've read Atlas Shrugged twice, but for the life of me, I don't remember that speech. :( Thanks for posting it.

Libertarian

09-01-2009, 11:17 AM

talgot, read the "rules" your morality says man broke in the 6th paragraph from my post above. Think for a moment of the nature of the "guilt" your God is condemning mankind for (his original sin).. How can you take it seriously?

Mixels

09-01-2009, 11:19 AM

You are starting on a premise that he messed up. Obviously your opinion not based on the record. He had rules for man. Man chose to break rules. God told them the consequences of that action before they did. Wages of sin is death. For the Lord to be just his words must be adhered to. Who decides what is a just penalty? Those in authority do. It is not like he just sprung on them their punishment without the warning first. This is no different than being under a parents rule, except the scale of it. Your example has no equivalence to what God has done. Apples and oranges.

That's sort of the point. Why did man choose to break the rules? The possession of the faculty to do so indicates a prerogative to do evil. Otherwise, man woud have absolutely no issue abiding by the rules of goodness (which should have been the same as God's rules), even in spite of Satan's temptations. Basically, what it boils down to is this: if God had been in Eve's shoes, would he have eaten the fruit? If not, then the fact that Eve did eat the fruit indicates either a flaw in God's ability to create or God's explicit will to inflict undue punishment upon his creation. In fact, it likely indicates both, but again, I won't say so because I'm just that kind of a nice guy.

Epiphyte

09-01-2009, 11:21 AM

redmaxx

09-01-2009, 11:29 AM

No, I'm starting on the premise that your dogma says he didn't mess up. Did you read my posts? I'm pretty sure I explained this in the first post you replied to...

Didn't you say:

"So your point is that God was right to punish us because he !@#$ed up and made us evil in the first place?"

You're saying that talgot said that God messed up. Talgot is not saying that at all. Why are you saying that you're starting on the premise that God didn't mess up, when you clearly are starting on the opposite premise?

Mixels

09-01-2009, 11:38 AM

Didn't you say:

"So your point is that God was right to punish us because he !@#$ed up and made us evil in the first place?"

You're saying that talgot said that God messed up. Talgot is not saying that at all. Why are you saying that you're starting on the premise that God didn't mess up, when you clearly are starting on the opposite premise?

I edited the post you quoted to show a little how Talgot actually did say that.

redmaxx

09-01-2009, 11:41 AM

I edited the post you quoted to show a little how Talgot actually did say that.

So what you're arguing (or you're arguing talgot said, I'm not sure which) is that because God created man with the ability to choose, God is responsible for man's choices?

bobcat255

09-01-2009, 11:42 AM

Redmaxx, ok ok... let's get down to the real point.

The topic states "Creation or Evolutionists theory." This is a big play on words and isn't stated clearly which is why I said it should accurately state "Creation Myth or Theory of Evolution."

By using the word "Evolutionists" the OP turns a scientific theory into some type of belief system, as if there are followers of evolution who call themselves "Evolutionists." This is very disingenuous. Why not label these people Gravitationalists? Does that theory not bother creationists?

The word theory is used as the colloquial version of the word to imply speculation.

As you can see, the original title of the thread is just disingenuous and inaccurate.

Either way, let me discuss the two based on a more correct subject.

Creation myths are just that.

The theory of evolution on the other hand is a scientific theory. A scientific theory is an explanation or model based on observation, experimentation, and reasoning, especially one that has been tested and confirmed as a general principle helping to explain and predict natural phenomena. (http://www.fsteiger.com/theory.html)

For example, it's a fact that when you let go of something it will always fall down. We call this gravity. However, the explanation of that fact is the Theory of Gravitation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitation). It's a fact that we can trace our lineage to great apes and further and the explanation of this fact (and many more) is called the Theory of Evolution. Every theory in science is falsifiable (it wouldn't be science otherwise). So even if you falsify the theory of evolution (one of the longest standing theories in science), the real challenge is to disprove the facts upon which it's based. In other words, if you can disprove the Theory of Gravitation, you'd still have to show that a fact is not a fact. See the problem here? Only a scientist would be able to do this anyway, because if you falsify a theory you usually offer an alternate theory (which has to explain all the previous facts, plus the ones you've shown to be wrong). Science is fun like that... everything needs proof and everything needs to be backed up.

The theory of evolution is a fact as much as the theory of gravitation, atomic theory, germ theory, cell theory, etc. are facts

So, given "Creation Myth vs. Theory of Evolution" which do you choose? Actually, why do you even have to make a choice? They don't have anything to do with each other. "Socks or carrots?"

redmaxx

09-01-2009, 11:44 AM

So, given "Creation Myth vs. Theory of Evolution" which do you choose? Actually, why do you even have to make a choice? They don't have anything to do with each other. "Socks or carrots?"

I said they're not mutually exclusive, IMO. But we're back to the whole point where you think I'm stupid or ignorant because I don't agree with you.

bobcat255

09-01-2009, 11:54 AM

I said they're not mutually exclusive, IMO. But we're back to the whole point where you think I'm stupid or ignorant because I don't agree with you.

That's correct, they are not mutually exclusive.

I don't know you well enough to judge your intelligence and knowledge but I am willing to have a discussion. What part of what I said do you not agree with?

Mixels

09-01-2009, 12:26 PM

So what you're arguing (or you're arguing talgot said, I'm not sure which) is that because God created man with the ability to choose, God is responsible for man's choices?

Not particularly. What I'm saying is that God did not only create man with the ability to choose. God created man with the prerogative to commit evil. This is simply not something an entirely good, all-powerful creator would do. It's not really about "choosing." God can theoretically "choose," but he never chooses evil because he is entirely good. However, God did not create humans in the same way: Adam and Eve were not entirely good. He then punished them for a crime he himself facilitated through their creation and the circumstances thereof (all of which he not only allowed but forced by reason of his knowing what would happen if they were present). The punishment, too... lord, that's a doozy.

Jhaan

09-01-2009, 12:34 PM

God can theoretically "choose," but he never chooses evil because he is entirely good.

No. God can choose to be evil about as well as you can choose to be a fish. God is good. God does not choose to be good. It's an important distinction.

Mixels

09-01-2009, 12:38 PM

No. God can choose to be evil about as well as you can choose to be a fish. God is good. God does not choose to be good. It's an important distinction.

It's not relevant. Just translate the argument. If he can't choose, why could Adam and Eve? The fact that they could carries the same implication: God committed an evil act in creating humans.

nobama

09-01-2009, 12:52 PM

Epiphyte

09-01-2009, 12:56 PM

If evolution is a "theory" and creation is a "myth", then please explain what the first cell in the evolutionary chain evolved from, or what was it's origin?

As has been said numerous times, how life began is NOT addressed by the theory of evolution any more than how gravity began is addressed by the theory of gravity.

redmaxx

09-01-2009, 01:12 PM

This is simply not something an entirely good, all-powerful creator would do.

Says who? You? Why do you get to set the standard?

However, God did not create humans in the same way: Adam and Eve were not entirely good.

Again, where do get this idea from? If you read the Bible, you'd see that they were entirely good. The ability to make a wrong decision is not bad in and of itself.

He then punished them for a crime he himself facilitated through their creation and the circumstances thereof (all of which he not only allowed but forced by reason of his knowing what would happen if they were present). The punishment, too... lord, that's a doozy.

Like I said, you hang the responsibility for their actions on God because he created them. So you started out disagreeing with me and you ended up agreeing with my analysis of what you were saying.

I guess it works if you suspend personal responsibility. :rolleye:

It's not relevant. Just translate the argument. If he can't choose, why could Adam and Eve? The fact that they could carries the same implication: God committed an evil act in creating humans.

Why do you keep conflating these two very different things?

redmaxx

09-01-2009, 01:16 PM

As has been said numerous times, how life began is NOT addressed by the theory of evolution any more than how gravity began is addressed by the theory of gravity.

They're not quite as distinct as you think. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age-of-Man-wiki.jpg)

bobcat255

09-01-2009, 01:16 PM

If evolution is a "theory" and creation is a "myth", then please explain what the first cell in the evolutionary chain evolved from, or what was it's origin?

Evolution is a scientific theory. I'd like to be very clear about this.

Please read the following for clarification: Scientific Laws, Hypotheses, and Theories (http://www.wilstar.com/theories.htm)

Mixels

09-01-2009, 01:27 PM

Says who? You? Why do you get to set the standard?
I don't set the standard. Such behavior conflicts with the nature of goodness. A good being that knows it is good will by virtue of its goodness hold a vested interest in spreading that goodness. This is because it is good. Being good, it is benign, and being benign, it wants other things to be good.

Again, where do get this idea from? If you read the Bible, you'd see that they were entirely good. The ability to make a wrong decision is not bad in and of itself.
No, but the will to do so is. Note how in theory, as I pointed out, God should have the "ability" to do exactly that but never does or would consider it.

Like I said, you hang the responsibility for their actions on God because he created them. So you started out disagreeing with me and you ended up agreeing with my analysis of what you were saying.

I guess it works if you suspend personal responsibility. :rolleye:
No, I'm simply pointing out an inconsistency between the creation dogma and the supposed nature of the Judeo-Christian God. I'm not trying to accuse God of anything because I don't believe he exists. As for personal responsibility, well, I'm not trying to say that Adam and Eve didn't screw up. I'm saying that God knew they would screw up, new what would happen when they did, knew that it would lead to thousands of years of suffering, and lo and behold, created them anyway. Whether or not Adam and Eve are responsible for their own actions is, in an admittedly awkward way, irrelevant.

Why do you keep conflating these two very different things?
I'm not sure what you mean.

Epiphyte

09-01-2009, 01:27 PM

They're not quite as distinct as you think. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Age-of-Man-wiki.jpg)

:confused: Could you explain how that addresses the very origin of life? It addresses how life has changed, but not how it started.

redmaxx

09-01-2009, 01:39 PM

I don't set the standard. Such behavior conflicts with the nature of goodness. A good being that knows it is good will by virtue of its goodness hold a vested interest in spreading that goodness. This is because it is good. Being good, it is benign, and being benign, it wants other things to be good.

But in order to extend that concept as far as you have, you must utterly remove personal responsibility.

God gave man the capacity to be good, not just evil. It was man alone that chose not to be good. Man was created good.

I'm saying that God knew they would screw up, new what would happen when they did, knew that it would lead to thousands of years of suffering, and lo and behold, created them anyway. Whether or not Adam and Eve are responsible for their own actions is, in an admittedly awkward way, irrelevant.

Ah, foreknowledge = responsibility. So as a parent, if you know your children will mess up (and you know they will, if you're being honest) you're responsible for all of their mistakes? :nono:

I'm not sure what you mean.

You're trying to meld God's nature with man's actions. The two are separate and distinct things.

:confused: Could you explain how that addresses the very origin of life? It addresses how life has changed, but not how it started.

The theory of gravity says nothing of how gravity began because the theory of gravity has nothing to do with time. Evolution has everything to do with time however. We can draw an evolutionary picture because we can look back and see what we have evolved from over time. Follow that back far enough and you reach a point where evolution ceases to explain how we got here. So in that respect, evolution is not totally separate from how life started.

What I'm saying here is that evolution necessitates an explanation for how life began, whereas the theory of gravity doesn't.

bobcat255

09-01-2009, 01:53 PM

redmaxx

09-01-2009, 02:00 PM

A very unscientific claim, but Ok... I'm game. I got three words for you: Theory of Relativity.

The Big Bang theory deals with time and yet it doesn't deal with where matter came from, only that it was there and the aftermath. Evolution is much the same.

Either way, you can't make up your own rules of the game and go beyond what these theories state.

Gah, you missed the point. Because we're curious about our origins and evolution doesn't answer them, we're that much more curious. We've got a partial answer, but it's not complete. Gravity just isn't the same. It's an apples and oranges comparison. There's nothing "unscientific" about my claim, it wasn't masquerading as a scientific claim in the first place. I was essentially explaining that it's natural for people to ask that question and why you don't see it for gravity.

bobcat255

09-01-2009, 02:11 PM

redmaxx

09-01-2009, 02:16 PM

Gotcha... you're absolutely right, questions are only natural, however science can't answer every possible question (and people on this forum can answer even fewer). Evolution doesn't answer how life came about. I don't know what else I can say on the matter.

You're right, I could have explained it better at the outset.

IMMensaMind

09-01-2009, 02:24 PM

Here's a question, asked from a Creationist perspective:

Did the Laws of Nature evolve, were they created, or did they just appear - fully functional, and out of no where? :ermm: :reading: :scratch:

No one wants to take a shot at this question?

If everything else seemed to evolve, why didn't the Laws of Nature do so?

Epiphyte

09-01-2009, 03:28 PM

The theory of gravity says nothing of how gravity began because the theory of gravity has nothing to do with time. Evolution has everything to do with time however. We can draw an evolutionary picture because we can look back and see what we have evolved from over time. Follow that back far enough and you reach a point where evolution ceases to explain how we got here. So in that respect, evolution is not totally separate from how life started.

What I'm saying here is that evolution necessitates an explanation for how life began, whereas the theory of gravity doesn't.

Evolution deals with how life changes, not how it starts. Plate tectonics deals with how plates shift over time and the results of that action. How plates form in the first place is a great question and there are a lot of ideas about that question , but it isn't answered by the theory and the ideas about it are far from being elevated to the status of "scientific theory."

As for gravity, instead of my asking "how did gravity start" what about "why is there gravity at all?" That also isn't part of the theory of gravity. Every scientific theory has boundaries outside of which it does not provide a satisfactory explanation with the evidence at hand. You could step just outside that boundary with ANY scientific theory and make the same claims about that theory as you are with evolution.

Epiphyte

09-01-2009, 03:47 PM

No one wants to take a shot at this question?

If everything else seemed to evolve, why didn't the Laws of Nature do so?

They might have. But, we haven't seen strong evidence for that. Is it possible to see evidence for that? Sure, just look at something really old in a telescope. Does it look drastically different from what we know of in more recent times? If so, that could be an indication that the "Laws of Nature" have changed. We've got images of galaxies that are billions of light years away. So, we're looking at several billion year old views of them. As of yet, no clear evidence that the laws were different then.

darkfrog

09-01-2009, 04:27 PM

No one wants to take a shot at this question?

If everything else seemed to evolve, why didn't the Laws of Nature do so?
We now know that electricity and magnetism are part of the same force called the electromagnetic force. We also have discovered that the weak nuclear force is also part of the same force called the electroweak force. These forces separated in what appears to be different forces when the small, dense, hot universe began to cool and went through a phase change breaking symmetry much like how very symmetric water vapor cools and phase changes to liquid water, which is less symmetric than the gas form. We believe at one point all forces, including the strong force and gravity were all the same but broken symmetry created them. This is the basis for the laws of the universe that we see today.

darkfrog

09-01-2009, 05:20 PM

Gah, you missed the point. Because we're curious about our origins and evolution doesn't answer them, we're that much more curious. We've got a partial answer, but it's not complete. Gravity just isn't the same. It's an apples and oranges comparison. There's nothing "unscientific" about my claim, it wasn't masquerading as a scientific claim in the first place. I was essentially explaining that it's natural for people to ask that question and why you don't see it for gravity.
But you are making a claim that is not true. We ARE interested in where gravity comes from. We are also interested in where all the matter in the cosmos comes from. We got a partial answer with the Big Bang, but it's not complete. We also want to know why things have mass and why time even exists and has an apparent direction when all of our equations tell us time should be symmetrical and not have a direction, much like spacial dimensions (see: the arrow of time (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time)), These are questions that has their origins in the very early universe. Not knowing these things does not invalidate the things that came afterward just as not knowing how the first life came into being doesn't invalidate how the diversity of life came about afterward.

IMMensaMind

09-01-2009, 06:27 PM

We now know that electricity and magnetism are part of the same force called the electromagnetic force. We also have discovered that the weak nuclear force is also part of the same force called the electroweak force. These forces separated in what appears to be different forces when the small, dense, hot universe began to cool and went through a phase change breaking symmetry much like how very symmetric water vapor cools and phase changes to liquid water, which is less symmetric than the gas form. We believe at one point all forces, including the strong force and gravity were all the same but broken symmetry created them. This is the basis for the laws of the universe that we see today.

1) By what mechanism did these changes take place?

2) What convincing evidence can you cite that substantiates these beliefs?

3) Is this a testable hypothesis, or repeatable?

darkfrog

09-01-2009, 06:34 PM

1) By what mechanism did these changes take place?
As stated, a phase change as the universe cooled.
2) What convincing evidence can you cite that substantiates these beliefs?
Which part? The electroweak has been demonstrated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction
3) Is this a testable hypothesis, or repeatable?
The electroweak force is testable and repeatable, hence the Nobel Prize in physics. Additional testing of unification will be done at the LHC.

IMMensaMind

09-01-2009, 06:43 PM

As stated, a phase change as the universe cooled.

We don't know if this took place - it's conjecture - and in addition, we aren't able to discern the forces in place which caused it.

Which part? The electroweak has been demonstrated. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroweak_interaction

That's just a discovery of an existing phenomenon. It doesn't address what I'm pointing out.

The electroweak force is testable and repeatable, hence the Nobel Prize in physics. Additional testing of unification will be done at the LHC.

It's not at issue. What I am pointing out - and I think you know what I'm trying to point out - is that the Laws of Nature didn't evolve: they existed only after everything else existed - yet the mechanisms that obey the laws are fantastically complex and balanced, indicating an organization which isn't accidental.

To have something incredibly complex and effective arise out of nothing doesn't support accidental appearance; it supports something else.

Which is all Creationists have been saying.

darkfrog

09-01-2009, 07:01 PM

We don't know if this took place - it's conjecture - and in addition, we aren't able to discern the forces in place which caused it.
I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you claiming that it is conjecture that the universe was small, dense and hot at one point? We have evidence for that, it's called the Cosmic Microwave Background. We know it must have cooled, because of the temperature it is today.

That's just a discovery of an existing phenomenon. It doesn't address what I'm pointing out.

Again, not sure what you mean. Of course it's an existing link, if it weren't we wouldn't be able to verify it. What I think you don't understand is that the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear are vastly different in how they act and appear in today's universe. The only thing that links them is realizing how they were once the same when the cosmos was much hotter, a condition that could only occur during the first moments of plank time at the beginning.
It's not at issue. What I am pointing out - and I think you know what I'm trying to point out - is that the Laws of Nature didn't evolve: they existed only after everything else existed - yet the mechanisms that obey the laws are fantastically complex and balanced, indicating an organization which isn't accidental.

To have something incredibly complex and effective arise out of nothing doesn't support accidental appearance; it supports something else.

Which is all Creationists have been saying.
I didn't claim they evolved. I claimed they separated due to breaking of symmetry. They did not exist as separate forces until the universe cooled enough to allow them to. No one is saying they arose out of nothing. They arose in a universe that already existed, it was just vastly different than the one we live in today.

IMMensaMind

09-01-2009, 07:10 PM

I'm not sure what you are saying. Are you claiming that it is conjecture that the universe was small, dense and hot at one point? We have evidence for that, it's called the Cosmic Microwave Background. We know it must have cooled, because of the temperature it is today.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics - as well as observable expansion of the universe (things are moving away from other things) demonstrates what you say here. It just doesn't demonstrate the rest of what you say - that is conjecture.

Again, not sure what you mean. Of course it's an existing link, if it weren't we wouldn't be able to verify it. What I think you don't understand is that the electromagnetic force and the weak nuclear are vastly different in how they act and appear in today's universe. The only thing that links them is realizing how they were once the same when the cosmos was much hotter, a condition that could only occur during the first moments of plank time at the beginning.

Agreed. I'm talking about a demonstration of Laws of Nature which at one time were different. They haven't evolved: they always were. Since they began, that is. :D

I didn't claim they evolved. I claimed they separated due to breaking of symmetry. They did not exist as separate forces until the universe cooled enough to allow them to.

This is the part which we do not know. We have no way of knowing that. I'll return to my original thought: why must we accept that everything else evolved (implying a natural process which arose from nothing), but the Laws of Nature themselves did not?

No one is saying they arose out of nothing. They arose in a universe that already existed, it was just vastly different than the one we live in today.

I'm not sure what time frame you're talking about here, and if it is different than the initial universe - the one you said had to cool before certain physical forces separated due to a symmetry split (this is the conjecture part).

I'm talking about Physical Laws, which we cannot demonstrate have ever changed. Where did they come from? They clearly are not evolving - they are Laws. Why is that, if everything else seems to change?

darkfrog

09-01-2009, 07:26 PM

The 2nd law of thermodynamics - as well as observable expansion of the universe (things are moving away from other things) demonstrates what you say here. It just doesn't demonstrate the rest of what you say - that is conjecture.

Agreed. I'm talking about a demonstration of Laws of Nature which at one time were different. They haven't evolved: they always were. Since they began, that is. :D

This is the part which we do not know. We have no way of knowing that. I'll return to my original thought: why must we accept that everything else evolved (implying a natural process which arose from nothing), but the Laws of Nature themselves did not?

I'm not sure what time frame you're talking about here, and if it is different than the initial universe - the one you said had to cool before certain physical forces separated due to a symmetry split (this is the conjecture part).

I'm talking about Physical Laws, which we cannot demonstrate have ever changed. Where did they come from? They clearly are not evolving - they are Laws. Why is that, if everything else seems to change?I'm really not understanding what your issue is about the physical laws. I think we understand much more than you are giving credit for. I'm not going to sit here and give you a history of the last few decades of particle and theoretical physics, if you're interested, read a book. It is much too involved and to completely understand it requires a level of mathematics which I don't think you have. The only way to explain it to people lacking the math ability is by analogy and thought experiments, but that doesn't mean that we haven't shown the evidence for the theory in the lab, we have. As we move to bigger colliders, we will hopefully be able to demonstrate things that happened even earlier, when the universe was even hotter and denser.

To say the forces existed and didn't evolve is fine, just as all of the matter we see now has always existed, actually there was more since much of it was annihilated by anti-matter.

Again, I'm not sure what you are implying by saying they have always been here but 'everything else seems to change'. You appear to be talking about time and entropy but I'm not sure. Instead of dancing around the issue, why not just say what you mean?