Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Bobboau on October 01, 2005, 03:40:56 am
-
yays! (http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1245972.cms)
nice to see some action outside of kansas
-
One day there's going to be a trial in session over just this subject. As the lawyers are haggling over whether or not evolution is true or not, Suddenly, the roof will crack open, and a ray of light will burst forth into the courtroom from above. And a heavenly voice will say:
"Evolution is true! Haven't you ever heard of such a thing as friggin' symbolism? Geez!! Lighten up!
...Oh, and I was just kidding about the gay thing."
And then the roof will repair itself, and the judge will bang his gavel and proclaim, "Overruled."
-
I think the problem with ID is that every time someone mentions it, it ends up a furious argument.
We should treat it as the joke it is. Proponents of ID claim that there is contraversy about evolution but miss the fact that the only contraversy that is exists is that which they cause themselves. There is no contraversy. There's no peer reviewed papers on ID. There are no people within the scientific community who believe its credible.
Thing is that every time the debate starts everyone spends so much time attacking and defending evolution that we don't spend any time on simply pulling down ID and revealing it for the sham that it actually is.
ID amounts to nothing more than a simple statement. "I'm too ignorant/lazy to try to understand the scientific theory so I'm going to say God did it"
That's all it is. So when the proponents of ID turn up on this thread as they eventually will lets tear their house of cards down instead of wasting time proving evolution right. When you're talking to a flat Earther you don't waste time proving that the Earth is a sphere. You prove why it isn't flat. Lets just show that ID is nothing more than saying "I don't know so God did it".
I challenge any of the proponents of ID to state what it actually is.
-
Proponents of ID can never state what it is, only what it is not. Because the only way they can make a noise is presenting evolution as aetheistic, and pulling in the whole bunch of nutty bible literalists. If they actually formulated a theory of ID, it'd mean contradicting at least one of that group (perhaps the flat-earthists, or the ones who believe dinosaurs were buried in the ground as a test by god, or the ones who think the earth is only about 2000 years old), and splitting it. Ultimately, it's a battering ram being used to try and pave the way towards destroying secular, scientific and rational education - in no less a way than the most hardcore religious schools we see in places like Iran or Saudi.
If ID is teachable in the science class, then why not the Viking creation myth classed as science? Or the greek creation myth, etc? Should go back to 'lighting is caused by zeus' type explanations?
Of course, we already know this, and I'm resaying it because it still pisses me off, like it should for all sensible, rational people.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
ID amounts to nothing more than a simple statement. "I'm too ignorant/lazy to try to understand the scientific theory so I'm going to say God did it"
man defines what it doesn't understand.
i find it funny how a few years ago, someone boldly brought up evolution in the classroom, and that led to a series of court cases, making their way up to the supreme court. nowadays, someone brings up creationism *gasp*, and there are court cases surrounding that. heh.
-
I challenge any of the proponents of ID to state what it actually is.
perhaps it's the idea that instead of evolving from a single-celled organism billions of years ago, that someone, or something created life originally. a higher being. like when you look at a computer, you don't thinK "gee, i wonder how long it took for this computer to evolve into what it is". that's insane... you'd readily acknowledge that something or someone, or at least some entity, designed and created that computer. or that microchip. or that intricately designed watch or robot.
maybe it's the same with humans?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Proponents of ID can never state what it is, only what it is not. Because the only way they can make a noise is presenting evolution as aetheistic, and pulling in the whole bunch of nutty bible literalists. If they actually formulated a theory of ID, it'd mean contradicting at least one of that group (perhaps the flat-earthists, or the ones who believe dinosaurs were buried in the ground as a test by god, or the ones who think the earth is only about 2000 years old), and splitting it. Ultimately, it's a battering ram being used to try and pave the way towards destroying secular, scientific and rational education - in no less a way than the most hardcore religious schools we see in places like Iran or Saudi.
If ID is teachable in the science class, then why not the Viking creation myth classed as science? Or the greek creation myth, etc? Should go back to 'lighting is caused by zeus' type explanations?
Of course, we already know this, and I'm resaying it because it still pisses me off, like it should for all sensible, rational people.
That's why I'm saying we're wasting our time trying to defend evolution. Force them onto the back heel instead. ID is a bunch of wishy-washy psuedo-scientific crap.
Instead of looking defensive about evolution we should be revealing to people exactly what a load of utter rubbish it is and then once people realise that supporting ID is like supporting flat earth it will fade away for the next 4-5 years until the creationists can get some momentum behind the next idiotic euphamism for "God did it all"
Originally posted by Stealth
perhaps it's the idea that instead of evolving from a single-celled organism billions of years ago, that someone, or something created life originally. a higher being. like when you look at a computer, you don't thinK "gee, i wonder how long it took for this computer to evolve into what it is". that's insane... you'd readily acknowledge that something or someone, or at least some entity, designed and created that computer. or that microchip. or that intricately designed watch or robot.
maybe it's the same with humans?
Don't give me a perhaps. It's supposed to be a f**king scientific theory according to you guys. Do you ever hear a scientist say that evolution perhaps depends on natural selection? You can't use a perhaps in something that is the fundemental cornerstone of your entire argument.
You've not actually posted any explaination on what ID is. Is there any evolution at all? Does it simply replace abiogenisis? Did the IDer create all animals at the same time? If not how long have they been around?
What you described is not scientific it's simply "I don't believe evolution could have happened so God did it" You've got no explaination of how, or when he did it.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
perhaps it's the idea that instead of evolving from a single-celled organism billions of years ago, that someone, or something created life originally. a higher being. like when you look at a computer, you don't thinK "gee, i wonder how long it took for this computer to evolve into what it is". that's insane... you'd readily acknowledge that something or someone, or at least some entity, designed and created that computer. or that microchip. or that intricately designed watch or robot.
maybe it's the same with humans?
Alright, I will admit you have something, but not as you stated it, and not pertaining to life on Earth.
OK, so there has to be an original creator. As best we know, the universe came out of the Big Bang. And before that was the Big Crunch and a previous universe. And before that, another universe. Back and back. Even if you believe that time is cylical and non-linear, that's still a paradox. Something must have once been created from nothing. And what about the nothingness itself? How long has that existed?
It's a philosophical problem, and really doesn't have anything to do with teaching kids that the Earth is 6000 years old and that the end times are near.
-
Originally posted by Rictor
As best we know, the universe came out of the Big Bang. And before that was the Big Crunch and a previous universe.
AFAIK That's not as best we know. In fact most current observable data points away from a big crunch due to the fact that the galaxies are accelerating away from each other.
-
Well, at least science can't excommunicate Jesus ;)
Well, I've got an idea, why not invent a NEW theory, called 'Unintelligent Creation', other than the name, it's identical to evolution. There, now science has a new theory to replace it's out of date evolution one, call your lawyer, we're going to court!
Think that's cheating? Why? That's exactly what's been done with Intelligent Design.
-
Hmm....ID?
Wouldn't it be simpler, and easier to say that an IDer would have simply put the ball rolling? i.e. set off the first particle that created the big-bang (or multiple big-bangs with us only perceiving ours?) and then left everyone alone to it's own devices and mechanics?
After all, even if we do begin at the big bang and go by evolution, something has to have set off the big KABOOM - by intent or by co-incidence.
But even such a wild idea is more logical than what ID seems to suggest.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
perhaps it's the idea that instead of evolving from a single-celled organism billions of years ago, that someone, or something created life originally. a higher being. like when you look at a computer, you don't thinK "gee, i wonder how long it took for this computer to evolve into what it is". that's insane... you'd readily acknowledge that something or someone, or at least some entity, designed and created that computer. or that microchip. or that intricately designed watch or robot.
maybe it's the same with humans?
Ah, the old dodgy 'if a tornado hit a junkyard, would it assemble a working 747' type arguement. We have our directing creative process, though; it's called 'natural selection'. In fact, it's very similar to the ways in which computers (For example) were developed over time - the only difference is that instead of random mutation favoured by environment (to simplify), we have ideas which are favoured by success in practice. If fact, thinking about it, the computer can be a good analogy to evolution when you consider that ideas implemented in it are dropped when they don't work right, same as harmful mutations.
The only real difference, in fact, is the starting points; one is a complex calculating machine (unless you want to be anal and go back to the beginnings of mathematics, of course), and the other can be traced back to a very simple collection of amino acids; evolutionary theory, of course, is in the process of discovering how these acids evolved into proteins, etc (I'll admit my knowledge of the exact names of the compounds here is lacking). It doesn't even, when you think about it, rule out a creator force - it just concludes, based on the evidence in front of us, that it's by far the least likely methodology.
After all, evolution didn't just pop up: Id existed first, and has been found to lack the same weight of supporting evidence over decades and decades of study. (you can say perhaps that ID doesn't require evidence by it's supernatural nature, but of course that also means it cannot possibly be considered as science)
Again, that's not a scientific challenge to evolutionary theory, let alone a theory. It's an attempt to discredit it (evolution) without understanding the principles of natural selection, and without even being willing to try.
An 'idea' does not comprise a valid scientific arguement, let alone theory. The Flying Spaghetti Monster has the same scientific accuracy as this idea; in fact, it's virtually the same except that the creator is clarified as the mystical spaghetti monster, which means it's probably an even better theory as it has some form of content to it.
Originally posted by Singh
Hmm....ID?
Wouldn't it be simpler, and easier to say that an IDer would have simply put the ball rolling? i.e. set off the first particle that created the big-bang (or multiple big-bangs with us only perceiving ours?) and then left everyone alone to it's own devices and mechanics?
After all, even if we do begin at the big bang and go by evolution, something has to have set off the big KABOOM - by intent or by co-incidence.
But even such a wild idea is more logical than what ID seems to suggest.
Of course. But in doing so, the ID 'community' would have to admit that the young-earthers (for example) were wrong, splitting it. This is what happens when you have an agglomeration of belief structures masquerading (badly) as scientific theory simply to discredit another. It doesn't suit Id to actually state a concrete or testable theory for that reason (not to mention that such a theory would either be swiftly disproven, or worded so as to be unproveable)
-
Originally posted by Singh
Hmm....ID?
Wouldn't it be simpler, and easier to say that an IDer would have simply put the ball rolling? i.e. set off the first particle that created the big-bang (or multiple big-bangs with us only perceiving ours?) and then left everyone alone to it's own devices and mechanics?
After all, even if we do begin at the big bang and go by evolution, something has to have set off the big KABOOM - by intent or by co-incidence.
But even such a wild idea is more logical than what ID seems to suggest.
Cause that would contradict the bible Singh and that's what's at the heart of this whole ID rubbish anyway.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
perhaps it's the idea that instead of evolving from a single-celled organism billions of years ago, that someone, or something created life originally. a higher being. like when you look at a computer, you don't thinK "gee, i wonder how long it took for this computer to evolve into what it is". that's insane... you'd readily acknowledge that something or someone, or at least some entity, designed and created that computer. or that microchip. or that intricately designed watch or robot.
maybe it's the same with humans?
You could also computers have evolved as each generation improved upon the previous.
-
Aldo you're falling into the trap of arguing for evolution. I could point out errors in the logic too but for once I don't want to debate evolution. We spend too much time defending evolution. We don't need to. Evolution is scientifically accepted. Those who don't accept it have renounced science anyway so giving them scientific arguments makes no sense.
I want someone to actually post the hypothesis of ID cause I put it to the proponents of ID that there is no actual Theory of Intelligent Design.
ID is simply a list of complicated things like the eye, cell etc and the assertion that because (in the mind of the proponent) these structures were too complex to have evolved that God must have done it.
We never hear when he did it or in what order or anything.
We never hear when the dinosaurs were created by the IDer, When man was created, when neanderthals were created and why they died off. We never hear any of this at all.
For a theory that claims to explain the origin of the species it's doing a pretty f**king bad job as it doesn't actually do anything of the sort.
All ID does is say that evolution is wrong. It's not a competing theory. It's a retarded kid blowing rasberries during professors speech and then saying that he's disproved his argument.
And I dare anyone on this board to prove me wrong. Cause if you can't state the theory to me then how the hell are you supposed to teach it to children.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
AFAIK That's not as best we know. In fact most current observable data points away from a big crunch due to the fact that the galaxies are accelerating away from each other.
OK, I admit I'm not up on the latest theories. But that doesn't invalidate the arguement.
BTW, what is the current theory? I ask out of curiosity.
-
Yeah, whats the big crunch?:confused: I've never herd of it before.
-
Just like the Big Band but in reverse. All the material in the universe start to collapse to the same point untill all the material is gathered there. Then perhaps the final end of the universe or alternatively just a new Big Bang...
-
Originally posted by Wanderer
Just like the Big Band but in reverse. All the material in the universe start to collapse to the same point untill all the material is gathered there. Then perhaps the final end of the universe or alternatively just a new Big Bang...
Wierd.. Thanks for the info tho.;)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
like when you look at a computer, you don't thinK "gee, i wonder how long it took for this computer to evolve into what it is". that's insane... you'd readily acknowledge that something or someone, or at least some entity, designed and created that computer. or that microchip. or that intricately designed watch or robot.
maybe it's the same with humans?
Good idea, but I'll take it one step deepper. Not only does the computer have to be built, but then before it can be used, it's gotta be programed.;)
-
Why are you guys even arguing; everyone seems to agree on the issue. And anyone who decides to try and argue gets flamed. Got to love it. Plus you people seem the think ID and evolution are mutually exclusive. ID is simply the idea of a 3rd party entity outside our universe having a hand in the way our universe developed, whether starting an evolutionary process or directly creating the earth thousands of years ago. You can't flame someone for supporting an idea like that; you have no way of disproving it.
Here's my argument: Why the f**k does the origin of the universe even matter? It makes no difference in any applicable ways. We should just stop teachin the subject matter completely because there's no way to be 100% that either idea is true. We should start preparing for a shivan invasion!
-
If GOd did create the universe, the physical laws and the biliological ones, then in a way we are talking about Inteligent Desing..
Thing is - it can't be proven or disproven so why even detabe it?
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Why are you guys even arguing; everyone seems to agree on the issue. And anyone who decides to try and argue gets flamed.
Who's flaming? I'm challenging proponents of ID to give me an honest answer as to what it actually is. So far no one has been brave enough to say anything more than the equivalent of "Evolution is wrong so ID must be right". Not one person so far is willing to actually say what ID actually is!
As I said before if you can't say what it is how can anyone claim we should teach it to our kids.
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Plus you people seem the think ID and evolution are mutually exclusive.
There are a whole bunch of ID supporters who say that ID and evolution are mutually exclusive. So which is it?
The reason why you can't tell me is that as I say there is no such thing as a Theory of Intelligent Design.
Originally posted by DragonClaw
ID is simply the idea of a 3rd party entity outside our universe having a hand in the way our universe developed, whether starting an evolutionary process or directly creating the earth thousands of years ago. You can't flame someone for supporting an idea like that; you have no way of disproving it.
If you can't actually pick which one of the two it is in the first place why the f**k do you think we should pay any attention to the theory. If you're trying to gain support which amounts to nothing more than saying "God did something somewhere but I don't know where" then you've got a pretty crappy theory.
In fact with a hole like that you have little more than an assertion.
Originally posted by DragonClaw
Here's my argument: Why the f**k does the origin of the universe even matter? It makes no difference in any applicable ways. We should just stop teachin the subject matter completely because there's no way to be 100% that either idea is true. We should start preparing for a shivan invasion!
The desire to know where he comes from is one of mankinds oldest questions. Since the dawn of time people have asked where am I from. Just cause you don't care about the answer doesn't mean that most people don't.
Also since we can never be 100% certain God exists shall we pull down all the churches and stop teaching kids about religion? Or is it just scientific explainations for the origin of the universe that you think should be censored?
-
Originally posted by DragonClaw
You can't flame someone for supporting an idea like that; you have no way of disproving it.
:lol: oh the irony.
ok, the fact that it is set up specificly so that it is imposable to prove wrong, that you can't test it, is the reason why we laugh at you, and the reason why we get pissed when you call it a theory.
if it was a theory, it would make predictions and it would be testable and experiments would have been conducted testing the predictions.
if it was a hypothisis, it would make predictions that could be testable
currently it's in the speculation stage, it's some nebulus undefined, indeffinite bullshit.
keep in mind the argument is not about weather you are right or wrong at this point, you haven't earned that, this isn't science, and as a result it isn't worthy of even being mentioned in a scientific context.
You don't teach German in a French class.
-
A theory needs to stand on its own two legs and explain all the relevent evidence.
Lets forget the not teaching science in a science class stuff because although completely true it's still not the biggest flaw in ID.
The biggest flaw in ID is that although it's supposed to be something we can teach children in school not one person has actually been able to explain what we're supposed to be teaching the kids.
-
It seems to me that ID would bring a screeching halt to all scientific development everywhere. Anything unknown, anything that doesn't fit our current model, anything interesting can be simply given the explanation 'God did it' and left at that.
This is what has been going on for thousands of years, up to the Age of Enlightenment. Remember Galileo? The great scientists of the Renaissance and beyond were always searching for the root causes behind everything, and it's because of that that we have quantum mechanics, string theory, and genome mapping. If Einstein and Feynman, Crick and Watson, Greene and Hawking had simply given up and said 'This is so complicated, only God could have done it' we would be living in a much poorer world.
ID is born out of ignorance, and aims to bring the rest of the world down to the same level as those who don't understand understand or can't accept science. Douglas Adams said, "God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining." The burden of proof rests on the ID fanatics to tell us why we should abandon hundreds of years of scientific advancement to a medieval mythology.
-
hmk.
As best we know, the universe came out of the Big Bang.
And no one here has stopped to think "Hey wait a minute, maybe the 'big bang' of the universe suddenly coming into existence was when God created it"?
Ah, the old dodgy 'if a tornado hit a junkyard, would it assemble a working 747' type arguement. We have our directing creative process, though; it's called 'natural selection'. In fact, it's very similar to the ways in which computers ... were developed over time - the only difference is that instead of random mutation favoured by environment (to simplify), we have ideas which are favoured by success in practice. If fact, thinking about it, the computer can be a good analogy to evolution when you consider that ideas implemented in it are dropped when they don't work right, same as harmful mutations.
it's dodgy because there's no true answer that voids it. it's always there. give me a reasonable explanation, and the "dodgy" argument will disappear.
also, we're not talking about how computers 'developed' over time. if i buy a PI with 64 MB of RAM, five years ago, will it now be a P4 3.2 GHZ with 4 GB DDR? No it won't. that's the point. it didn't evolve on its own, and (more importantly. the whole point of me bringing it out): it was created.
I've enlarged the part of YOUR argument which, in essence, actually contradicts itself. NOTE that you didn't say "in the same way computers have evolved over time"... they were developed. you said it yourself in your own argument. just as something developed life, so something (or someone in this case) develops computers. end of story.
I'm challenging proponents of ID to give me an honest answer as to what it actually is
... ok..... a theory or view that some parts of nature/life show to have been designed (at least in part) by some higher entity, pre-existing intelligence, etc. as opposed to other theories.
-
Stealth: Computers aren't alive. A lump of silicon isn't going to 'evolve' into a microchip on its own, because it's inanimate. We're talking about living creatures responding to outside stimuli and mutating over millions of years.
As for where life came from, and how the universe began, these are questions we have to pursue with scientific methods. We might not see results in our lifetime but we have to keep on trying in order to understand. There's no sense in just giving up and leaving it all on God's doorstep.
-
Originally posted by Galemp
As for where life came from, and how the universe began, these are questions we have to pursue with scientific methods. We might not see results in our lifetime but we have to keep on trying in order to understand. There's no sense in just giving up and leaving it all on God's doorstep.
Yep, since the Big Bang would break the laws of Physics.:p
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
:lol: oh the irony.
ok, the fact that it is set up specificly so that it is imposable to prove wrong, that you can't test it, is the reason why we laugh at you, and the reason why we get pissed when you call it a theory.
if it was a theory, it would make predictions and it would be testable and experiments would have been conducted testing the predictions.
if it was a hypothisis, it would make predictions that could be testable
currently it's in the speculation stage, it's some nebulus undefined, indeffinite bullshit.
keep in mind the argument is not about weather you are right or wrong at this point, you haven't earned that, this isn't science, and as a result it isn't worthy of even being mentioned in a scientific context.
You don't teach German in a French class.
Not quite...The theory of Relativty is a sound scientific theroy, in fact the most famous one. Yet there is no way to prove everything is relative - we can only prove it in some instances. that does not desqulify it at all...
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Cause that would contradict the bible Singh and that's what's at the heart of this whole ID rubbish anyway.
So, in a sense, it is simply meant as a means of propoganda to support and promote the bible?
America is very odd indeed. I thought it gave up propaganda after the soviet union, since there was no need for it? Looks like I was wrong.
-
Originally posted by Galemp
It seems to me that ID would bring a screeching halt to all scientific development everywhere. Anything unknown, anything that doesn't fit our current model, anything interesting can be simply given the explanation 'God did it' and left at that.
This is what has been going on for thousands of years, up to the Age of Enlightenment. Remember Galileo? The great scientists of the Renaissance and beyond were always searching for the root causes behind everything, and it's because of that that we have quantum mechanics, string theory, and genome mapping. If Einstein and Feynman, Crick and Watson, Greene and Hawking had simply given up and said 'This is so complicated, only God could have done it' we would be living in a much poorer world.
ID is born out of ignorance, and aims to bring the rest of the world down to the same level as those who don't understand understand or can't accept science. Douglas Adams said, "God used to be the best explanation we’d got, and we’ve now got vastly better ones. God is no longer an explanation of anything, but has instead become something that would itself need an insurmountable amount of explaining." The burden of proof rests on the ID fanatics to tell us why we should abandon hundreds of years of scientific advancement to a medieval mythology.
I don't concur.
ID tells more of the ORIGIN of things, not exactly how things happened. If God started some proces, that doesn't mean that the process itself can't be scientificly explained (at least the later stages) or that it shouldn't be explained.
People on both sides of the fence are way overacting....
-
Originally posted by Galemp
Stealth: Computers aren't alive. A lump of silicon isn't going to 'evolve' into a microchip on its own, because it's inanimate. We're talking about living creatures responding to outside stimuli and mutating over millions of years.
Already possible, actually. Technicians have created robots that can react and change according to there outside environment. I'm not sure of the experiment, but there was one conducted where two types of robot were created - Predator and Prey, and each changed behaviours and patterns in order to either repel the predators, or get to the prey.
In addition to this, although computers are not alive yet one has to take note that the basis for life or setience that is present in our brains is also present in a computer. I'm mostly referring to nuerons and diodes. When it comes down to the very basic structure, nuerons flash electrical signals from one to another. This is the same for computers, with exceptions of one diode to another. Although computers are not complex or powerfull enough to simulate the complex interactions of even a single nueron, the truth of the matter is that they are not powerful enough yet. Once computers become powerfull and complex enough, their is a very, very high possibility that it will initially develop at the very least, an animal-like primitive behaviour. The only difference here is that like us, there has to be some precedent or need for setience for it to evolve. For humanity setience probably came about as a need for survival - it would be unknown as to why setience would come out for computers, but to simply dismiss it off-hand is a very bad mistake.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
also, we're not talking about how computers 'developed' over time. if i buy a PI with 64 MB of RAM, five years ago, will it now be a P4 3.2 GHZ with 4 GB DDR? No it won't. that's the point. it didn't evolve on its own, and (more importantly. the whole point of me bringing it out): it was created.
Again, in essence, you are right, yet partially wrong.
Computers ARE creating computers today, especially in factories and labs. A significant percentage of the production process has now become automated and under the control of other computers. Although it does require human intervention, how long will such a situation last? How long will be it before the entire production line would be automated? In such a case, would not a computer be said that it was reproducing itself (albiet, only via a third party)? Its similar to certain flowers, which are capable of reproducing, but only with the help of bees and other insects that land on it to transfer pollen. It definately is a living thing, but it depends on others for it's reproduction.
-
ok, computers aren't alive, they lack the critical ability to reproduce themselves needed for evolution, a compatison can be made if you think of humans as being part of there roproductive system, but it's more of a metaphore than serius reality.
relitivity has conditions that must be met in order for it to be valid, as long as you stay within the conditions relitivity it's predictions have never failed to be acurate.
now you all say that "what started life" or "who made the big bang" or some other such questions, I ask you;
what makes you think it was God?
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
ok, computers aren't alive, they lack the critical ability to reproduce themselves needed for evolution, a compatison can be made if you think of humans as being part of there roproductive system, but it's more of a metaphore than serius reality.
You are completely right on this.
However, I still think this is the reality for now. In the future, it may not be the same situation or as easy to define.
[leaves thread, realizing he's not contributing much to the topic]
-
now you all say that "what started life" or "who made the big bang" or some other such questions, I ask you;
what makes you think it was God?
Or, more specifically, on what grounds can one argue that this idea should be taught in public schools? Unless there is a reason that scientists should factor the idea of "intelligent design" into their studies of the origin of life, it is a metaphysical question, not a scientific one. I'm sure that most religious people here would argue that a god who could be scientifically studied would cease to be god.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
ID tells more of the ORIGIN of things, not exactly how things happened.
Funny thing is, I think you hit the head on the nail of what you shrubs are actually saying:
"Hallowed are the Orii, let Origin show the way!"
:p
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Aldo you're falling into the trap of arguing for evolution. I could point out errors in the logic too but for once I don't want to debate evolution. We spend too much time defending evolution. We don't need to. Evolution is scientifically accepted. Those who don't accept it have renounced science anyway so giving them scientific arguments makes no sense.
You're exactly right, of course. I'm just a glutton for punishment; in the other sense, of course, any debate over arguing 'for' evolution will inevitably lead to the same conclusion; there is no evidence supporting ID.
Originally posted by Stealth
And no one here has stopped to think "Hey wait a minute, maybe the 'big bang' of the universe suddenly coming into existence was when God created it"?
Of course they have. But the inevitable conclusion would be that settling upon that answer would be ignoring the question. There is no proof or even evidence of (a) God. That applies to Zeus, Thor, or Quetzalcoatl as well as the modern day religions. The basis for God creating the universe is the same as it being knitted by the holy spaghetti monster.
People can assume that if they want, but it's completely implausible as a serious scientific theory. There can be no unknowables in science if we wish to actually understand this universe; only things we have still to learn.
Originally posted by Stealth
it's dodgy because there's no true answer that voids it. it's always there. give me a reasonable explanation, and the "dodgy" argument will disappear.
It's an arguement chosen to have no voidable answer. There's no evidence that disproves the Loch Ness monster either. Nor is there any way to disprove that I am in fact God Almighty. Now worship me.
Originally posted by Stealth
also, we're not talking about how computers 'developed' over time. if i buy a PI with 64 MB of RAM, five years ago, will it now be a P4 3.2 GHZ with 4 GB DDR? No it won't. that's the point. it didn't evolve on its own, and (more importantly. the whole point of me bringing it out): it was created.
I've enlarged the part of YOUR argument which, in essence, actually contradicts itself. NOTE that you didn't say "in the same way computers have evolved over time"... they were developed. you said it yourself in your own argument. just as something developed life, so something (or someone in this case) develops computers. end of story.
You've completely missed the point. The point is the analogy of technological development to biological development; the difference between the two is that one is known to be human driven, and the other is known (the evidence is essentially conclusive) to be driven by mutation. In both cases, we have selection processes; human evaluation for technology, environmental processes (natural selection) for evolution.
What you failed to understand, is that computer technology is not a single machine. A single machine is assembled by a human as in your PC example. An animal is assembled, by the action of reproduction, by it's parents.
Likewise, computer technology is modified by human experimentation. Animal or plant characteristics are modified by mutation and selection.
In both cases we have sufficient evidence to point at the cause of these modifications. Human intervention, and mutation. Note that word; evidence.
I'll remind you what it means;
# facts that indicate whether or not something is true; proof.
Known facts supporting the theory of ID; 0
Known facts that not only support but help further develop the theory of evolution; thousands (if not millions)
Ability of ID to interpret factual contradiction/new facts; none (not scientific theory, faith based)
Ability of evolution to incorporate factual contradiction/new facts; scientific theory; constantly re-assessed to incorporate new information
Originally posted by Stealth
... ok..... a theory or view that some parts of nature/life show to have been designed (at least in part) by some higher entity, pre-existing intelligence, etc. as opposed to other theories.
How did that pre-existing intelligence emerge?
Where and when did it originate?
What defines which parts are modified by that entity?
What evidence is there that such an entity exists?
How does that entity manipulate natural design/life?
Is this entity omnipotent?
If so, how does that explain design defects (such as the human intestine or whale thumbs, etc)?
If not, how can it affect all life?
Does that entity have role affecting mutations?
Are all mutations down to that entity?
Which parts of life have been modified, and which not?
Why do mass (or otherwise) extinctions occur?
How can this theory be tested?
How are modifications created/caused?
what observable evidence is there to validate the proposal of such a theory as science?
(etc)
Belief, not scientific theory. Keep it out the science class; put it in RE if that bit of the bible (or Koran, Guru Granth Sahib, etc) isn't already covered there.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
now you all say that "what started life" or "who made the big bang" or some other such questions, I ask you;
what makes you think it was God?
Hmm, tough question,
It was ether Science that broke it's own laws,
A Warlock who split the boundries of space and time using magic.
A Robot who using a time machine came back with some kind of uber mass creating bomb.
Or a All powerful, Omni present God who created everything with his hands and set everything in order.:nod:
But, I'm not gonna go i depth why I really Know, since you allready probley know that part.:)
-
The Universe was sneezed out of the nose of the Great Green Arkleseizure.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
But, I'm not gonna go i depth why I really Know, since you allready probley know that part.:)
no, do go on, this is what we have been asking, give us the basis of your 'scientific theory'
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Hmm, tough question,
It was ether Science that broke it's own laws,
A Warlock who split the boundries of space and time using magic.
A Robot who using a time machine came back with some kind of uber mass creating bomb.
Or a All powerful, Omni present God who created everything with his hands and set everything in order.:nod:
But, I'm not gonna go i depth why I really Know, since you allready probley know that part.:)
To lay out the possibilities at this point is meaningless. Before the refutation of spontaneous generation theory, a scientist would have argued that there were only two possibilities: the mold simply appears after a certain amount of time, or someone is putting it there when we're not looking. They had no knowledge of microscopic life, so their frame of reference was obscured. The same is true of our understanding of the universe's origins. We don't have the explanation because we don't have enough information yet.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
no, do go on, this is what we have been asking, give us the basis of your 'scientific theory'
Who said anything about a scientific theory.;) I said the reason I know is because I have God inside my heart. But, I kind of figured you would know I would say that.
We know by Physics, matter can not come out of nowhere,it just don't happen, You know it, I know it and if anyone else who knows any about science knows it. So, things cannot just appear.
We also know by Physics, that a object it'self cannot move unless force is aplied,
take this example, you place a toy car on a perfectly flat surface, no wind, temp stays the same, there is nothing to disturb it, now it' not gonna move uless you get down and push it. Now what happens if it starts moving by it's self, some would say it's impossible. But, thats exectly the same thing about the whole Big Bang theory. It started it's self.
So, if it didn't start it's self, what helped it, there was nothing, no spec of dust, just nothing, not even the vacuum of space. Now if it wasn't an All powerful God, what could have started the big, no huge universe we see today. It don't take that much logic to figure that out.:)
But, now lets get off the whole begining thing, and go to where life started. Now lets say you are right about evolution, ok life is started, now where is the nature that keeps this thing alive, since this is the first life form, it has nothing before it to take it's pattern, how would it live, eat, ect.? Once again you would need a All knowing God, one who knows how to make it live, and inplant all genes, it's nature how it reproduces, Ect.
And now you will probley say "it was simple, so it was easy to find that out", then I say this, I was watching this show about this neat little spider who don't use his web to fish for food instead of waiting for it's prey, how did it learn, same way with the trap door spider, how did it learn to live that way.
Now you will say that its Natural Selection, but then I say, look at all the other kinds of cretures on this planet, look at all the different ways they survive. I don't know about you but Natural Selection seams way too smart to be just a random thing, don't you think.
But, it's not Natural Selection, it's not chance, it's far far to orginized to be random, with no flaws, it's like someone has created all the different natures of these millions of kinds of animals, sometimes you just sit back in amazement when you hear how one animal survives. You sit back in awe and say, how could that happen, and I would have never thought of that.
Well, when you think of how an animal surives or how something works, you are thinking that thought after God has thought of it.
While someone will come and totally try to disprove what I've said, and probley how poor it was writen. But, I didn't have to post this, if you are as smart as I know you guys are, you allready knew this.:)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
... ok..... a theory or view that some parts of nature/life show to have been designed (at least in part) by some higher entity, pre-existing intelligence, etc. as opposed to other theories.
And yet again you've failed despite me telling you what I expected in a response.
Lets pretend I know nothing about evolution or the bible (like a child in school see). You teach ID on it's own (no evolution, no other competing theories) what would I know at the end of the course?
As far as I can tell at the end of an ID course all I'd know is that the eye is too complex to have evolved so therefore God must exist.
If you asked me how long humans have been on Earth I wouldn't know. If you asked me how long whales have existed I wouldn't know.
As far as I can see for a theory that claims to explain the origin of complex life on Earth ID is spectacularly bad at it. It's not answered a single question that the child might have had.
BTW guys don't let the creationists bait you into a big bang or abiogenesis discussion. Proponents of ID state that it is a replacement for evolution. As such discussions of the big bang or abiogenesis are 100% irrelavent to this discussion. All that matters is that given a living cell whether ID or Darwinian evolution can explain the origin of mankind.
Talking about the big bang etc is just an attempt to throw the discussion off track because not one single person has yet managed to answer the challenge I posted right near the start of the thread.
@WeatherOp. Stop telling us why evolution is wrong and start trying to tell us why ID is right. If you want to discuss some other kind of creationism take it elsewhere. This thread is about ID.
-
Kara's got my vote. I think arguing over whether ID holds any merit or not takes a back seat to debating the impact it would have if it was actually being taught in schools.
-
Shame I got beaten to the relevant points about computers being irrelevant to evolution. So instead I'll make a joke.
If ID'ers had to choose a specific species for the jesus fish, it'd be the red herring.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Now you will say that its Natural Selection, but then I say, look at all the other kinds of cretures on this planet, look at all the different ways they survive. I don't know about you but Natural Selection seams way too smart to be just a random thing, don't you think.
Yeah, and I think gravity is too smart to have come by on its own. Heck, it's so smart it conveniently pulls us down to the Earth, rather than repelling us! This is evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster designed our universe.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
[B
@WeatherOp. Stop telling us why evolution is wrong and start trying to tell us why ID is right. If you want to discuss some other kind of creationism take it elsewhere. This thread is about ID. [/B]
Umm, did I say anything in my post about Evolution being wrong? I don't think so.:) How can I tell you how ID is right when no one has even said what it is?;) And BTW Bobboau asked what my Theory was.
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Yeah, and I think gravity is too smart to have come by on its own. Heck, it's so smart it conveniently pulls us down to the Earth, rather than repelling us! This is evidence that the Flying Spaghetti Monster designed our universe.
Umm, and Physics are related to Natural Selection, How.;)
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Umm, and Physics are related to Natural Selection, How.;)
It doesn't matter how they're related, the argument that God must have created species because natural selection is "too smart" is just as tenuous as saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster uses his noodly appendages to pull you down to the Earth because gravity is "too smart".
What is "too smart"? Why can't a physical process have a "smart" behavior? Your argument lacks clarity and evidence. It relies on muddy and imprecise thinking and communication.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
It doesn't matter how they're related, the argument that God must have created species because natural selection is "too smart" is just as tenuous as saying the Flying Spaghetti Monster uses his noodly appendages to pull you down to the Earth because gravity is "too smart".
What is "too smart"? Why can't a physical process have a "smart" behavior? Your argument lacks clarity and evidence. It relies on muddy and imprecise thinking and communication.
I would respond to that, But it would clearly be off topic with ID. So, that awnser will have to wait.:)
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Who said anything about a scientific theory.;) I said the reason I know is because I have God inside my heart. But, I kind of figured you would know I would say that.
We know by Physics, matter can not come out of nowhere,it just don't happen, You know it, I know it and if anyone else who knows any about science knows it. So, things cannot just appear.
We also know by Physics, that a object it'self cannot move unless force is aplied,
take this example, you place a toy car on a perfectly flat surface, no wind, temp stays the same, there is nothing to disturb it, now it' not gonna move uless you get down and push it. Now what happens if it starts moving by it's self, some would say it's impossible. But, thats exectly the same thing about the whole Big Bang theory. It started it's self.
So, if it didn't start it's self, what helped it, there was nothing, no spec of dust, just nothing, not even the vacuum of space. Now if it wasn't an All powerful God, what could have started the big, no huge universe we see today. It don't take that much logic to figure that out.:)
But, now lets get off the whole begining thing, and go to where life started. Now lets say you are right about evolution, ok life is started, now where is the nature that keeps this thing alive, since this is the first life form, it has nothing before it to take it's pattern, how would it live, eat, ect.? Once again you would need a All knowing God, one who knows how to make it live, and inplant all genes, it's nature how it reproduces, Ect.
And now you will probley say "it was simple, so it was easy to find that out", then I say this, I was watching this show about this neat little spider who don't use his web to fish for food instead of waiting for it's prey, how did it learn, same way with the trap door spider, how did it learn to live that way.
Now you will say that its Natural Selection, but then I say, look at all the other kinds of cretures on this planet, look at all the different ways they survive. I don't know about you but Natural Selection seams way too smart to be just a random thing, don't you think.
But, it's not Natural Selection, it's not chance, it's far far to orginized to be random, with no flaws, it's like someone has created all the different natures of these millions of kinds of animals, sometimes you just sit back in amazement when you hear how one animal survives. You sit back in awe and say, how could that happen, and I would have never thought of that.
Well, when you think of how an animal surives or how something works, you are thinking that thought after God has thought of it.
While someone will come and totally try to disprove what I've said, and probley how poor it was writen. But, I didn't have to post this, if you are as smart as I know you guys are, you allready knew this.:)
But can you take that, and provide any actual evidence of it?
I don't think natural selection is 'too smart'. I think it's natural that in a system with millions of interacting elements (as biology, the environment, etc has) it's inevitable you will see a vast amount of differentiation. But that's a side matter.
The point is, you can say this, but there is no evidence of it. Forget any holes in evolution you may perceive; there is nothing here that can be presented and supported by evidence. Nothing that can be proven.
All the stuff you've said.... it's your perspective. Plants and animals evolve with flaws. The first life form is a single celled organism (whose component amino acids have probably evolved) which survives thanks to a beneficial chemical reaction, and over millions of years mutates and diversifies exponentially to what we have today. All these things you give for your belief.... science is answering. More importantly, science is about finding these answers, not chalking them off to an abstract concept and ignoring the question.
So how on earth can ID be taught as if it were a science? It doesn't seek to provide any answers, only discredit the most solid, evidenced theory. It doesn't offer any solutions in turn, just an abstract that is designed to be untestable and unknowable.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
I would respond to that, But it would clearly be off topic with ID. So, that awnser will have to wait.:)
Uh-huh. Right. Well, back on topic then. Do you propose ID to be taught in science classrooms? Why? Don't weasel yourself out of actually answering this question please.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Uh-huh. Right. Well, back on topic then. Do you propose ID to be taught in science classrooms? Why? Don't weasel yourself out of actually answering this question please.
Care to tell me what ID is, like I asked before?;) And BTW if you want to countinue the other topic please make another thread, and as long as the flames stay out, I would be happy to keep going.:)
Originally posted by Aldo_14
I don't think natural selection is 'too smart'. I think it's natural that in a system with millions of interacting elements (as biology, the environment, etc has) it's inevitable you will see a vast amount of differentiation. But that's a side matter.[?B]
this is the last time I will take this topic off.
Could you do the same thing, make all creatures, elemental tables, Physics Tables, like they are now. No, then how can they be random, If the smartest creature on earth can't make it as perfect as it is, how could Random do it?;) And where did that "natural" come from, if it is a pattern then it must have been set up, if it's not than "natural" don't exist.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Care to tell me what ID is
it would be the answer to the question I asked.
and who said everything was totaly random, just because something wasn't made by an intelegence does not meant it is totaly random.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
it would be the answer to the question I asked.
and who said everything was totaly random, just because something wasn't made by an intelegence does not meant it is totaly random.
Umm, yeah it is. If you close your eyes and type on the computer what shows up is random unless you know what keys your typing, cause for anything to not be random would mean there had to be something controling it, or causing it. To know what it was doing.;)
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Care to tell me what ID is, like I asked before?;)
ID is the belief that some higher power (e.g. God) designed and created the varieties of organisms, rather than evolution and natural selection.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
ID is the belief that some higher power (e.g. God) designed and created the varieties of organisms, rather than evolution and natural selection.
I thought that is just Creationisim?
-
Umm, and Physics are related to Natural Selection, How.
Everything is related to physics.
-
creationism is calling the bible science.
intelegent design is saying a god(like force) made everything.
ok give some examples of things that are totaly random and not a creation.
-
Originally posted by Ford Prefect
Everything is related to physics.
Natural Selection don't, but life does, no one wants to be a pancake.;)
OK, now since I know what ID is and all, We can get back on subject. Do I think it needs to be taught in Public schools? No, but I feel the exact same way about Natural Selection and the Big Bang Theory since they can be disproved using Physics as I have mentioned. But, Evolution? Sure I love reading about it, and disproving it as well.
Good night all.I would Like to do this again, no flames+good oposing ideas= good debate.:nod:
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
creationism is calling the bible science.
intelegent design is saying a god(like force) made everything.
Well duh, ID.:lol: I should have understanded that one at the start. Sorry for being a dummy and not getting that. ;)
Originally posted by Bobboau
ok give some examples of things that are totaly random and not a creation.
There isn't any.;) God made everything out of plan, but somehow I don't think that was the question you were asking.
-
so you don't think science should be in schools, well Europe and China just let out a chear. :doubt:
Originally posted by WeatherOp
There isn't any.;) God made everything out of plan, but somehow I don't think that was the question you were asking.
that was I was expecting you to say...
-
Computers ARE creating computers today, especially in factories and labs. A significant percentage of the production process has now become automated and under the control of other computers.
but see there again... you used the key word: CREATING...
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
How did that pre-existing intelligence emerge?
Where and when did it originate?
What defines which parts are modified by that entity?
What evidence is there that such an entity exists?
How does that entity manipulate natural design/life?
Is this entity omnipotent?
If so, how does that explain design defects (such as the human intestine or whale thumbs, etc)?
If not, how can it affect all life?
Does that entity have role affecting mutations?
Are all mutations down to that entity?
Which parts of life have been modified, and which not?
Why do mass (or otherwise) extinctions occur?
How can this theory be tested?
How are modifications created/caused?
what observable evidence is there to validate the proposal of such a theory as science?
(etc)
Belief, not scientific theory. Keep it out the science class; put it in RE if that bit of the bible (or Koran, Guru Granth Sahib, etc) isn't already covered there.
Yeah, if you place 100% of your trust in science. if you ask me, ID isn't the easy way out... evolution is.
"Who created everything? Why are there so many animals, why this, why that?"... Answer: "Evolution". if anything's the easy way out, it's the 'evolution' theory, because it defines all the varieties of life, now and all the way back to the beginning of time.
note. theory.
there is no way that science can tell us where the universe came from, who designed it, how it came into existence, etc... i mean, look how small and insignificant we are. our species is pathetic. a small hurricane devastates hundreds of thousands of lives. yet we can tell "scientifically" (<--- keyword) where the universe came from? c'mon now, don't make me laugh. we can't even "scientifically" find a purpose for some of the organs in our body, yet we can define where life came from?... as i said earlier. man defines what it doesn't understand. "scientific theory" was preaching that the world was flat, or that the whole solar system revolved around the earth, and that was just a few hundred years ago. science is relative to a time period. what's widely viewed and accepted today, will be laughed at a few years from now. we've seen this with the above examples, we've seen this a hundred years or so ago, when creation was the accepted answer, and evolution was scoffed at, and i don't doubt we'll see it again in the future.
EDIT: the more i think about it. this argument's actually develped into two parts
a) who created life (i.e. the original computer illustration i used)
and
b) how does life evolve, if at all. evolution, etc. (what my computer illustration was bastardized into ;) )
It's hard to discuss both at the same time :p ;)
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so you don't think science should be in schools, well Europe and China just let out a chear. :doubt:
Hmmm, I don't get it. You don't want ID to be taught in schools because it doesn't have any evidence of it, but a theory that falls on it's face at the begining to science it's self is ok?:doubt: I just don't get it...
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Now you will say that its Natural Selection, but then I say, look at all the other kinds of cretures on this planet, look at all the different ways they survive. I don't know about you but Natural Selection seams way too smart to be just a random thing, don't you think.
Natural selection isn't random. It's guided by the pressures of the environment. That's why it's called "selection". You are wrong. Stop using this belief in your support of ID.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
but a theory that falls on it's face at the begining to science it's self is ok?:doubt:
Which theory are you talking about? Because I don't know any that are commonly taught which haven't been rigorously tested and continually supported.
Here's what I find interesting. All these people supporting ID are pointing to the complexity of life and the beginnings of the universe and stuff. But that's not ID - that's creationism. ID claims that everything alive today has been designed, and that stuff like the Bacterial Flagella and blood clotting are too simple to have evolved by chance. If nothing else, I think that proves that ID and cretionism are, if not semantically the same theory, then close enough.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Natural selection isn't random. It's guided by the pressures of the environment. That's why it's called "selection". You are wrong. Stop using this belief in your support of ID.
But, if there is no God, than the environment is random, so that would make NS random as well.
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Which theory are you talking about? Because I don't know any that are commonly taught which haven't been rigorously tested and continually supported.
Then they haven't tested the Big Bang theory with Physics then.
-
I think the major difference is that ID supposes that these creatures are 'supposed' to be what they are, that there is some formulated plan that these creatures were created to fulfill by another sentient creature. So instead of asking how Duck billed Platypusses or Bisexual apes managed to evolve we start asking stupid questions like 'Why does the Mongoose exist', evolution already answers that question by saying 'because it can'.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
But, if there is no God, than the environment is random, so that would make NS random as well.
perhapse we have diferent definitions of random, my meaning of random isany outcome wich is not dependent upon pervius outcomes, has no systematic paturn, and cannot be predicted.
yours seems to be anything that does not have a consius will behind it.
your definition would imply that falling to the ground is random (unless you subscribe to inteligent falling) when it is in fact not
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Then they haven't tested the Big Bang theory with Physics then.
Big bang theory is very simple, the universe started from a single hot point, beond that it gets diferentiated into a bagillion diferent variations, it came into exsistance from the observation that everything in the universe seems to be moveing away from everything else, so at one point in time all matter in the universe must have been at one point in time been in the same place.
now if you don't mind FMA is on.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
perhapse we have diferent definitions of random, my meaning of random isany outcome wich is not dependent upon pervius outcomes, has no systematic paturn, and cannot be predicted.
yours seems to be anything that does not have a consius will behind it.
your definition would imply that falling to the ground is random (unless you subscribe to inteligent falling) when it is in fact not
My defintion of Random, is chance, and is about like your defintion, it means something not happening the same way twice. Or a very very very low possiblity of it.
Originally posted by Bobboau
Big bang theory is very simple, the universe started from a single hot point,
Yet, if it breaks the law of Physics[getting tired of the word aren't you];) It didn't happen.
-
Natural Selection don't, but life does, no one wants to be a pancake.
Yes, natural selection does. Everything in the universe has its basis in physics, because physics is the law of the universe.
Semantics is fun.
-
So is pissing in the wind apparently. :p
-
Don't knock it 'till you've tried it!
Oh, and my two cents in the matter of randomness: chaos theory. The one real truth of the universe is cause and effect. Every event is a result and a cause. We humans have trouble dealing with it because we want to believe that we exist for a purpose, but we are simply the result of a lucky combination of causes.
Personal opinion, of course.
-
Well once again I'll say night all.;) Maybe do a little modeling before bed. Thanks once again for a good, flameless debate.:nod: :yes:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
My defintion of Random, is chance, and is about like your defintion, it means something not happening the same way twice. Or a very very very low possiblity of it.
then if we agree upon what random means then how can you say the universe is random? it clearly isn't
Yet, if it breaks the law of Physics[getting tired of the word aren't you];) It didn't happen.
you don't even know what the rules are, and you don't know the exeptions, you can't tell me that the theories break the rules because you don't know. there are many of them by the way, for instance, one hypothosis sugests that there is anti-energy made in equal amounts to energy they cancel each other out so the total is zero, and there are theories of multable universes cyclical universes, all sorts of stuff, none of them break the rules. there are mathematical models unfortunately it's very hard to test most of them so none of them can realy be called theories (though there is a whole group of physisists that does anyway, people are getting impatent with them but thats a totaly diferent story) but what testing we have done is corelative to the major basic theories (quantum and relitivistic depending on the frame of reference). you say that physics breaks it's own rules, but you don't even know what the rules are, your just takeing someone elses word on it
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
But, if there is no God, than the environment is random, so that would make NS random as well.
It's not though. The environment is constrained by physical laws. Natural selection is constrained by the environment. Neither are random. The only thing that can be considered truly random is probably the initial atomic makeup of the solar system, the catastrophic events that have shaped it since (meteorite impact and the like) and genetic mutation. Everything else is constrained by physical laws and therefore is not random.
Natural selection is in fact the best example of this. It's hard to explain how the earth differentiated into layers, or why the continents are where they are, but it's easy to explain natural selection. The environment puts pressure on an organism to survive in the form of climate, predation, limitation of resources etc. and the organisms best adapted to those environmental pressures survive to pass on their adapted characteristics. Those that aren't, don't. That's what makes it non random, not some intelligent hand pushing things about, but the interplay of natural and physical laws against a randomly mutated base set of organisms over the course of millions, or even bilions of years.
Natural Selection is not random. I've explained why. Unless you have any real, scientific reason why not, then concede.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Yet, if it breaks the law of Physics[getting tired of the word aren't you];) It didn't happen.
I'm curious - which specific law of physics does the big bang violate?
-
The line of discussion as stated by Kara - and continued throughout the thread - is utterly devoid of all sense. Asking believers of ID for a Hypothesis or central Theory that aptly sums up the ideas behind ID is akin to asking a homeless bloke to loan you some cash...you ain't gonna get any 'cause they ain't got none...!
Now, if you will all excuse me, the age of Ragnarok is upon us and I must prepare a sacrafice to Odin...
-
well we just want them to admit they have none.
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
The line of discussion as stated by Kara - and continued throughout the thread - is utterly devoid of all sense. Asking believers of ID for a Hypothesis or central Theory that aptly sums up the ideas behind ID is akin to asking a homeless bloke to loan you some cash...you ain't gonna get any 'cause they ain't got none...!
That's the point. I want to prove that they haven't got anything to give. Which is why it makes it stupid to teach ID in school. Arguments about what science is etc are too hard for most people to follow but if we point out that ID doesn't actually explain anything then most people can see that flaw easily.
ID is often held up as containing a complete 1:1 replacement for evolution but the fact is it is nothing of the sort. So it's not a competing theory to evolution. It's nothing, its fluff and as far as I'm concerned that should be enough to prevent it being taught in science class.
Suppose one chapter of the bible contradicted Newton's first law of motion. Let's further suppose that fundementalist christians were annoyed about that. They do a little research and notice that Newton's laws break down at the quantum level. They then invent the Theory of Intelligent Motion. The theory simply states that because Newton's laws don't work at the quantum level they must be wrong and God must be responsible for how movement works. and that's all the theory states, no explaination of how God's laws of motion work. Just a simple Newton is wrong.
I doubt that there is anyone on this board who would take that argument seriously but the fact is that the argument for the Theory of Intelligent Motion is actually more scientific than ID. The fact that the laws of motion break down at the quantum level or when approaching the speed of light is testable and proven by science. Every single physicist will quite openly state that.
With ID every biologist will say that the central arguments that form the basis of ID are all scientifically flawed.
So lets say the people who support Intelligent Motion gain some support from christian politicians and they push for IM to be included on the school curriculum. Should it get in? Of course not. Quite apart from the fact that it's all obviously complete nonsense the fact remains that while it claims the laws of motion are wrong it doesn't put anything in its place beyond "God did it."
Oh and BTW if someone can't explain ID to me soon I think we're going to have to say that ID is obviously too complicated for the people on this board to understand and therefore must be removed from schools as it's obviously a university or postgraduate level subject :lol:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Could you do the same thing, make all creatures, elemental tables, Physics Tables, like they are now. No, then how can they be random, If the smartest creature on earth can't make it as perfect as it is, how could Random do it?;) And where did that "natural" come from, if it is a pattern then it must have been set up, if it's not than "natural" don't exist.
Eh? It's not perfect, that's part of the point.
The only reason you or anyone else perceives it as perfect is because it's impossible to conceive the trillions of alternatives that can occur with just a single variation in the evolutionary process of the universe. The reason the concluding points we see work, is because of natural selection; they're the best things that exist now - because the weaker ones are weeded out - but not the pinnacle.
You assume perfection because you see what works and assume it's the only and best way it could possibly work. But that's not perfection. It's a perfectly natural result from an infinately complex interacting system; same as, for example, emergent behaviour occurs in systems of interacting individuals, but with far more variables.
AFAIK, you seem to think 'random' equals 'simple' for some reason. But it doesn't and never has.
Originally posted by Stealth
Yeah, if you place 100% of your trust in science. if you ask me, ID isn't the easy way out... evolution is.
"Who created everything? Why are there so many animals, why this, why that?"... Answer: "Evolution". if anything's the easy way out, it's the 'evolution' theory, because it defines all the varieties of life, now and all the way back to the beginning of time.
note. theory.
there is no way that science can tell us where the universe came from, who designed it, how it came into existence, etc... i mean, look how small and insignificant we are. our species is pathetic. a small hurricane devastates hundreds of thousands of lives. yet we can tell "scientifically" (<--- keyword) where the universe came from? c'mon now, don't make me laugh. we can't even "scientifically" find a purpose for some of the organs in our body, yet we can define where life came from?... as i said earlier. man defines what it doesn't understand. "scientific theory" was preaching that the world was flat, or that the whole solar system revolved around the earth, and that was just a few hundred years ago. science is relative to a time period. what's widely viewed and accepted today, will be laughed at a few years from now. we've seen this with the above examples, we've seen this a hundred years or so ago, when creation was the accepted answer, and evolution was scoffed at, and i don't doubt we'll see it again in the future.
EDIT: the more i think about it. this argument's actually develped into two parts
a) who created life (i.e. the original computer illustration i used)
and
b) how does life evolve, if at all. evolution, etc. (what my computer illustration was bastardized into ;) )
It's hard to discuss both at the same time :p ;)
So you can't even begin to try to answer those questions? You've given yourself a simple 'God' answer that is so incredibly paper thin it can't even handle the barest questioning.
Your arguement is based around the idea 'we're too dumb to know'. Well, you may consider yourself too stupid to actually try and understand this universe, but I don't.
You actually try to discredit evolution by pointing out why it's the only plausible evidenced theory -it explains why life is the way it is.
I'd point out that the notion of the earth being flat was a religious one; there are proponents still who base that arguement on scripture. The Catholic Church also denounced Galileo's model of the Solar System; i.e. the earth revolving around the sun. So you've just pointed out 2 examples of religious belief trying to invalidate scientific fact -well done!
I'll also point out that scientific investigation accepts the possibility of correction - if the evidence is there, of course. Religious theories like ID don't even believe in such things as evidence (so they can never be disproved; a bit like the Great Green Arkleseizure). As it stands, all scientific evidence supports the theories of creation you've decided we're too stupid to know. Thanks for judging all humanity! (I thought that was Gods job?)
Presumably you'd be happy with bible literalism then, if you don't trust any science?
EDIT; hell, you've pointed out the massive complexity of the universe; and what, you expect all the answers to be found immediately rather than gradually through experimentation and observation? Now that would be stupid.
Originally posted by Black Wolf
I'm curious - which specific law of physics does the big bang violate?
Didn't the big bang create the laws of physics when it occured anyways?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
So you can't even begin to try to answer those questions? You've given yourself a simple 'God' answer that is so incredibly paper thin it can't even handle the barest questioning.
OK... assume God created life on earth. i will answer any question you throw at me now. go for it.
what's thin is evolution, because it's the easiest way out
Your arguement is based around the idea 'we're too dumb to know'. Well, you may consider yourself too stupid to actually try and understand this universe, but I don't.
yes, i do consider it based on the idea 'we're too dumb to know'... don't think you're a one of a kind prodigy that can understand a universe that's so INFINITELY more complex than you. like i said, science can't understand some funtions of the human body, how can it unravel the mystery of the universe? we can't even effectively use more than a few percent of our brain's estimated power, yet we can understand the universe?
... c'mon now. your existence is so infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things... learn to master your body before you decide to try to understand things that complex
I'd point out that the notion of the earth being flat was a religious one; there are proponents still who base that arguement on scripture. The Catholic Church also denounced Galileo's model of the Solar System; i.e. the earth revolving around the sun. So you've just pointed out 2 examples of religious belief trying to invalidate scientific fact -well done!
here's another one for you. did you know that years before all this, hundreds of years before, it was written in the Bible that the earth rotates on an axis, etc.?
As it stands, all scientific evidence supports the theories of creation you've decided we're too stupid to know. Thanks for judging all humanity! (I thought that was Gods job?)
and if all scientific evidence supports the theories of creation, then why does everyone here and around the world constantly try to disprove creation and replace it with the easy-way out: evolution
-
and anyone who says "ID is too complex to be taught in school"... for pete's sake. all those questions you threw at ID, can be reversed and applied to evoultion as well.
when kids take a 6th grade science class, do they teach them quantum physics? of course not. likewise, when teaching evolution/ID in school, they aren't going to delve into every. single. possible. scenario. and answer every question, making it a rock-solid teaching... they're going to teach the concept... they're going to suggest it, and the kid can find out more for himself.
-
Evolution the easy way out?! Obviously, you know very litte (read: nothing) about the amount of study that is part of the Theory of Evolution. Darwin himself went around the world on the Beagle studying nature, and countless scientists and naturalists have done the same. In the case of Intelligent Design, the point of Intelligent Design, is that nobody has to do this work. Nope, because God did it all. That's right, no instensive studies, no first hand evidence, nothing. God did it and that's the end of that.
Now let's look at the 'belief' part of the "Theories" (and in the case of ID, I use the word 'Theory' very loosely, but that's not the issue here); Evolution delves deep into Biology and Chemistry, working - at the very onset of life on Primitive Earth - at a molecular level. For a basic understanding, one needs to at least have a grasp of many other things tought in 4th grade Science class. Intelligent Design on the other hand relies completely on belief; in-class it'd be a 1 Period section, in which one is tought that, a) Life is indeed quite complex, and b) ...thus God did it.
It doesn't take a Ph.D to realise that ID is probably, just maybe, the simpler topic to grasp. Accepting the notion that 'God did it' is not only a flimsy excuse for a notion, but a cheat. It's like playing a video-game with multiple endings, and rather than play right to the end, you just put in a code and you get the worst possible ending cinematic, and you're content with that. I'm cool that you accept that, but throwing half-baked Bible-science (now there's a real oxymoron for you) into a Science class masquerading it for real scientific theory is no different than throwing a Midget into an NBA All-Star game...everyone gets confused!
In regard to your arguement that the two ideas be tought in Science Class, i'll simply say this; why ID? Evolution is quite obviously Science, and thus should be tought in Science class, but why ID? Why not other, equally valid ideas, namely The Flying Spaghetti Monster!!
-
Originally posted by Stealth
and anyone who says "ID is too complex to be taught in school"... for pete's sake. all those questions you threw at ID, can be reversed and applied to evoultion as well.
And evolution could answer them. ID can't. How long has mankind existed? Give me the ID answer with an explaination of why ID give it that number. ID and evolution are theories which both claim to explain the origin of the species. I'm hereby challenging you to use ID and explain the origin of the species. If you can't do it ID is nothing more than a sham.
Originally posted by Stealth
likewise, when teaching evolution/ID in school, they aren't going to delve into every. single. possible. scenario. and answer every question, making it a rock-solid teaching... they're going to teach the concept... they're going to suggest it, and the kid can find out more for himself.
What nonsense. I'm asking you for really basic stuff here. Does ID completely replace evolution? Does it only replace some of it? If it replaces evolution completely how does it explain the origin of life.
These are the most basic questions you can make about ID and yet after a whole day's arguing not one person has been able to use ID to answer them.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Didn't the big bang create the laws of physics when it occured anyways?
A explosion can't create what caused it to be created in the begining.;)
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
A explosion can't create what caused it to be created in the begining.;)
That's the thing, nobody knows what did cause it, but we're pretty damn sure at the moment that the universe, and as such every law of physics in the universe, didn not exist prior to the explosion of the singularity...it's like going down into the quantumn level, physics just plain breaks down at a certain point, so we know that there are situations when Physics can go wonky. So when you're faced with the prospect of a Singularity with no dimensions, infinite mass, and containing all the matter in the universe, it's a pretty safe bet that what we know about the physics of our Universe (which isn't bloody much) might not cover this situation...
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
Evolution the easy way out?! Obviously, you know very litte (read: nothing) about the amount of study that is part of the Theory of Evolution. Darwin himself went around the world on the Beagle studying nature, and countless scientists and naturalists have done the same. In the case of Intelligent Design, the point of Intelligent Design, is that nobody has to do this work. Nope, because God did it all. That's right, no instensive studies, no first hand evidence, nothing. God did it and that's the end of that.
Now let's look at the 'belief' part of the "Theories" (and in the case of ID, I use the word 'Theory' very loosely, but that's not the issue here); Evolution delves deep into Biology and Chemistry, working - at the very onset of life on Primitive Earth - at a molecular level. For a basic understanding, one needs to at least have a grasp of many other things tought in 4th grade Science class. Intelligent Design on the other hand relies completely on belief; in-class it'd be a 1 Period section, in which one is tought that, a) Life is indeed quite complex, and b) ...thus God did it.
It doesn't take a Ph.D to realise that ID is probably, just maybe, the simpler topic to grasp. Accepting the notion that 'God did it' is not only a flimsy excuse for a notion, but a cheat. It's like playing a video-game with multiple endings, and rather than play right to the end, you just put in a code and you get the worst possible ending cinematic, and you're content with that. I'm cool that you accept that, but throwing half-baked Bible-science (now there's a real oxymoron for you) into a Science class masquerading it for real scientific theory is no different than throwing a Midget into an NBA All-Star game...everyone gets confused!
In regard to your arguement that the two ideas be tought in Science Class, i'll simply say this; why ID? Evolution is quite obviously Science, and thus should be tought in Science class, but why ID? Why not other, equally valid ideas, namely The Flying Spaghetti Monster!!
OOOOOH I get itttt! Because evolution is the more complex of the theories, it's GOT to be the right one! Because you can actually scientifically explain it. yeah. it's more in-depth. obviously it's correct. i understand now.
:rolleyes:
here's one for you:
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist.
so don't tell me that evolution is correct scientifically. it's accepted because it's the easiest thing to comprehend. man doesn't like to believe something that it's not 100% sure of, and doesn't understand fully. i think that quote pretty much sums it up.
And evolution could answer them. ID can't. How long has mankind existed? Give me the ID answer with an explaination of why ID give it that number. ID and evolution are theories which both claim to explain the origin of the species. I'm hereby challenging you to use ID and explain the origin of the species. If you can't do it ID is nothing more than a sham.
ok first of all, i'm going to argue ID as being a 'form' of creationism, which it really is (or maybe creationism is a form of intelligent design ;) there we go :p)
that said, mankind's existed since Adam and Eve, as per the Bible, as per the views of any Christian
What nonsense. I'm asking you for really basic stuff here. Does ID completely replace evolution? Does it only replace some of it? If it replaces evolution completely how does it explain the origin of life.
These are the most basic questions you can make about ID and yet after a whole day's arguing not one person has been able to use ID to answer them.
I don't believe it completely eliminates evolution. In fact, TO AN EXTENT, I do believe in evolution. Does evolution explain how humans became what we are today? No, i don't believe that. But I do think that nature has the ability to evolve, just not to completely different creatures, or life-forms, or evolve intelligence, etc. but the way that animals adapt to eating what's available, camouflaging to their surroundings, etc. that's about as far as I believe nature adapts.
If ID completely replaces evolution how does it explain the origin of life? Well ID (correct me if i'm wrong) believes in a higher entity or intelligence that is responsible for creating/designing/implementing life, right? That could be extraterrestrials, God, etc. For Christians, it's God.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
OOOOOH I get itttt! Because evolution is the more complex of the theories, it's GOT to be the right one! Because you can actually scientifically explain it. yeah. it's more in-depth. obviously it's correct. i understand now.
:rolleyes:
here's one for you:
so don't tell me that evolution is correct scientifically. it's accepted because it's the easiest thing to comprehend. man doesn't like to believe something that it's not 100% sure of, and doesn't understand fully. i think that quote pretty much sums it up.
That's not what I was arguing, and i'll give you an appropriate answer in an hour or so...*leaves to do other things*
-
EDIT: nevermind. not going to pull this argument out yet
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
That's not what I was arguing, and i'll give you an appropriate answer in an hour or so...*leaves to do other things*
yes it was. and i quote from the last paragraph of your last post:
Evolution is quite obviously Science, and thus should be tought in Science class
you also said:
It doesn't take a Ph.D to realise that ID is probably, just maybe, the simpler topic to grasp.
and i say, evolution's the same way! (at least on a 4th grader level).
"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!".
so you can't say that ID's the easy way out. evolution at this level is just as easy
-
[q]OK... assume God created life on earth. i will answer any question you throw at me now. go for it.
what's thin is evolution, because it's the easiest way out
[/q]
Provide proof...no, evidence that God exists. Explain where God comes from and why He/She/It existed before life or (in expansion) all other matter. Explain how this concept of an interventionist God meshes with the complete absence of divine intervention in the present day, and why God would create and kill life in mass exinctions.
More importantly, provide any form of evidence that supports this. Not presumption, not attempting to pick holes in theories, but actual evidence for it.
You say 'it's the easy way out', but you can't provide one single piece of basis for your belief? You can't even find a valid, proveabl;e 'hole' in evolution (only presume you're too dumb to understand it yourself)?
[q]yes, i do consider it based on the idea 'we're too dumb to know'... don't think you're a one of a kind prodigy that can understand a universe that's so INFINITELY more complex than you. like i said, science can't understand some funtions of the human body, how can it unravel the mystery of the universe? we can't even effectively use more than a few percent of our brain's estimated power, yet we can understand the universe?
... c'mon now. your existence is so infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things... learn to master your body before you decide to try to understand things that complex[/q]
Well, you're an idiot then. I'm sorry, but you fail to understand the basic premises of science; exploration and understanding over time.
By your view, we should never have developed the TV, because physics is too complex. We should never have understood gravity, developed the internal combustion engine, travelled to the moon, etc - because it's a bit complicated.
You want a nice, 1 line homogenized answer that spares you any difficulty? Stick with God.
You want something that actually questions itself and seeks to provide an honest answer based on honest facts? Look at science.
[q]here's another one for you. did you know that years before all this, hundreds of years before, it was written in the Bible that the earth rotates on an axis, etc.?[/q]
I'd note that geocentrists claim the bible says the earth does not rotate and the sun, stars, etc rotate around it. There are also lines in the bible, IIRC, referring - literally - to the Sun rising and falling at (IIRC) Joshuas command.
So you're just reinterpreting the bible with the addition of scientific discovery to try and validate it.
What a shame that the notion of the earth orbiting the sun was, as I pointed out previously, condemned by the church. In fact, the Catholic church place Galileo under house arrest after holding an inquistion to question his views and concluding that the Universe revolved around the earth.
So those bible literalists read the same thing as you - devoted their life to studying it - and yet came up with the opposite answer. Catholic dogma actually held the Ptolmaic model as right, despite it (earthcentric) being proven incorrect from observation.
(The bible also explictly mentions the Earth as having ends, 4 corners - and contradictoraliy describing it as a circle, pillars, foundations and being visible from the top of a tall mountain).
Hmm.... it's not exactly a source I'd trust anyways literal interpretation of.
[q]and if all scientific evidence supports the theories of creation, then why does everyone here and around the world constantly try to disprove creation and replace it with the easy-way out: evolution
[/q]
Evolution is creation; the creation of complex life from single celled organisms and, prior to that, the likely evolution of complex proteins, amino acids, etc from simple chemicals.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
A explosion can't create what caused it to be created in the begining.;)
EDIt; whoops, missed this :o
You're assuming the laws of physics 'pre-bang' were the same. It's likely, for example, that the laws of gravity, time, etc only came into existance at the bang.
I think the theoretical physics explaining the big-bang are still being developed, and will doubtless take decades or centuries to be formed. I think they've 'discovered' (through background stellar radiation) up to the first nano-second of the Big Bang.
-
I heard on BBCWorld something about the M-theory (one the theories of everything) that has the potential even to explain the mechanics of the Big Bang or the Black Holes. Though it was quite like something from theoretical physicists daydreams (It was based on 11th dimensional multiverse system and it allowed paraller universes) it is possibly our best current theory (or everything).
BTW I'm going to listen lectures at university about the chemical reactions that allow organic molecules to form from inorganic matter. And to listen to the current explanations of how the life, the world and the universe were formed and what made possible the life as we know it (according to current scientific knowledge). And it's astrobiology, not id theories i'm that i'm going to listen to.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
and i say, evolution's the same way! (at least on a 4th grader level).
"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!".
so you can't say that ID's the easy way out. evolution at this level is just as easy
The point is, evolution has depth beyond that. It has a supporting basis. It has evidence in support.
ID has none of that. It can't even answer the question 'why?'
-
yes, i do consider it based on the idea 'we're too dumb to know'... don't think you're a one of a kind prodigy that can understand a universe that's so INFINITELY more complex than you. like i said, science can't understand some funtions of the human body, how can it unravel the mystery of the universe? we can't even effectively use more than a few percent of our brain's estimated power, yet we can understand the universe?
... c'mon now. your existence is so infinitesimal in the grand scheme of things... learn to master your body before you decide to try to understand things that complex
I find your intellectual nihilism to be an abomination against Man and God, whoever he may be. Your cult of ignorance is something that is equally disgusting and frightening.
Also, for your further education: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
-
What scares me is this...If people are taught that a 'Devine Plan' is some kind of scientific, not social theory, then what happens next, we get scientologists using their own bastardised version of science to start telling us what they have learned of this 'plan'?
Teaching religion in a science class is no more sensible then teaching science in a religion class, Evolution does not pretend to be a religion, it is a set of theories supported my a mass of evidence. As new evidence is found, that theory can change subtley, or sometimes more noticeably. Christianity and all other 'Faith' related topics ARE religions, and proudly state themselves as such, so why try to corrupt other forms of learning?
This is no different to Henry VIII burning hundreds of copies of Martin Luther's books simply because it said something that didn't sit too well with his own personal Empire at the time, and remember, Henry VIII ended up ignoring both the Vatican AND the Protestant churches and started his own church instead to suit his own purposes, that is more or less what ID is.
I swear we are headed back towards the Dark Ages, where any kind of learning that doesn't place God at the top of the heap is somehow 'Devil Worship'.
-
:rolleyes:
That's exactly my fear. And all because of a minority, too.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
I don't believe it completely eliminates evolution. In fact, TO AN EXTENT, I do believe in evolution. Does evolution explain how humans became what we are today? No, i don't believe that. But I do think that nature has the ability to evolve, just not to completely different creatures, or life-forms, or evolve intelligence, etc. but the way that animals adapt to eating what's available, camouflaging to their surroundings, etc. that's about as far as I believe nature adapts.
If ID completely replaces evolution how does it explain the origin of life? Well ID (correct me if i'm wrong) believes in a higher entity or intelligence that is responsible for creating/designing/implementing life, right? That could be extraterrestrials, God, etc. For Christians, it's God.
You don't understand ID do you? You've basically stated two diametrically opposed views. Either ID completely replaces evolution or it includes evolution as part of it. Which one is it?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
You don't understand ID do you? You've basically stated two diametrically opposed views. Either ID completely replaces evolution or it includes evolution as part of it. Which one is it?
ID = the theory that someone/something/higher-entity designed and created life (or at least played a part).
how is that hard to understand? don't think you're so highly intelligent that only the elite can understand a THEORY that simple.
EDIT: and for the record "diametrically opposite" is a double-negative. it's either opposite, or it's diametrical. j/k ;)
will reply to the rest in a bit
-
Originally posted by Stealth
ID = the theory that someone/something/higher-entity designed and created life (or at least played a part).
how is that hard to understand? don't think you're so highly intelligent that only the elite can understand a THEORY that simple.
The problem is that the theory explains Nothing. It's a sham. Suppose the theory of gravity simply said something pulls objects down. No mathmatical formulae no nothing. What you've posted isn't a theory its an assertion. An unproven and unprovable assertion at that.
My whole point is that if ID is anything other than a sham it must explain how mankind came to be. When he came to be and when all the other animals came to be. Evolution CAN and DOES do that whether or not you agree with it the fact is that only a moron would say that evolution doesn't provide those answers even if you feel they are wrong.
If ID is to stand as a counter-argument to evolution it must explain everything that evolution can explain about how animals got here. The simple fact that it does not explain those things shows that it is a sham and a smokescreen and nothing more.
And you've dodged my question yet again. Does ID replace evolution or does it use parts of the theory?
Originally posted by Stealth
EDIT: and for the record "diametrically opposite" is a double-negative. it's either opposite, or it's diametrical. j/k ;)
I think you need
1) To read what I wrote again.
2) A better dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diametrically)
From Dictionary.com
diametrically
adv : as from opposite ends of a diameter;
"three of these brushes were approximately 120 feet apart and the fourth diametrically opposite to one of the three"
-
Originally posted by Stealth
and i say, evolution's the same way! (at least on a 4th grader level).
"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!".
so you can't say that ID's the easy way out. evolution at this level is just as easy
wait wait wait. You're saying evolution is the 'easy way out' because it has a name? Suppose your son asks you what evolution is?
You'd have to spend a significant amount of time trying to put it into terms he can understand. On the other hand, the idea that a big invisible guy with a beard made the world and everything in it in a week is a pretty easy one to grasp, and makes a good bedtime story. Again, it's just as plausible as the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory--to a four-year-old.
It's apparent that you don't understand (or don't want to understand) the fundamentals behind evolution; chances are you're like that priest in the trials who thinks evolution is a bug turning into fish turning into a rabbit. But I'm not here to argue why it's valid, I'm here to listen to you argue why ID is valid.
And you still haven't broached what Kara, Aldo and I have been saying--that teaching ID is inherently dangerous to scientific development. What about that?
-
Well, you're an idiot then. I'm sorry, but you fail to understand the basic premises of science; exploration and understanding over time.
Wrong. what i'm saying is that just because science can't understand something, doesn't mean THERE HAS to be a scientific explanation. it's OK to say "Yeah. that's too complex for us to try to understand now... we'll keep trying of course, but for now we're not going to throw out stupid 'scientific' anything"...i think it's stupid that people subconsciously think that science has an explanation for everything. science doesn't in this case. there are theories, but there's no "scientifically proven" fact in creation/evolution... so don't start throwing out "scientific" this and that.
Provide proof...no, evidence that God exists. Explain where God comes from and why He/She/It existed before life or (in expansion) all other matter. Explain how this concept of an interventionist God meshes with the complete absence of divine intervention in the present day, and why God would create and kill life in mass exinctions.
More importantly, provide any form of evidence that supports this. Not presumption, not attempting to pick holes in theories, but actual evidence for it.
and there's no proof that life is the result of evolution either! there's no EVIDENCE supporting evolution either! so why is it evolutionists are always saying "prove that God exists. prove this. prove that" when they have absolutely no proof either! (see the quote i posted earlier)
You say 'it's the easy way out', but you can't provide one single piece of basis for your belief? You can't even find a valid, proveabl;e 'hole' in evolution (only presume you're too dumb to understand it yourself)?
and you can? In my opinion, evolution is the easy way out, because it means man doesn't have to acknowledge that somewhere out there, there's a higher being. again: "Man defines what it doesn't understand", and it's so true.
I'd note that geocentrists claim the bible says the earth does not rotate and the sun, stars, etc rotate around it. There are also lines in the bible, IIRC, referring - literally - to the Sun rising and falling at (IIRC) Joshuas command.
So you're just reinterpreting the bible with the addition of scientific discovery to try and validate it.
What a shame that the notion of the earth orbiting the sun was, as I pointed out previously, condemned by the church. In fact, the Catholic church place Galileo under house arrest after holding an inquistion to question his views and concluding that the Universe revolved around the earth.
So those bible literalists read the same thing as you - devoted their life to studying it - and yet came up with the opposite answer. Catholic dogma actually held the Ptolmaic model as right, despite it (earthcentric) being proven incorrect from observation.
(The bible also explictly mentions the Earth as having ends, 4 corners - and contradictoraliy describing it as a circle, pillars, foundations and being visible from the top of a tall mountain).
Hmm.... it's not exactly a source I'd trust anyways literal interpretation of.
Yeah?
--- Isaiah 40: 22 Isaiah recorded that the earth was round ("circle of the earth") approximately 2,200 years prior to Columbus' claim in 1492.
--- The Bible declares that the earth is round and hangs in space (Prov. 8:27; Isa. 40:22; Job 26:7). Man did not discover this fact until 1475. It was discovered by Copernicus.
--- The Bible declares that air has weight (Job. 28:25). Galileo discovered it in 1630
--- The Bible declares that the earth revolves around the sun (Job 38: 13-14). This was not discovered by man until 1500. Again, Copernicus made this wonderful discovery
--- The Bible declares that the winds have regular circuits and that the rain clouds are only evaporated water (Ecc. 1:6-7). Man did not discover this until 1630
--- The Bible declares that there is great empty space in the north without stars (Job 26:7). Not until Lord Rosse invented his treat telescope did man discover this remarkable scientific fact
--- The Bible declares that messages can be sent forth by "lightnings" or electricity (Job 38:35). Lightning is the only word the Hebrews had for electricity. Modern radio proves the Biblical scientific fact
--- The Bible declares that God has measured and weighed the ingredients of every substance He has created (Isa. 40:12). Only recently chemists have discovered that all substances to combine chemically must be weighed or measured exactly as they will only combine in exact proportions
--- The Bible declares that the stars innumerable (Gen. 15:5; Jer. 33: 22). Hipparchus said there were only 1,022 stars. Ptolemy said there were 1,026. Galileo was the first to teach they could not be numbered
--- The Bible declares that the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 14:12). William Harvey did not discover this truth until 1615
--- Earth is round:
------Job 22:14 Thick clouds cover Him, so that He cannot see, And He walks above the circle of heaven.'
------Prov 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
------Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Circle is also translated as sphere in Hebrew.
Point is, hundreds, or thousands of years before some ideas were "discovered" by science, the Bible had talked about them. So don't say the Bible's not scientific. in fact, it's way ahead of science, since many things mentioned in the bible (see the long list above) that made no sense to anyone at the time, were proven BY SCIENCE later in time.
The point is, evolution has depth beyond that. It has a supporting basis. It has evidence in support.
ID has none of that. It can't even answer the question 'why?'
And I say where is the evidence. if there was evidence supporting evolution, then it wouldn't be a theory now, would it. even a well known evolutionist stated there was no evidence supporting evolution. see the quote i posted earlier.
I find your intellectual nihilism to be an abomination against Man and God, whoever he may be. Your cult of ignorance is something that is equally disgusting and frightening.
Also, for your further education: http://www.snopes.com/science/stats/10percnt.htm
and let me tell you what I find an abomination against Man and God: That man puts so much trust in Science, that they think EVERYTHING at this time must have a "scientific explanation". I've got nothing against science, i make as much use of scientific inventions than any of you here, and appreciate it just as much, but Science is just guessing here. There is NO PROOF either way, so how can anything be "scientific"? Please. Let science keep probing, trying to find the truth, that's fine with me, i'm all for that, but at this point there is no scientific proof of anything to do with this topic, and man needs to stop thinking that science always has a logical answer, when in fact, right now, they don't.
-
Originally posted by Galemp
wait wait wait. You're saying evolution is the 'easy way out' because it has a name? Suppose your son asks you what evolution is?
You'd have to spend a significant amount of time trying to put it into terms he can understand. On the other hand, the idea that a big invisible guy with a beard made the world and everything in it in a week is a pretty easy one to grasp, and makes a good bedtime story. Again, it's just as plausible as the Flying Spaghetti Monster theory--to a four-year-old.
It's apparent that you don't understand (or don't want to understand) the fundamentals behind evolution; chances are you're like that priest in the trials who thinks evolution is a bug turning into fish turning into a rabbit. But I'm not here to argue why it's valid, I'm here to listen to you argue why ID is valid.
And you still haven't broached what Kara, Aldo and I have been saying--that teaching ID is inherently dangerous to scientifiIc development. What about that?
See, that's the thing all evolutionists always pull out. That's the "ignorant" card they always play. "Well you're obviously not intelligent enough to understand evolution".
Oh please.
I'm saying that evolution is just as easy as ID. it's just as "easy" a way out. And you're quick to play it off by saying "I'm not here to argue why evolution's valid, i'm here to listen to you argue why ID's valid".
and i'm saying why don't you argue that evolution's valid. why don't all you evolutionists start pulling out some proof, and THUS prove that ID is invalid...
-
My apologies Stealth, I was in the middle of something before, but now I can respond to your dissection of my post;
Recently, I've read many opinion articles on ID from noted Scientists, and all seem to talk of how many believers in ID tend to use quotes out of context or read them incorrectly in their quest to discredit the Theory of Evolution. I'd never really seen it before, but you, my good friend, have done exactly that.
In my earlier post, I was responding to your claim that the Theory of Evolution is simpler, and thus less complex, than Intelligent Design. Therefore, I endeavered to show you that the Theory of Evolution is indeed much more complex than ID, which I did. Unfortunately, you misinterpreted this;
Originally posted by Stealth
OOOOOH I get itttt! Because evolution is the more complex of the theories, it's GOT to be the right one! Because you can actually scientifically explain it. yeah. it's more in-depth. obviously it's correct. i understand now.
:rolleyes:
here's one for you:
"Evolution is unproved and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable." Sir Arthur Keith, a famous British evolutionary anthropologist and anatomist.
so don't tell me that evolution is correct scientifically. it's accepted because it's the easiest thing to comprehend. man doesn't like to believe something that it's not 100% sure of, and doesn't understand fully. i think that quote pretty much sums it up.[/B]
Wow. You've missed the point of not just my post, but a completely unrelated quote as well! First off, by 'Evolution is quite obviously Science, and thus should be tought in Science class', I was simply stating that the Theory of Evolution is Science. I was not commenting on it being true in any way, nor was I saying that its complexity in any way effects the truthfulness of the Theory.
In regard to the Sir Arthur Keith quote you dragged in, you seem to have completely misinterpreted his statement. He is saying that the Theory of Evolution is indeed unprovable, but then, what exactly is provable in this universe of ours? His statement refers to the fact that Evolution is the best idea we have that explains the development of life on this planet, and that the only other theory that carries any weight with it in our (Western) society - Religeous Creation - is what he believes to be complete boulderdash! This quote has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion, but is used by ID proponents out of context to further discredit the Theory of Evolution, which you have attempted to do quite admirably. I'm not entirely sure why you pulled this up, nor the statement you put forth beneath it, as you seem to be contradicting yourself...Honestly, I have no idea what in the heck you're on about right there...
Originally posted by Stealth
and i say, evolution's the same way! (at least on a 4th grader level).
"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!".
so you can't say that ID's the easy way out. evolution at this level is just as easy
I believe it would be more like this;
"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"Well, when a man and a woman love each other veery much..."
"Nonono, I mean life"
"Oh! Simple, son: God."
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"It's all God's design, Son."
"...Ok, thanks anyway, but i'm going to go ask Mommy"
Now, should that same father be versed in Evolution;
"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"Well, son, there's this thing called Evolution, see. Over time, animals and stuff change to fit their environment. You see, people like you and me used to look just like Apes, called 'Primates', but we evolved to look like we do today."
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"They all evolved to look this way, in fact, everything on Earth started out as nothing more than what's called a 'Primordial Soup."
"You mean like we had for dinner?"
"No, son, this soup was special. Now, i'm sure your teacher would know a lot more about this, as it's quite complicated."
"Okay dad, thanks..."
My tired typing hand says that Evolution is not as simple as ID to grasp. Explaining ID can be done in one word; God. That one word in essence describes everything you need to know about ID, which isn't bloody much. 'Evolution' requires elaboration, as it is a complex process, and thus needs to be explained. That's the key word here, Explain. Sure, you can answer somebody 'Evolution', but they won't have any fracking idea what you're talking about if they've never head of it - like a 4th Grader for example - and thus requires an explination of considerable length. ID doesn't need explaining, it's God's will, so that we may blindly obey. I'm sorry, but even blind Freddy driving backwards at night wearing reflective sun-glasses can plainly see that ID is in fact the 'easy way out' as you so eloquently put.
I'm cool with your obvious belief in Christianity. I'm not going to insult your faith, as it is entirely up to you what to believe. But i'm not fond of religeous fanatics - and yes, these people are fanatics - who come up with ideas like ID that prove only to slow our growth as a species. If you want to stick your head in the sand and keep your mind closed that there might be something a little more complicated to the Universe than 'God', that's cool. For myself, I prefer to know how I came to be, and what the future might hold for me, and the rest of the species...
EDIT:Originally posted by Stealth
and there's no proof that life is the result of evolution either! there's no EVIDENCE supporting evolution either! so why is it evolutionists are always saying "prove that God exists. prove this. prove that" when they have absolutely no proof either! (see the quote i posted earlier)
Listen, i'm sorry, but that's complete crap. Obviously, you've never heard of Urey & Miller's famous experiment, in which they created Amino Acids, the building blocks of life, from Lightning and inatimate chemicals that would be present in a primitive Earth environment.
You've also never heard of Evolutionary Radiation, a single species changing to fit niches in nature left vacant, such as a Sparrow on a desert island (it escapes me where this was observed). You're also ignoring observed Micro-evolution!
There is a rather critical difference between having evidence and being able to prove something. Nothing can be conclusively proven, as Keith pointed in your quote, theories such as Evolution cannot be conclusively proven, but saying Evolution has no evidence is just wrong.
ID proponents want Science to prove Evoltion, I say; after you,,,
-
Originally posted by karajorma
The problem is that the theory explains Nothing. It's a sham. Suppose the theory of gravity simply said something pulls objects down. No mathmatical formulae no nothing. What you've posted isn't a theory its an assertion. An unproven and unprovable assertion at that.
but it is still a theory. so is evolution, which means neither of them hold any more weight than the other. if it was such a sham, it wouldn't be in existence
My whole point is that if ID is anything other than a sham it must explain how mankind came to be. When he came to be and when all the other animals came to be. Evolution CAN and DOES do that whether or not you agree with it the fact is that only a moron would say that evolution doesn't provide those answers even if you feel they are wrong.
from my standpoint, if you want to understand ID, then read the Bible. that will explain to you where so many people come from
If ID is to stand as a counter-argument to evolution it must explain everything that evolution can explain about how animals got here. The simple fact that it does not explain those things shows that it is a sham and a smokescreen and nothing more.
again. the Bible explains it.
Overall, what it comes down to, is what you believe in. If you believe in the Bible, and believe it's accurate, then you'll believe in intelligent design and creationism. if you don't, you'll believe in evolution. that's why there'll never be a final undisputed RIGHT or WRONG, until science clearly, FACTUALLY proves evolution
I think you need
1) To read what I wrote again.
2) A better dictionary (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=diametrically)
reason i said "j/k" there was because i say "diametrically opposite" all the time, and i thought i was the only person that ever said it ;). people always tell me they mean the same thing too ;)
-
Originally posted by Mefustae
In regard to the Sir Arthur Keith quote you dragged in, you seem to have completely misinterpreted his statement. He is saying that the Theory of Evolution is indeed unprovable, but then, what exactly is provable in this universe of ours? His statement refers to the fact that Evolution is the best idea we have that explains the development of life on this planet, and that the only other theory that carries any weight with it in our (Western) society - Religeous Creation - is what he believes to be complete boulderdash! This quote has absolutely nothing to do with our discussion, but is used by ID proponents out of context to further discredit the Theory of Evolution, which you have attempted to do quite admirably. I'm not entirely sure why you pulled this up, nor the statement you put forth beneath it, as you seem to be contradicting yourself...Honestly, I have no idea what in the heck you're on about right there...
no, what he's saying is that people believe evolution simply because they don't want to believe in God. don't want to believe in creation
My tired typing hand says that Evolution is not as simple as ID to grasp. Explaining ID can be done in one word; God. That one word in essence describes everything you need to know about ID, which isn't bloody much. 'Evolution' requires elaboration, as it is a complex process, and thus needs to be explained. That's the key word here, Explain. Sure, you can answer somebody 'Evolution', but they won't have any fracking idea what you're talking about if they've never head of it - like a 4th Grader for example - and thus requires an explination of considerable length. ID doesn't need explaining, it's God's will, so that we may blindly obey. I'm sorry, but even blind Freddy driving backwards at night wearing reflective sun-glasses can plainly see that ID is in fact the 'easy way out' as you so eloquently put.
that's true, but when i typed out the 'conversation' between a son and his father, i was showing you that all your theories can be summed into one word too: evolution. which is simple on the outside, but (as you agree) is extremely elaborate the deeper you dig. but so is ID... you believe God created life, that's just the beginning. now go read the Bible. i just don't like that people say "ID is so simple compared to the elaborate evolution theory". so what. just because it's simple means it's incorrect?
I'm cool with your obvious belief in Christianity. I'm not going to insult your faith, as it is entirely up to you what to believe. But i'm not fond of religeous fanatics - and yes, these people are fanatics - who come up with ideas like ID that prove only to slow our growth as a species. If you want to stick your head in the sand and keep your mind closed that there might be something a little more complicated to the Universe than 'God', that's cool. For myself, I prefer to know how I came to be, and what the future might hold for me, and the rest of the species...
but dude, no one just "came up" with the idea of ID... it's been around since the Bible :p
EDIT:
Listen, i'm sorry, but that's complete crap. Obviously, you've never heard of Urey & Miller's famous experiment, in which they created Amino Acids, the building blocks of life, from Lightning and inatimate chemicals that would be present in a primitive Earth environment.
You've also never heard of Evolutionary Radiation, a single species changing to fit niches in nature left vacant, such as a Sparrow on a desert island (it escapes me where this was observed). You're also ignoring observed Micro-evolution!
There is a rather critical difference between having evidence and being able to prove something. Nothing can be conclusively proven, as Keith pointed in your quote, theories such as Evolution cannot be conclusively proven, but saying Evolution has no evidence is just wrong.
i had heard of that somewhere. like i said though, it boils down to whether you believe in the Bible or not. if not, then yeah, you can see how life would form from a soup, when lightning, and the right chemicals just happened to be in the right atmosphere, and 'life' formed, and then in billions of years, formed the creatures we are today. for me, that's a stretch. but i agreed that to an extent i believe in evolution, like, as you mentioned, a sparrow on a desert island. i just don't believe that evolution explains how life formed. and there is no rock-solid evidence pointing to evolution, so why are you trying to prove that evolution is the correct theory? ID has evidence too.
also, regarding their experiment... how do they know what the earth's conditions at the time "life formed" were back then? No one knows. we have some evidence, but no one's sure exactly. that's just one inconsistency i thought of off the top of my head regarding Urey & Miller's experiment.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
no, what he's saying is that people believe evolution simply because they don't want to believe in God. don't want to believe in creation
I disagree, and thus believe we should get a third party to decide...
that's true, but when i typed out the 'conversation' between a son and his father, i was showing you that all your theories can be summed into one word too: evolution. which is simple on the outside, but (as you agree) is extremely elaborate the deeper you dig. but so is ID... you believe God created life, that's just the beginning. now go read the Bible. i just don't like that people say "ID is so simple compared to the elaborate evolution theory". so what. just because it's simple means it's incorrect?
I think we're still waiting on a Hypothesis or actual Theory to elaborate on! What is there to elaborate on anyway? God designed all life, we don't know how, why, or anything else, but what we do know, is that God designed it. That's it. That's what you're arguing. That's not a summary, that's ID's entire dang arguement! And you're the one that brought up the whole Simplicity arguement some time ago anyway! :wtf:
but dude, no one just "came up" with the idea of ID... it's been around since the Bible
Actually, Creationism has been around for a while. Intelligent Design is only a recent developmet. Indeed, Creationalism & Intelligent Design are one in the same, but nobody is considering the teaching of Creationism in Science class, that has been tried, and failed, keeping with the 'speration of Church & State' as the US puts it. To get around this, ID was created. ID is creationism, but is called Science by the people that thought it up. At its core, it's just another attempt to get God into Science Class, which is obiously getting quite a few people riled up...
EDIT:
Originally posted by Stealth
i had heard of that somewhere. like i said though, it boils down to whether you believe in the Bible or not. if not, then yeah, you can see how life would form from a soup, when lightning, and the right chemicals just happened to be in the right atmosphere, and 'life' formed, and then in billions of years, formed the creatures we are today. for me, that's a stretch. but i agreed that to an extent i believe in evolution, like, as you mentioned, a sparrow on a desert island. i just don't believe that evolution explains how life formed. and there is no rock-solid evidence pointing to evolution, so why are you trying to prove that evolution is the correct theory? ID has evidence too.
That's cool if you choose not to 'believe' in Evolution, but c'mon! Of course there isn't rock-solid evidence, that's why it's a bloody Theory! But wait, you just said you have evidence for ID. Finally! Progress! Let's hear it!
Originally posted by Stealth
also, regarding their experiment... how do they know what the earth's conditions at the time "life formed" were back then? No one knows. we have some evidence, but no one's sure exactly. that's just one inconsistency i thought of off the top of my head regarding Urey & Miller's experiment.
All I can say is; Rock Core Samples. You'd be surprised how much they can tell us about the environment of any time going back a surprisingly long way. But I will concede, Urey & Miller's experiment isn't concrete. Amino Acids are only the very, very first stage of life, and by no means provide rock-solid evidence that Life emerged out of nothing. But we've got to start somewhere, and it's a pretty good dang start!
-
Originally posted by Stealth
and let me tell you what I find an abomination against Man and God: That man puts so much trust in Science, that they think EVERYTHING at this time must have a "scientific explanation". I've got nothing against science, i make as much use of scientific inventions than any of you here, and appreciate it just as much, but Science is just guessing here. There is NO PROOF either way, so how can anything be "scientific"? Please. Let science keep probing, trying to find the truth, that's fine with me, i'm all for that, but at this point there is no scientific proof of anything to do with this topic, and man needs to stop thinking that science always has a logical answer, when in fact, right now, they don't.
Okay.
First of all: please, please, please,
NO PROOF
science always has a logical answer
it is still a theory
learn the words.
Proof is for maths and philosophy, not for science and everything else. Science doesn't use logic, either; rather than taking a group of statements as true and working down to the facts, science looks at the facts and works up to find the group of statements that are true. A theory is an explanation of phenomena that is supported by verifiable facts. There is a Theory of Evolution, and of Gravity, and of many other things. There is not a Theory of Intelligent Design, because it explains nothing and is supported by a book and nothing more.
Your stance - that some things are magically 'unexplainable', and that this is a failure of science rather than a failure of humanity or even the idea itself - is still reprehensible and irresponsible. It would be very easy to take it to absurd lengths in order to destroy it, and that is its very danger. We may not escape the inevitable apocalypse because we were too busy blaming God and fairies to make the necessary developments to preserve our species.
Also, to reiterate a point many others have made: would you care to provide the evidence and explanation of the mechanics of ID that would make it the viable theory that you claim it is? Note that I will require more than 'the Bible' and 'God just created the world out of thin air'. Or, for that matter, 'WE CANNOT KNOW IT'S TOO HARD JUST DO WHAT THE BIBLE SAYS'.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
but it is still a theory. so is evolution, which means neither of them hold any more weight than the other. if it was such a sham, it wouldn't be in existence
You quoted my post where I explained exactly why it isn't a theory but is instead an assertion, provided no counter-argument why it is a theory and then yet again stated that it's a theory.
ID is not a theory. It's an assertion.
In various sciences, a theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework describing the behavior of a certain natural or social phenomenon, thus either originating from observable facts or supported by them. Scientific theories are formulated, developed, and evaluated according to the scientific method.
ID does not meet those criteria. It's an assertion that anything that is too complicated to have arisen naturally must have been made by God. How has that been tested? How is that based on observable facts?
ID is NOT a theory. Until you can provide proof of scientific experiments carried out to prove the arguments it isn't even a hypothesis.
Originally posted by Stealth
from my standpoint, if you want to understand ID, then read the Bible. that will explain to you where so many people come from
And here you prove why ID isn't a theory. Scientific theories have nothing to do with anyone's standpoint. They depend 100% on observable fact. How ridiculous would it be to teach the theory of gravity and then say Well from my standpoint this is the equation that explains gravitational attraction but from another standpoint this is the equation and it gives completely different results.
There can only be one correct answer. You might think I'm being picky but what's to stop a UFOlogist coming along and using ID as proof that aliens created mankind 10,000 years ago. After all ID doesn't explain when humans were created so his science is equally valid to yours. In fact you'd have to support his conclusion because the ID part of it would be 100% what you said was true.
(As a sidebar I reckon people who use Spagetti monster as an argument against ID should simply use ID as proof that aliens created humans. There are a whole bunch of UFO nutcases who'd glom on to it and drag it down for us :D )
-
Stealth... I'm going to guess you don't know too much about the guy that originally said that quote.
Sir Arthur Keith Died in 1955 and was a strong proponent of Piltdown Man. Not exactly the spokesperson I'd chose for modern neodarwinism. Even though he wasn't speaking in any way to imply evolution was incorrect in the first quote, it should be noted that nothing in science is truly provable. That's the essence of science - fallibility, questionability, disprovability, something ID fundamentally lacks, putting it outside the realm of science.
Urey and Millers experiment - Though not really making up any part of modern biology, they based their atmosphere on the science of the time. We have a better picture of the early earth now through the geological makeup of the rocks we find from that era (and the chemical makeup of gasses trapped within them) as well as a more accurate model for solar system and planetary formation that tells us what would have been floating around in the early atmosphere. Morover, the primordial soup idea isn't neccesary for life - life could just as easily have formed deep underground, or at volcanic vents under the oceans - in fact, these are more likely due to the overall stability of the area (the surface was incredibly hostile at the time life formed - regular impacts by meterorites and comets would have periodically stripped away all or parts of the atmosphere)
"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son: evolution!".
[/b]
"Daddy, where did life come from?"
"simple, son: Intelligent Design!"
"So where did all the amazing lifeforms, the thousands of species, each with unique abilities and habits, come from?"
"simple, son: Intelligent design!".
You're absolutely right - It's just as simple for both sides if all you're doing is stating a name. Let's keep going though:
"Daddy, what is Intelligent Design?"
"Intelligent Design? Why it tells us that God has designed every single organism on the planet. That's why they're so perfect, and why everything works so well!"
As compared to:
"Daddy, what is evolution?"
"Evolution? Well, first you have to understand about mutation. When animals reproduce, very occasionally, their DNA is changed just a little bit through mutation. Most of the time, this makes the animal somehow weaker, but sometimes it makes the animal just a little bit better adapted to its environment. If the animal is better adapted, then it'll have a better chance of surviving, and the longer it survives, the more likelty it is to reproduce, and when it reproduces, it'll pass on the mutation that made it better adapted, while the animals without the mutation will be weeded out by pressures put on them by their environment. Eventually, over millions of years and millions of generations, entire new species can be formed, which has led to all the diversity we see around us today."
So, tell me again how evolution is the simple way out? To understand even basic evolution you need three concepts - Mutation and Genetics, Natural Selection and Deep time. To understand ID, you need one - God (or, if you like, a designer). How is evolution the simpler of the two? Especially considering that all that explains is pure darwinian evolution with a genetic addon - it doesn't even consider advanced macroevolution, correlated progression, punctuated equillibrium, hox genes, non gentic evolution (it does exist - there's no gene, for example, that tells you to have 5 fingers - finger number is controlled through different processes) etc. etc.
You then state that ID is more complex than it seems and to go read the bible. But then you fall into two problems.
Number 1 - ID isn't mentioned in the bible at all. The bible talks about literal creationism. Bang - God wanted it, it was there. Nowhere in the bible does it say "And Lo, on the fifth day, God created the Bacterial Flagella, for it was too simple to have evolved by chance" (It's not, by the way).
And Number 2 - This whole argument is sparked by the separation of church and state. If ID is outlined in the bible, the religious book of one out of a myriad of different religions, then that pretty solidly contravenes that separation, and thus it doesn't belong in schools.
Lastly, it's important to state this openly, in case the rubbish that's being spouted through here on the opposite side is getting to anyone.
Evolution has been proven.
as much as any scientific theory can be. It might as well be the Law of Evolution, just like we have the Laws of gasses and the Laws of Motion. It's not technically called that, because of the nature of science and the nature of the theory itself, but the basic tenets of the theory - mutation and natural selection, are beyond question. This isn't because of any kind of scientific dogma, or because people are somhow too scared to accept a god as the source of all creation (something they were quite willing to do for thousands of years) but because of evidence.
I'll say it again. Evidence. Evidence for evolution exists, thousands and thousands of times over. Far more, in fact, than would be needed to put any scientif theory at the level of general acceptance evolution has among scientists. It is consistenly corelated, by genetics, by palaeontology, by embryology, by anatomy, by virology, by geology, even by physics, chemistry and mathematics. They all point towards the same thing - evolution is right.
If you want examples:
whoops, submitted too early, editing now (Don;t stress, examples are coming)
Palaeontology
- Archaeopteyx - Fossilized representation of a transitional form between dinosaurs and birds.
- Icthyostega - Fossilized representation of a transitional form between fish and tetrapods.
- Ambulocetus - Fossilized representation of a transitional form between land based tetrapods and whales.
Embryology
- Ontogoney recapitulating phylogeny was disproven as a biological truth admittedly, but it's true around 70% of the time. Watch a human embryo sprout a (highly inefficient and poorly designed I'll note) fishlike Aorta, or a baleen whale embryosprout tooth buds before they vanish under baleen and you'll see why, while not always true, it's still biologically useful.
Anatomy/Embryology
I've already mentioned the fishlike Aorta of humans - rather than having two aortas, we have one, one which heads up towards our heads, sprouts off smaller blood vessels to feed the brain and head, before turning back to do the rest of our bodies. That arrangement makes sense, however, when you're a 7 or 8 week old embryo and you have pouches that look suspiciously like gill pouches in your neck. A fish embryo at this stage has a similar structure and keeps it - ours, as you'd hope, changes.
Virology
Bacteria develop resistance to antibiotics, fungi to anti fungals, all through natural selection. The processes which form these resistances are the backbone of evolution.
Geology
Go back and look at the makeup of rocks around 3.8 billion years old. Check out the carbon signiatures. Now compare those carbon signiatures to those generated by life. Do we see a coincidence? Check out the oxygen content of rocks as aerobic bacteria evolved. You might be surprised. Go over to Shark bay and check out the stromatolites. Then go dig up the same structures in 2 - 3 billion year old sedimentary rocks. Go look at the structure of diatoms in diatomite and compare them with modern diatoms. You might be surprised.
Chemistry/Physics/Mathematics
Go check out how easy it is to form organic structures from inorganic materials. Go read up on Turing patterns to see how non directly genetic evolution can work. Go read up on comparitive functional morphology and water turbulence patterns, then compare your three major classes of swimming animals to the morphological changes in land based tetrapod to whale evolution.
Once you've done all your reading, come back and provide a similar amount of evidence for ID. Not religious evidence - remember the basis of the argument here - should ID be taught in public school science classes - but scientific evidence as solid as that provided for evolution. Then I'll switch sides, and so would, I'd expect, a lot of the scientific community.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
(As a sidebar I reckon people who use Spagetti monster as an argument against ID should simply use ID as proof that aliens created humans. There are a whole bunch of UFO nutcases who'd glom on to it and drag it down for us :D )
Oi! I resent that to the highest degree! You're looking...uh...at the words...of a guy who's *seen* a UFO! And anyway, I find the idea that an extraterrestrial race terraformed the Earth, and that Genesis is a tale of that Terraforming, to be much more plausable than a god of some description...
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Stealth... I'm going to guess you don't know too much about the guy that originally said that quote.
Sir Arthur Keith Died in 1955 and was a strong proponent of Piltdown Man. Not exactly the spokesperson I'd chose for modern neodarwinism.
(http://img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif)
I did try looking him up in Wikipedia cause I knew that the quote couldn't possibly be from any modern scientist but I got no hits.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
You then state that ID is more complex than it seems and to go read the bible. But then you fall into two problems.
Number 1 - ID isn't mentioned in the bible at all. The bible talks about literal creationism. Bang - God wanted it, it was there. Nowhere in the bible does it say "And Lo, on the fifth day, God created the Bacterial Flagella, for it was too simple to have evolved by chance" (It's not, by the way).
the idea that God created life is not intelligent design? Is God not a higher-intelligence/entity?
..... what. did you expect the bible to acutally say the words "Intelligent Design"? :rolleyes:
And Number 2 - This whole argument is sparked by the separation of church and state. If ID is outlined in the bible, the religious book of one out of a myriad of different religions, then that pretty solidly contravenes that separation, and thus it doesn't belong in schools.
but if you're going to teach evolution, then why not teach intelligent design.
Lastly, it's important to state this openly, in case the rubbish that's being spouted through here on the opposite side is getting to anyone.
Evolution has been proven.
and I say:
Evolution has not been proven.
So tell me this. if evolution HAS been proven, then why do people believe in creation/ID? Why is evolution vs. creationism still an enormous controvery?.... because it has NOT been proven. it's all theory.
as much as any scientific theory can be. It might as well be the Law of Evolution, just like we have the Laws of gasses and the Laws of Motion. It's not technically called that, because of the nature of science and the nature of the theory itself, but the basic tenets of the theory - mutation and natural selection, are beyond question. This isn't because of any kind of scientific dogma, or because people are somhow too scared to accept a god as the source of all creation (something they were quite willing to do for thousands of years) but because of evidence.
And again I say, if the evidence is so evident, then why is there still such a big controversy.
I'll say it again. Evidence. Evidence for evolution exists, thousands and thousands of times over. Far more, in fact, than would be needed to put any scientif theory at the level of general acceptance evolution has among scientists. It is consistenly corelated, by genetics, by palaeontology, by embryology, by anatomy, by virology, by geology, even by physics, chemisry and mathematics. They all point towards the same thing - evolution is right.
And perhaps hundreds of thousands of people believe in the Bible, since it's been proven over time. Some of the things stated in the bible that were only scientifically proven thousands of years later BY SCIENCE... that carries a lot of weight to me. therefore if the Bible also talks about ID/creationism, then why wouldn't people believe it
-
So tell me this. if evolution HAS been proven, then why do people believe in creation/ID? Why is evolution vs. creationism still an enormous controvery?.... because it has NOT been proven. it's all theory.
You're working on the assumption that people believe only what is plausible? If there is any recurring theme of human thought that should stick out like a sore thumb, it's that we believe whatever the hell we want to.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
Once you've done all your reading, come back and provide a similar amount of evidence for ID. Not religious evidence - remember the basis of the argument here - should ID be taught in public school science classes - but scientific evidence as solid as that provided for evolution. Then I'll switch sides, and so would, I'd expect, a lot of the scientific community.
But see that's where you fail to see: It all comes down to religion in the end. You can sit here and argue with someone all day on evolution, but if they believe in the Bible, then it will all be for nothing. "Not religious evidence"? The Bible's considered religious evidence, and religion rules the world now, and has for the last God knows how long... but we must ignore "religious evidence"? Almost everything that's done in the world is done in the name of religion, not as much in the name of science. therefore, religious evidence, i would say, is quite appropriate.
Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mendel, all believed in, and spoke of God (or some higher-entity they believed were responsible for life). They're some of the most influential and brilliant scientists of 'our time'. if they, through all their research (lives dedicated to their research in fact), can come through it and state that they believe in a God/higher-entity... that also should carry a lot of weight to the scientific community.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Wrong. what i'm saying is that just because science can't understand something, doesn't mean THERE HAS to be a scientific explanation. it's OK to say "Yeah. that's too complex for us to try to understand now... we'll keep trying of course, but for now we're not going to throw out stupid 'scientific' anything"...i think it's stupid that people subconsciously think that science has an explanation for everything. science doesn't in this case. there are theories, but there's no "scientifically proven" fact in creation/evolution... so don't start throwing out "scientific" this and that.
Assuming the unknown is unknowable is the easiest way to stop human progress. It's the most blinkered worldview possible, too; the difference between science and what you're saying, is that science is never satisfied with ignoring tough questions. You might be scared of the answers, so you don't even want to look. When they come, you ignore them, try to dicredit them. When your own alternative is question, you just ignore the questioning and try to attack the supported theory - and then ignore the rebuttal.
Is that what we should teach kids? That they'll never know anything? That all knowledge must come instantly or ever atall? To ignore evidence on the basis of someone elses dogma?
Help, by that standard we'd still be tilling fields on a flat, 5000 year earth that was created in 7 days, has pi value of 3, and which the Moon, Sun and stars rotate around. Oh, and which has foundations.
Originally posted by Stealth
and there's no proof that life is the result of evolution either! there's no EVIDENCE supporting evolution either! so why is it evolutionists are always saying "prove that God exists. prove this. prove that" when they have absolutely no proof either! (see the quote i posted earlier)
There's plenty of evidence. An obvious one being the evolutionary traits from dinosaurs to birds, or the fossils showing the development of equines. Another being experiments on the common housefly that show the working mechanics of genetic inheritence and dominant traits (which show us the mechanics which cause evolutionary mutation).
On the issue of the creation of life, there are experments that have illustrated how amino acids can develop within the primordial soup.
Just look it up with an open mind, and you'll see. If that's possible for you, that is.
Originally posted by Stealth
and you can? In my opinion, evolution is the easy way out, because it means man doesn't have to acknowledge that somewhere out there, there's a higher being. again: "Man defines what it doesn't understand", and it's so true.
I cannot find a proveable hole in evolution that is inexplicable and voids the whole theory. AFAIK any discrepanies that have ever been scientifically proven have been incorporated and explained; from the work of Darwin, Mendel, all the way to the present. This is the difference between science and religious dogma.
I cannot find any substance to Id theories atall. They are a big fat hole all within themselves.
You take the option of ascribing anything you don't understand to a higher being, rather than investigating it. When an explnation is formed - and one that can be supported, tested and evidenced - you seek to ignore it and justify that with falsehood. So how is that a 'hard' way, adopting a system which is designed to resist questioning, exploration or expansion.
Originally posted by Stealth
Yeah?
--- Isaiah 40: 22 Isaiah recorded that the earth was round ("circle of the earth") approximately 2,200 years prior to Columbus' claim in 1492.
Again, doesn't say 'sphere'. The phrase;
He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
Well, can you spread a tent out upon a sphere?
--- The Bible declares that the earth is round and hangs in space (Prov. 8:27; Isa. 40:22; Job 26:7). Man did not discover this fact until 1475. It was discovered by Copernicus.
27 I was there when he set the heavens in place,
when he marked out the horizon on the face of the deep,
28 when he established the clouds above
and fixed securely the fountains of the deep,
29 when he gave the sea its boundary
so the waters would not overstep his command,
and when he marked out the foundations of the earth.
Doesn't say hangs in space. Marking out a horizon kind of indicates a linear end, too. Does say it has foundations, though.
7 22 He sits enthroned above the circle of the earth,
and its people are like grasshoppers.
He stretches out the heavens like a canopy,
and spreads them out like a tent to live in.
(see above; tent over a sphere? Impossible. But over a circle....
He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
Contradicts the foundations bit, doesn't it?
Of course, later on in the King James translation we have;
He hath compassed the waters with bounds, until the day and night come to an end.
Which implies a finite earth, not a sphere. So I guess we have a circle in space at best.
--- The Bible declares that air has weight (Job. 28:25). Galileo discovered it in 1630
Actually, it doesn't. It declares that god set the weight of the winds (which are distinguished from the air as they are referred to in the singular sense). Which modern translations equate to 'force';
25To make the weight for the winds; and he weigheth the waters by measure. (King James)
25"When He imparted (A)weight to the wind
And (B)meted out the waters by measure, (new american standard)
25When He gave to the wind weight or pressure and allotted the waters by measure, (Amplified bible)
25He made the winds blow and determined how much rain should fall (new living translation)
--- The Bible declares that the earth revolves around the sun (Job 38: 13-14). This was not discovered by man until 1500. Again, Copernicus made this wonderful discovery
What?
13 that it might take the earth by the edges
and shake the wicked out of it?
14 The earth takes shape like clay under a seal;
its features stand out like those of a garment.
Hey, the earth has edges. Can't be a sphere then, can it?
--- The Bible declares that the winds have regular circuits and that the rain clouds are only evaporated water (Ecc. 1:6-7). Man did not discover this until 1630
6The wind goeth toward the south, and turneth about unto the north; it whirleth about continually, and the wind returneth again according to his circuits.
That doesn't actually mean much. It's an observation (although one personifying the wind as a singular entity); it doesn't explain any reason for this beyond 'God'. In short, it's something you, or I, could have written after spending a day outside paying attention to the wind. Wind came from the south earlier. Then it was from the north later. Thus, it must go in circles.
--- The Bible declares that there is great empty space in the north without stars (Job 26:7). Not until Lord Rosse invented his treat telescope did man discover this remarkable scientific fact
New translation; He spreads out the northern skies over empty space;
he suspends the earth over nothing.
King James; He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
The new translation is, of course, made after this discovery. The old KJ translation doesn't say anything of the sort; isn't revisionism lovely?
--- The Bible declares that messages can be sent forth by "lightnings" or electricity (Job 38:35). Lightning is the only word the Hebrews had for electricity. Modern radio proves the Biblical scientific fact
35 Do you send the lightning bolts on their way?
Do they report to you, 'Here we are'?
Complete rubbish again; it doesn't say that lightining carries messages (although it could be interpreted as divine will in folklore and probably was), it implies that they 'report', which really is just omnipotence; God knows all, etc, etc. Of course, the idea of lightning being messages or divine will is a very, very ancient idea in any case. Zeus and Odin spring to mind immediately.
--- The Bible declares that God has measured and weighed the ingredients of every substance He has created (Isa. 40:12). Only recently chemists have discovered that all substances to combine chemically must be weighed or measured exactly as they will only combine in exact proportions
Who has measured the waters in the hollow of his hand,
or with the breadth of his hand marked off the heavens?
Who has held the dust of the earth in a basket,
or weighed the mountains on the scales
and the hills in a balance?
That says absolutely nothing of the sort. It just says the earth has been weighed and measured by God. It doesn't say every substance, it doesn't say exact, and it sure as hell doesn't refer to any form of chemistry.
--- The Bible declares that the stars innumerable (Gen. 15:5; Jer. 33: 22). Hipparchus said there were only 1,022 stars. Ptolemy said there were 1,026. Galileo was the first to teach they could not be numbered
That the stars are 'innumerable' means there's a lot and they're hard to count; I believe the exact quote is "He took him outside and said, "Look up at the heavens and count the stars -- if indeed you can count them." Then he said to him, "So shall your offspring be"
That doesn't actually require divine intelligence to know (although we have actually began numbering and counting stars with telescopes anyways....), just 2 eyes.
--- The Bible declares that the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 14:12). William Harvey did not discover this truth until 1615
"
12Then the priest is to take one of the male lambs and offer it as a guilt offering, along with the log of oil; he shall wave them before the LORD as a wave offering.
13 He is to slaughter the lamb in the holy place where the sin offering and the burnt offering are slaughtered. Like the sin offering, the guilt offering belongs to the priest; it is most holy.
14 The priest is to take some of the blood of the guilt offering and put it on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot.
15 The priest shall then take some of the log of oil, pour it in the palm of his own left hand,
16 dip his right forefinger into the oil in his palm, and with his finger sprinkle some of it before the LORD seven times.
17 The priest is to put some of the oil remaining in his palm on the lobe of the right ear of the one to be cleansed, on the thumb of his right hand and on the big toe of his right foot, on top of the blood of the guilt offering.
18 The rest of the oil in his palm the priest shall put on the head of the one to be cleansed and make atonement for him before the LORD.
What on eart are you on about? Really? It doesn't make a single mention of CofD.
--- Earth is round:
------Job 22:14 Thick clouds cover Him, so that He cannot see, And He walks above the circle of heaven.'
------Prov 8:27 When He prepared the heavens, I was there, When He drew a circle on the face of the deep,
------Isa 40:22 It is He who sits above the circle of the earth, And its inhabitants are like grasshoppers, Who stretches out the heavens like a curtain, And spreads them out like a tent to dwell in.
Circle is also translated as sphere in Hebrew.
the Hebrew word for 'hhug' (IIRC) translates as both circle and sphere, it's true. However, as the bible also states (I forget the exact location) a man was taken to the highest mountain and saw the entire kingdom of earth - impossible with a sphere - it doesn't even begin to dismiss the flat earthists. Not to mention many explicit mentions of the earth having 4 corners, and being on foundations
Point is, hundreds, or thousands of years before some ideas were "discovered" by science, the Bible had talked about them. So don't say the Bible's not scientific. in fact, it's way ahead of science, since many things mentioned in the bible (see the long list above) that made no sense to anyone at the time, were proven BY SCIENCE later in time.
Pythagoras theorised the Earth was a sphere (albeit at the centre of the universe) in 600BC. The ancient egyptians also taght (apparently) that the planets were solid crystalline. Although apparently the herbrew for 'circle' also means 'sphere', so it's a question of your interpretation (which jars with the flat earthists)
Of course, the Bible is in itself a mytholigcal document formed by the collection of folklore, current events and propaganda (the last being particularly relevent vis-a-vis Nero). So stuff like 'bleeding kills' would just as easily be observational.
Not to mention the inaccuracies. You may think '3' is a good enough approximation of pi - except that the ancient Egyptians and Babylonians calculated it to within 0.5% and 0.6% respectively.
some other bible quotes;
Psalm 93:1
Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...
Psalm 96:10
He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...
Psalm 104:5
Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.
Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.
Also the creation stuff that states night and day were created before the sun, and that man was created before the animals, of course.
Of course, could you prove any of this true or false without science? Nope. And given that so much is false...well, you kind of need science to prove that any of it is accurate.
And I say where is the evidence. if there was evidence supporting evolution, then it wouldn't be a theory now, would it. even a well known evolutionist stated there was no evidence supporting evolution. see the quote i posted earlier.
Theories are created by studying evidence.
EDIT; actually, no-one has ever found a source for that Sir Arthur Keith quote. It's most commonly attributed as being written in the introduction of a centenary edition of The Origin of Species (except that edition was published 4 years after his death, in 1959; Keith did write the intro to an edition 30 years prior, I believe)
Here are some other Keith quotes from the introduction he did write;
"And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things."
(on the Galapagos islands)
"The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true."
and let me tell you what I find an abomination against Man and God: That man puts so much trust in Science, that they think EVERYTHING at this time must have a "scientific explanation". I've got nothing against science, i make as much use of scientific inventions than any of you here, and appreciate it just as much, but Science is just guessing here. There is NO PROOF either way, so how can anything be "scientific"? Please. Let science keep probing, trying to find the truth, that's fine with me, i'm all for that, but at this point there is no scientific proof of anything to do with this topic, and man needs to stop thinking that science always has a logical answer, when in fact, right now, they don't.
If you ignore the truth, the evidence, and human progress, then it's your problem. But don't force that upon people by masquerading lies and character assasination as scientific fact.
I find it an abomination, myself, that people will try to hold back human development because it might not mesh with their own interpretation of a simple, old, book.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
And again I say, if the evidence is so evident, then why is there still such a big controversy.
There isn't. Go count me all the peer reviewed papers on Intelligent design in serious scientific journals in, say, the last five years. Go count me the number of scientists who believe intelligent design, and then the number who believe evolution. The opinions of people on the street are effectively irrelevant - there's absolutely zero scientific debate on evolution because the evidence is so obvious and evident. It's the religious fundamentalists who attempt to create the illusion of debate by spouting nonsense and then letting the evolutionists answer it, thereby provoking discussion on evolution which they can point to and say "Look! Debate! Controversy! Evolution is falling apart! (Which, I'm ashamed to admit, I've been drawn into in this thread. Sorry Kara :().
Originally posted by Stealth
the idea that God created life is not intelligent design? Is God not a higher-intelligence/entity?
I meant that the Bacterial flagella was not too simple to have evolved via natural selection.
Originally posted by Stealth
but if you're going to teach evolution, then why not teach intelligent design.
Because (and I'm repeating myself here)
- ID is not science and doesn't belong in science classes.
- ID has no evidence to support it.
- ID is based on abrahamic creationism and the christian bible, therefore doesn't belong in state funded public schools since that represents a combination of church and state.
If people want to teach it, sure go ahead. But do it in the RE classes of private schools.
Originally posted by Stealth
and I say:
Evolution has not been proven.
Not all statements are equal you know. Just because you Say evolution hasn't been proven doesn't make it so. You're wrong.
Originally posted by Stealth
So tell me this. if evolution HAS been proven, then why do people believe in creation/ID?
Lots of reasons.
- Because many people are not very intelligent.
- Because many people are religious fanatics who refuse to believe anything that contradicts the bible due to the way they were brought up.
- Because a lot of people have not been exposed to the evidence for evolution.
- Because many of the people who have been exposed to evolution don't have the neccesary knowledge to understand it.
- Because the so called evidence for ID and creationism is generally a lot easier to understand despite being factually inaccurate.
- Because ID ties into religion, and even moderately religious people are more likely to want to follow their religious teachings when they perceive controversy (even though none ruly exists) and assume that, if there's controversy, then both sides may be right, and that the fact that one side has god on its side is a good indicator of where they should sit.
Originally posted by Stealth
Some of the things stated in the bible that were only scientifically proven thousands of years later BY SCIENCE...
So? I could sit here and accurately guess the exact maximum temperature for thirty days in a row, but that wouldn't mean anything on day thirty one. Moreover, many of the examples you stated were inaccurate - the ancient Greeks understood a lot about the shape and size of the earth, for example.
Now, I've defended Evolution. Do the same for ID or concede. Specifically, give me proof - not vague references to a perceived controversy or to the bible, not "Evolution must be wrong and therefore ID must be right" for no specifically stated reason. I want scientific observation, biological facts that prove ID, or you need to concede defeat. That's how these things work.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
But see that's where you fail to see: It all comes down to religion in the end. You can sit here and argue with someone all day on evolution, but if they believe in the Bible, then it will all be for nothing. "Not religious evidence"? The Bible's considered religious evidence, and religion rules the world now, and has for the last God knows how long... but we must ignore "religious evidence"? Almost everything that's done in the world is done in the name of religion, not as much in the name of science. therefore, religious evidence, i would say, is quite appropriate.
That doesn't make any sense. So what if the world is "run" by religion? A million years ago, before religion existed, was evolution corrct then? Of course it was. Just as it still is today. If people don't want to accept it, that's their problem, but even if every person in the world believes something it doesn't make it true. Besides, while religion is important in the world, it's not all the same religion. There are nearly a billion Hindus who have a very different idea of the creation of the world. Is their religious evidence any less valid than yours? If so, why? If notm then why aren't you campaigning for the ten avatars of Vishnu to be required reading in a biology class as well?
Originally posted by Stealth
Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mendel, all believed in, and spoke of God (or some higher-entity they believed were responsible for life). They're some of the most influential and brilliant scientists of 'our time'. if they, through all their research (lives dedicated to their research in fact), can come through it and state that they believe in a God/higher-entity... that also should carry a lot of weight to the scientific community.
None of those people were biologists. Even mendel was really just messing around with his plants - he didn't really understand what was going on (or at least, not its applications on a wider scale). The other two were interested in motion broad scale stuff about motion and the behaviour of particles in space - who really cares what they have to say about a science that falls entirely out of their area of expertise? No matter how clever they were in their own areas, it doesn't make them the oracles of all knowledge in all fields forever (especially when you take into account the fact that none of them worked in the climate of today, nor saw all the modern evidence for evolution).
-
Originally posted by karajorma
(http://img116.exs.cx/img116/1231/z7shysterical.gif)
I did try looking him up in Wikipedia cause I knew that the quote couldn't possibly be from any modern scientist but I got no hits.
That's because the quote was made up. See my prev post; it's attributed to the foreword of a book (Origin of Species centenary edition) published 4 years after his death, and which he didnt' write.
Some real quotes are;
"And why should each of the islands have its own peculiar creations? Special creation could not explain such things."
(on the Galapagos islands)
"The Origin of Species is still the book which contains the most complete demonstration that the law of evolution is true."
(I believe these are from the 3rd edition of the O of S in the 30s, which he did write a foreword to)
There's another Keith quote floating around that goes something like;
"Evolution is incompatible with the law of Christ"
Of course, that's because they took a long paragraph in a book, and cut out the bits in the middle to form this. The paragraph was actually referring to how creationists wouldn't accept evolution because it clashed with their literal reading of the bible.
Shows the kind of level these people stoop to.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Isaac Newton, Albert Einstein, Gregor Mendel, all believed in, and spoke of God (or some higher-entity they believed were responsible for life).
Newton had Asperger syndrome and Einstien spent the last twenty years of his life trying to disprove quantum physics because "God doesn't play dice with the universe"
Not exactly the most stable people to be pinning your hopes on.
The fact is that you can do science and be religious. But what you can't do is what the ID proponents do and ignore everything that they disagree with. Einstein forgot this and wasted his time because of it.
Originally posted by Stealth
Man did not discover this fact until 1475. It was discovered by Copernicus.
Bollocks! The ancient greeks knew it but the early christians decided to burn their knowledge.
Originally posted by Stealth
The Bible declares that the earth revolves around the sun (Job 38: 13-14). This was not discovered by man until 1500. Again, Copernicus made this wonderful discovery
Again Bollocks. For the same reason.
And I'm still waiting for an explaination of what parts of evolutionary theory ID says are correct.
-
I'm actually going to find a copy of Of Pandas and People and give it a read. It appears to be concerned with discrediting evolution theory, then establishing ID as a viable alternative. I can better discredit my opponents if I fully understand their arguments. But I'll go into it with an open mind and concede any points they might have, after doing research from other sources.
I'm curious as to whether IDers would be open-minded enough to read The Blind Watchmaker, or if they'd rather denounce it as lies and clling to their Book.
Stealth: All opinions are not created equal. Some are backed up by decades of hard facts and are supported by observable evidence. Some are based on children's stories from ancient times. Science takes what's observed and builds a model of the world from it. Religion takes a model of the world and looks for evidence to support it. Thus far the only evidence we've seen supporting ID is that it's beyond the ken of mortal men (which science working towards rectifying.)
And you STILL haven't addressed the consequences of teaching ID in schools. If it becomes accepted where do you see the sciences one or two generations down the road?
-
The Selfish Gene is better for beginners to be honest. I've pointed it out on almost every single thread about evolution Vs creationism and to this day not a single person who agrees with creationism has bothered to read it.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
some other bible quotes;
Psalm 93:1
Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm ...
see below
Psalm 96:10
He has fixed the earth firm, immovable ...
see below
Psalm 104:5
Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken.
See, in Genesis 1:9,10, "And God began calling the dry land Earth"... therefore, God is referring to the land. not the planet, when "Earth" is referenced. therefore when the writer refers to "foundations", or "fixed", it doesn't necessarily mean the earth is flat, or resting on something. if the Bible does state the earth is flat, then why would it (as i quoted) refer to it as being a "circle". that wouldn't make sense, would it.
Joshua 10:13
And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the people had avenged themselves upon their enemies. Is not this written in the book of Jasher? So the sun stood still in the midst of heaven, and hasted not to go down about a whole day.
so when people say "the sun sets". (<--common expression nowdays)... that's not literally true either. the sun isn't "setting". don't see what you're getting at by quoting this verse
Revelation 7:1
After this I saw four angels standing at the four corners of the earth, holding back the four winds of the earth to prevent any wind from blowing on the land or on the sea or on any tree.
four corners = North, South, East, and West. did you ever think about that? Ask any kindergarden kid what the four corners of the earth are, and they'll understand. the four winds = North, south, east and west...
That doesn't make any sense. So what if the world is "run" by religion? A million years ago, before religion existed, was evolution corrct then? Of course it was. Just as it still is today. If people don't want to accept it, that's their problem, but even if every person in the world believes something it doesn't make it true. Besides, while religion is important in the world, it's not all the same religion. There are nearly a billion Hindus who have a very different idea of the creation of the world. Is their religious evidence any less valid than yours? If so, why? If notm then why aren't you campaigning for the ten avatars of Vishnu to be required reading in a biology class as well?
because you're over here saying that religious evidence doesn't qualify as evidence. and i'm saying yes it does. religion > science in this world we live in. therefore you have to accept religious evidence.
None of those people were biologists. Even mendel was really just messing around with his plants - he didn't really understand what was going on (or at least, not its applications on a wider scale). The other two were interested in motion broad scale stuff about motion and the behaviour of particles in space - who really cares what they have to say about a science that falls entirely out of their area of expertise? No matter how clever they were in their own areas, it doesn't make them the oracles of all knowledge in all fields forever (especially when you take into account the fact that none of them worked in the climate of today, nor saw all the modern evidence for evolution).
hmmmmmmmk...
Quote:
Paleontologist Niles Eldredge, a prominent evolutionist, said: “The doubt that has infiltrated the previous, smugly confident certitude of evolutionary biology’s last twenty years has inflamed passions.” He spoke of the “lack of total agreement even within the warring camps,” and added, “things really are in an uproar these days . . . Sometimes it seems as though there are as many variations on each [evolutionary] theme as there are individual biologists.
You're working on the assumption that people believe only what is plausible? If there is any recurring theme of human thought that should stick out like a sore thumb, it's that we believe whatever the hell we want to.
It was once believed that the earth was flat. Now it has been established for a certainty that it is spherical in shape. That is a fact. It was once believed that the earth was the center of the universe and that the heavens revolved around the earth. Now we know for sure that the earth revolves in an orbit around the sun. This, too, is a fact. Many things that were once only debated theories have been established by the evidence as solid FACT. wouldn't an investigation of the evidence for evolution leave one on the same ground? Why not?
Here's one for evolutionists: If evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs.
"The fossil record in Darwin’s day proved disappointing to him in another way. He explained: "The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations has been urged by several paleontologists . . . as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species." He added: “There is another and allied difficulty, which is much more serious. I allude to the manner in which species belonging to several of the main divisions of the animal kingdom suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks. . . . ".
over a century later, a century of digging and unearthing fossils, and we still don't find any records backing evolution. A Guide to Earth History says: “By the aid of fossils palaeontologists can now give us an excellent picture of the life of past ages.” According to Robert Jastrow: "The fossil record contains no trace of these preliminary stages in the development of many-celled organisms" Instead, he states: "The record of the rocks contains very little, other than bacteria and one-celled plants until, about a billion years ago, after some three billion years of invisible progress, a major breakthrough occurred. The first many-celled creatures appeared on earth"... At the start of what is called the Cambrian period, the fossil record takes an unexplained dramatic turn. A great variety of fully developed, complex sea creatures, many with hard outer shells, appear so suddenly that this time is often called an “explosion” of living things. Geologists have discovered many unaltered Precambrian sediments, and they contain no fossils of complex organisms.
"New Scientist noted that evolution “predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” But it admitted: “Unfortunately, the fossil record does not meet this expectation, for individual species of fossils are rarely connected to one another by known intermediate forms...known fossil species do indeed appear not to evolve even over millions of years.”31 And geneticist Stebbins writes: “No transitional forms are known between any of the major phyla of animals or plants.” He speaks of “the large gaps which exist between many major categories of organisms.”32 “In fact,” The New Evolutionary Timetable acknowledges, “the fossil record does not convincingly document a single transition from one species to another. Furthermore, species lasted for astoundingly long periods of time."
There's your evidence... the fossil record, probably THE MOST ACCURATE keeper of history to DATE, doesn't agree with evolution.
what's the response to that?
On the other hand, if the Genesis creation account is factual, then the fossil record would not show one type of life turning into another. It would reflect the Genesis statement that each different type of living thing would reproduce only "according to its kind." (Genesis 1:11, 12, 21, 24, 25) Also, if living things came into being by an act of creation, there would be no partial, unfinished bones or organs in the fossil record. All fossils would be complete and highly complex, as living things are today.
8 In addition, if living things were created, they would be expected to appear suddenly in the fossil record, unconnected to anything before them. And if this was found to be true, what then? Darwin admitted: "If numerous species ... have really started into life at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of evolution."
...
-
Oh and for the record,
I really appreciate all the people that have messaged me telling me to "keep fighting the good fight", and that they've got my back.
a word to all of you: if you all back me up as much as you say you do, then why don't you get on here and voice your own opinions too :p
-
Oh, wonderful. Secret politics. That's just great.
-
[q]religion > science in this world we live in. therefore you have to accept religious evidence.[/q]
Which is just an opinion you hold, and hardly the way to convince someone to take you seriously.
By stating that religion is greater than science you imply it is superior, and thus invalidate any further discussion because it shows you cannot accept a scientific argument being equal (and thus to be debated) to your religion.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
a word to all of you: if you all back me up as much as you say you do, then why don't you get on here and voice your own opinions too :p
Cause they know they'll end up stammering and stuttering like you did when I start confronting them to explain ID.
I've already given up on you after all. It's evident that for someone who is a proponent of ID you actually know bugger all about it. That's probably no your fault of course. My whole point is that there is bugger all to know.
I find it quite funny that people spent ages debating the complexity of evolution vs ID and failed to point out that when challenged to explain ID as fully as possible no one has managed more than a couple of lines. :D
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Cause they know they'll end up stammering and stuttering like you did when I start confronting them to explain ID.
I've already given up on you after all. It's evident that for someone who is a proponent of ID you actually know bugger all about it. That's probably no your fault of course. My whole point is that there is bugger all to know.
I find it quite funny that people spent ages debating the complexity of evolution vs ID and failed to point out that when challenged to explain ID as fully as possible no one has managed more than a couple of lines. :D
No, whats amazing is no one has told me how the universe came into being, it's ether energy built up and formed matter, but there was no energy, or the Big Bang created physics, when the BB wouldn't work without physics.:p
And please stop arguing about witch is simpler or the easyier way out, if you ask me knowing there is a God is more simplier than Natural Selection, however, without the simple things, the more complex things would'nt be, as NS can't explain the simple things, like the begining, so it falls in on it's self.;)
-
Originally posted by vyper
[q]religion > science in this world we live in. therefore you have to accept religious evidence.[/q]
Which is just an opinion you hold, and hardly the way to convince someone to take you seriously.
By stating that religion is greater than science you imply it is superior, and thus invalidate any further discussion because it shows you cannot accept a scientific argument being equal (and thus to be debated) to your religion.
don't believe me? look at some of the events in recent years. many of them "in the name of religion". believe it or not, but religion holds the most power in this world.
either way, i'm just saying you can't dismiss the Bible as evidence because it's "religious".
Cause they know they'll end up stammering and stuttering like you did when I start confronting them to explain ID.
I've already given up on you after all. It's evident that for someone who is a proponent of ID you actually know bugger all about it. That's probably no your fault of course. My whole point is that there is bugger all to know.
I find it quite funny that people spent ages debating the complexity of evolution vs ID and failed to point out that when challenged to explain ID as fully as possible no one has managed more than a couple of lines.
i don't stammer and stutter... i said if you want to learn more about ID, go read the bible.
as a prodigy on evolution, please respond to my last post... the last section of it. where i stated that fossil records don't match up with the theory of evolution
-
Originally posted by Stealth
There's your evidence... the fossil record, probably THE MOST ACCURATE keeper of history to DATE, doesn't agree with evolution.
what's the response to that?
Didn't BW list a pack of fossils showing transitional developments?
And (trying to draw myself out from defending evolution here) where are the fossils of Homo Sapiens, or modern mammals? What accounts for, say, the specialization of species on the Galapagos, or in Madagascar? If the Genesis account is factual, are you denying the existence of mutation?
To use an analogy. A puddle fits the shape of a hole in the ground. It isn't designed to fit the hole that it's in, and certainly nobody designed the hole to so perfectly accomodate the shape of the puddle. But nevertheless the puddle fits.
But as Vyper has pointed out, all this is moot since in your own words, "religion > science." The very definition of Faith is continuing to believe in something, despite all evidence against it. As my grandfather says, "Don't confuse me with facts, I've made up my mind."
k. Done.
-
Religion > Science before the church started excommunicating people for saying the Earth wasn't the centre of the universe, it's a completely invalid argument.
I still don't hold that ID is a science, all the proof being shown on here is either to the credit or discredit of evolution, I still haven't seen any evidence for or against ID, which still makes it a faith matter, not a scientific theory. Evolution has stood up to the test of time, quite literally, for years, it has been constantly attacked and innumerable attempts have been made to discredit the theory. Sometimes, do a degree, they have suceeded and the theory has had to be changed slightly in light of new facts.
Creationism does not, and will not, and, to the eyes of those who believe it, cannot change to accomodate new facts, those new facts must be wrong, simply because they don't agree with the 'theory'.
Evolutionists will be the first to admit that they don't have the whole picture, we are, after all, dealing with billions of years and maybe 2% of everything that died created a fossil of some kind, and that's not including the erasure of evidence by erosion, tectonics etc, there are, without a doubt, millions of species that existed and are now extinct, that we will never know of because nothing remains of them. So no, science is not saying that Evolution is the answer, Evolution is simply a way of wording the question.
However, if in court, someone provided tons of evidence including a bloody knife, fingerprints, telephone records, and the entire defence was 'God did it, look, this book in it's 50th re-write says so!'. I know what side of the argument my 'faith' falls on, not because I hate religion or creationism particuarly, but simply because I find evolution a lot more feasible, and sensible.
Anyway, the question here is not 'Did the Bible say stuff that science later confirmed?' which it did, but then, the Ancient Persians were predicting Lunar Eclipses and working out the distance to the nearest planets whilst Christ was alive, and it is widely accepted, even in the scientific circles, that the Great Flood more than likely occured etc. The question here is 'Should ID, which has no tangible evidence to support it, only what it considers evidence to attack Evolution with, be taught in a Science Class?'. For me, the answer is 'No'. Considering, out of equal opportunities, we would also have to consider that the Universe may have been made out of some Gods Gonads or excreted from an Orofice somewhere etc.
Witches used to be burned at the stake for daring to try and heal people whom only God had 'right' to heal. Are we to, once again, have to start defending people from a Despotic church that want's to control every aspect of our lives whilst remaining bloated and seperate from reality?
Yes, evolution can be scary to people who have spent their whole lives believing the Earth was created, it is a massive, living, changing, and, dare I say it, evolving theory, it changes as new pressures are applied, and facts are proved/disproved etc.
I remember one argument for ID being a neolithic handprint that stretched across two rock strata that according to science took millions of years to form. It was the ignoring of obvious fact, the playing on peoples ignorance, that put ID on the bad side of me, it's not science, it felt more like sideshow sleight of hand.
Anyway, I do agree with Stealth that it's pointless people PMing him and saying 'We're with you!', if you're with him, stand up and be counted, if you consider people not agreeing with you as flaming, then you need to be a bit more secure in your belief, Stealth is doing a good, and very mature job of defending himself against superior numbers, and even though I don't agree with him, I respect that.
-
Originally posted by Flipside
Anyway, the question here is not 'Did the Bible say stuff that science later confirmed?' which it did, but then, the Ancient Persians were predicting Lunar Eclipses and working out the distance to the nearest planets whilst Christ was alive, and it is widely accepted, even in the scientific circles, that the Great Flood more than likely occured etc. The question here is 'Should ID, which has no tangible evidence to support it, only what it considers evidence to attack Evolution with, be taught in a Science Class?'. For me, the answer is 'No'. Considering, out of equal opportunities, we would also have to consider that the Universe may have been made out of some Gods Gonads or excreted from an Orofice somewhere etc.
I wish we'd get back to this. Nobody from the ID camp has addressed it.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
No, whats amazing is no one has told me how the universe came into being, it's ether energy built up and formed matter, but there was no energy, or the Big Bang created physics, when the BB wouldn't work without physics.:p
What's amazing is that you've failed to notice that this is a thread about ID and as such the big bang is completely off topic.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Wrong. what i'm saying is that just because science can't understand something, doesn't mean THERE HAS to be a scientific explanation. it's OK to say "Yeah. that's too complex for us to try to understand now... we'll keep trying of course, but for now we're not going to throw out stupid 'scientific' anything"...i think it's stupid that people subconsciously think that science has an explanation for everything. science doesn't in this case.
You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what science is. Here's something I said in response to Sandwich last time we had this discussion:
Cart and Horse: Science is about explaining observed facts. Not guessing an explanation and then seeing if facts fit. A subtle difference. "I wonder what will happen when I drop a bowling ball off a cliff? I bet it sits there," is not science. Science is illustrated more by the following: "Sandwich just dropped a bowling ball off a cliff and I observed it falling. What made it fall? Maybe he pushed down on it as he let it go. How can I test this idea?" The next step, of course, comes when I envision a test, like dropping another ball and pushing down on it as I do. I perform the experiment and amazingly, my experiment confirms that when I release a ball with a downward push, it falls. Is my job done? No. I now have to see if there are other possible explanations, or if my experiment is repeatable, or if my experiment is flawed in some way. I'll start with the obvious: repetition. It works every time! Done yet? No. Gotta see if the experiment is flawed. Lets do it all the same but this time, try a sideways push, or an upward push, or no push at all, or best of all, lets do it again, trying it each way. Now I see there was a problem: the ball falls no matter how I push, or even if I don't push at all. The experiment was flawed, and I have to discard my explanation and try another.
Now we have to understand what a 'theory' is and isn't. The best way to explain that is to look back at my experiments. My initial explanation (downward push on release) is called a "hypothesis". Its an reasoned guess based on observation. When a hypothesis is disproven, it has to be reworked. When it is proven, it has to be doubted and retested. Only after it has been doubted and retested, and retested, and retested, and doubted some more, and continues to pass all possible tests over time does it become a theory. And you know what happens then? It is doubted and retested some more; the only difference is that there's not much hope of it being disproven (think relativity. we've just put up another experiment to test it. Again. In case relativity might be wrong).
Under that doctrine, you can always find a scientific explanation for any phenomenon within this universe. The explanation might be wrong, but it will continue to be refined until all the 'wrong' bits are discarded, leaving a finely purified and distilled set of 'right' bits.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
i don't stammer and stutter... i said if you want to learn more about ID, go read the bible.
The bible is open to interpretation. You say read the bible but that doesn't help in the slightest. No timescale is given for how long it took God to create all the animals (beyond the 6 days thing which half of you creationists claim is absolute and the other half claim is a metaphor).
Compare that with a scientific theory and hopefully you'll see why we say that ID is unscientific. When a scientific theory says that mankind took 6 million years to evolve from our ancestors with the chimps it means 6 million years. There's none of this "yes it is", "no it isn't" nonsense.
Originally posted by Stealth
as a prodigy on evolution, please respond to my last post... the last section of it. where i stated that fossil records don't match up with the theory of evolution
Nope. Don't see why I should. There are tonnes of books where you could read an explaination of that. Furthermore you could do a search of HLP and find the answer there from a previous discussion on the topic if you were really interested.
Before you posted on this topic I asked for an explaination of ID. Thus far you have completely failed to give me one for the reasons I've detailed above. I've been waiting a day and a half and have stated my question about 20 times. Where is my answer. To a NEW question that hasn't appeared on HLP before.
As I said earlier the response of a creationist to a challenge against ID is to attack evolution. Why? Can't your theory stand up on its own? Is attacking evolution the only thing ID can do?
-
Originally posted by karajorma
As I said earlier the response of a creationist to a challenge against ID is to attack evolution. Why? Can't your theory stand up on its own? Is attacking evolution the only thing ID can do?
Yes.
-
a couple of fossils? even the fossils you mentioned are highly controversial, and the subject of many discussions and arguments to their validity. take the first one for instance. could EASILY be a dinosaur with feathers. why does that have to be the "evolution" of a dinosaur to a bird? find me the fossil of a human-looking creature with, say, fins, or gills... you won't find any. the dominant species on this planet, and there's no fossil record of any mutations/evolution involving them.
look at the coelacanth. remember that extraordinary fish? claimed for a long time to be a fish developing limbs, that lived millions of years ago. until just a few years ago they found one living off the coast of Durban.......... a fish that had "limb" looking appendages, but obviously was not the cause of evolution, since "millions of years later", the fish hadn't changed physically at all, and they're still living, in our day. find me a fossil of a human with gills or fins, or some transitionary phase in the evolutionary process of human beings. or better yet, explain to me why suddenly LIFE (<--keyword. not "simple multi-celled organisms) erupted at the beginning of the cambrian period. NOTE: didn't evolve over millions of years, but erupted.
second, you want a definition of Intelligent Design, and you refute the definitions that are thrown out why... because they're "too simple compared to evolution"? Yeah that's a great reason. Intelligent design is simple: For Christians, it means God created life (i.e. played a large part in the creation/design of life, as per the definition of ID). now you can't say "well who created God" or "how long has God been around", because some things humans just don't have answers for. If God does exist, there's no human that can tell how old He is. Second, you also can't say "well does mutation play a part in ID?" or any of those 'moot points', because that differs according to religion, etc. just as evolutionists have many different theories, so do IDs.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
As I said earlier the response of a creationist to a challenge against ID is to attack evolution. Why? Can't your theory stand up on its own? Is attacking evolution the only thing ID can do?
Well, if you want proof look around you, use common sense and you will see plenty of it, however your mind is clouded with thoughts of how it couldn't happen and therfor stops you from seeing it.
And attacking Evolution is fun, I can't help you guys made it that way.:p
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Well, if you want proof look around you, use common sense and you will see plenty of it, however your mind is clouded with thoughts of how it couldn't happen and therfor stops you from seeing it.
And attacking Evolution is fun, I can't help you guys made it that way.:p
That's not proof. The whole look around you argument is nonsense. I see nothing that can't be explained by evolution.
Yet again you attack because you can't actually even state the theory of ID.
Fail to do that by tomorrow and I think we're going to have to say that I win.
-
http://www.bowdoin.edu/~dbensen/Dinosaurs/Sinornissantensis.html
The Sinorniss is probably a better example than the Arch.
As for evidence of change, well, the cockroach didn't look very different several million years ago either, but compared to fossil records of cockroaches, the modern day ones are refined in lots of tiny, almost undetectable ways. The Croc is the most famous 'living history' we have, it has survived for all these millions of years for an incredibly obvious reason, it can. Look at the African and Indian Elephants, do you think the African Elephant evolved larger ears to get rid of heat, or the Indian ones grew smaller so that they could retain a little more? (This is a gross innacuracy from an Evolutionary point of view, but I don't accept that someone designed two different types of Elephant)
We don't have fossils of humans with gills because they never, as far as we know, had gills, they moved up from a Primate branch, which, as far as I know, contains no amphibious monkeys.
One thing I was dissapointed was never followed up was the story of 'Oliver'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_the_chimp
Not neccesarily the 'missing link' but I doubt we will ever find one. Science doesn't have all the answers, but it refuses to just write the bits it doesn't know down to 'God' and have done with it. If the evidence points to God then fine, I'm prepared to rethink, but we are working out a massive picture here, it's like a jigsaw, and we have far from all the pieces, I'm glad that increases curiousity rather than us just shutting down our brains and applying it all to God.
Oh and : The Human Appendix, which is slowly shrinking and vanishing since we no longer use it.... Evolutionary deadweight getting the Darwin treatment?
-
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
List of transitional fossils.
Incidentally, the process of fossil formation (and the conditions required) can be put within a better context; the fossils of every person that has lived on the North American subcontinent, throughout recorded history, would be expected to yield about 2 complete skeletons. That is, the amount of bones equivalent to that.
There are shale fossils discovered that show the development of micro-organic live, specifically the development of new phenotypes.
Of course, if the fossil record was complete for all history - that would be a miracle. The current situation is what is to be expected with the geological/chemical processes in action; only a tiny percentage of life on earth will ever be recorded in the fossil record.
Of course, selecting a 'theory' like Id, which is untested, designed to be untestable and has no evidence, might make someone be a little blind as to the realities of scientific investigation. Perhaps being spoonfed answers makes you believe the real world would do that too, i don't know.
[q]because you're over here saying that religious evidence doesn't qualify as evidence. and i'm saying yes it does. religion > science in this world we live in. therefore you have to accept religious evidence.[/q]
Only by your belief. Not by any empirical system.
[q]so when people say "the sun sets". (<--common expression nowdays)... that's not literally true either. the sun isn't "setting". don't see what you're getting at by quoting this verse[/q]
The bible said the sun stopped moving and stayed steady in the sky. How does that mesh with a moving earth theory?
[q]See, in Genesis 1:9,10, "And God began calling the dry land Earth"... therefore, God is referring to the land. not the planet, when "Earth" is referenced. therefore when the writer refers to "foundations", or "fixed", it doesn't necessarily mean the earth is flat, or resting on something. if the Bible does state the earth is flat, then why would it (as i quoted) refer to it as being a "circle". that wouldn't make sense, would it.[/q]
A circle is flat. Take a cd, turn it on the side. See? Flat. Would you make that interpretation if we - science - hadn't proved the earth was spherical? People 5 or 6 centuries ago didn't, after all.
[q]
four corners = North, South, East, and West. did you ever think about that? Ask any kindergarden kid what the four corners of the earth are, and they'll understand. the four winds = North, south, east and west... [/q]
Sphere doesn't have corners. Again you're interpreting based on what science has proved true. Again, an interpretation that you would - history has shown - not make without the evidence of science.
Robert Jastrow has a Phd... in theoretical physics. Not biology, or evolutionary science. So he's not even qualified.
On the other hand; page 101, The Enchanted Loom;
" The fact of evolution is not in doubt."
As an aside (because someone will doubtless try and use Darwins eye example, which confused Jastrow 'ere years after it had been solved), here's how a complex fish eye could evolve in about 350,000 years; http://www.don-lindsay-archive.org/creation/eye_stages.html
EDIT; perhaps I should put your Jastrow Quote in context
[q]The abrupt manner in which whole groups of species suddenly appear in certain formations, has been urged by several palaeontologists, for instance, by Agassiz, Pictet, and by none more forcibly than by professor Sedgwick, as a fatal objection to the belief in the transmutation of species. If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory of descent with slow modification through natural selection. For the development of a group of forms, all of which have descended from some one progenitor, must have been an extremely slow process; and the progenitors must have lived long ages before their modified descendants. But we continually over-rate the perfection of the geological record, and falsely infer, because certain genera or families have not been found beneath a certain stage, that they did not exist before that stage. We continually forget how large the world is, compared with the area over which our geological formations have been carefully examined; we forget that groups of species may elsewhere have long existed and have slowly multiplied before they invaded the ancient archipelagoes of Europe and of the United States. We do not make due allowance for the enormous intervals of time, which have probably elapsed between our consecutive formations, — longer perhaps in some cases than the time required for the accumulation of each formation. These intervals will have given time for the multiplication of species from some one or some few parent-forms; and in the succeeding formation such species will appear as if suddenly created.[/q]
Using false or misleading quotes is just pathetic.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
look at the coelacanth. remember that extraordinary fish? claimed for a long time to be a fish developing limbs, that lived millions of years ago. until just a few years ago they found one living off the coast of Durban.......... a fish that had "limb" looking appendages, but obviously was not the cause of evolution, since "millions of years later", the fish hadn't changed physically at all, and they're still living, in our day.
A creationist strawman. Just because some of those animals chose to move onto the land doesn't mean that they all had to. That's the whole purpose of speciation. You get two distinct species where only one existed before.
It's like you're saying I can't have family in a foreign country just cause my dad chose to move to the UK.
Originally posted by Stealth
find me a fossil of a human with gills or fins, or some transitionary phase in the evolutionary process of human beings.
Another strawman and one that actually reveals a deep ignorance of how evolution works. A human being with gills or fins would actually be proof AGAINST evolution not for it.
We've found tonnes but the paleontologists bury them again cause they know they'd be out of a job if people figured out that all those dinosaur bones are just the left overs from Gods chicken takeout on the 5th day. :D
Originally posted by Stealth
or better yet, explain to me why suddenly LIFE (<--keyword. not "simple multi-celled organisms) erupted at the beginning of the cambrian period. NOTE: didn't evolve over millions of years, but erupted.
Who says it didn't take millions of years? The fossil record isn't anwhere near accurate enough to give that kind of detail. You're also missing the point that a large selection pressure can push evolution forwards in a quick amount of time. Look what we've managed to do to the dog in only a few thousand years by putting an enormous selection pressure on them. The first multicellular creatures would have had an enormous positive selection pressure on an mutations that helped them. If the oceans are full of single celled bacteria any life form that can eat them is going to breed like crazy.
Originally posted by Stealth
second, you want a definition of Intelligent Design, and you refute the definitions that are thrown out why... because they're "too simple compared to evolution"?
I've thrown out every definition you've stated on the grounds that none of them have been an actual definition. They've all been vague-intions.
How long have humans existed. ID must have an answer. What is it.
Originally posted by Stealth
Second, you also can't say "well does mutation play a part in ID?" or any of those 'moot points', because that differs according to religion, etc. just as evolutionists have many different theories, so do IDs.
And you'll notice that not a single scientist claims that his theory is correct because he has no proof. Are you going to do the same and say that God existing is something you're going to try to prove but in the meantime you'll conceed that there's just as much chance that one of the other religions is right and you're wrong?
On top of that the different theories are much closer together than the disparate claims that ID makes. You can't even decided whether mankind is 200,000 years old or 6000. You can't determine whether man evolved via guided evolution or if he suddenly sprang up one day. That's a F**king huge discrepancy.
-
Show me an ID 'theory' that has ever been tested, peer-reviewed, or even just written as an abstract, I say.
-
*Lookas at thread*
*backs away slowly*
-
Even if we accept that there are many theories for ID. Give us your best one.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
a couple of fossils? even the fossils you mentioned are highly controversial, and the subject of many discussions and arguments to their validity. take the first one for instance. could EASILY be a dinosaur with feathers. why does that have to be the "evolution" of a dinosaur to a bird? find me the fossil of a human-looking creature with, say, fins, or gills... you won't find any. the dominant species on this planet, and there's no fossil record of any mutations/evolution involving them.
[edit]In my rush to post I missed something rather important. The feathered dinosaur example. It has been a long-standing hypothesis that dinosaurs had evolved into birds. There's the potential that many of them were warm-blooded, which has been bouncing around for a while, which we do not see in any reptiles on earth. And birds still have a number of somewhat reptile-like features; feathers are highly modified scales in the way that they grow, for one, and many birds still have scales on certain parts of their bodies. In fact, the feathered dinosaur (the authenticity of which isn't actually being questioned now, because we've got more than one fossil that exhibits those features) is the "missing link" from dinosaurs to birds and is something that actually supports a pre-existing hypothesis. I'm not sure about the others, but calling those fossils "highly controversial" is much like saying that there's a bitter divide in scientific community over whether Evolution actually occured. Both are completely false.[/edit]
Can you honestly have just said that the only proof you'll consider is a human with the features of some other species? Humans and fish have no common ancestor stretching back hundreds of millions of years. That's a completely retarded argument.
On the other hand, there are a number of species that offer some good examples of "transitional" structures. Whales specifically have pelvic bones that serve absolutely no function, but are a remenant of the terrestrial mammels that came before them.
You talk about the fossil record as something that should be complete. But do you have ANY IDEA how fossils are formed? Any at all? The fossil record is inherently incomplete, for a multitude of reasons, but most specifically because the conditions for fossilization to occur are incredibly limited and don't exist in many places in the whole world at any given time. The odds of an animal getting caught in those conditions and then of being undisturbed long enough to turn bone to rock are exceedingly small. Almost every species we know of today from that record exist as only skeletal fragments or a whole specimin or two. Or did you think the dinosaur skeletons you see in museums are the ACTUAL bones?
Originally posted by Stealth
look at the coelacanth. remember that extraordinary fish? claimed for a long time to be a fish developing limbs, that lived millions of years ago. until just a few years ago they found one living off the coast of Durban.......... a fish that had "limb" looking appendages, but obviously was not the cause of evolution, since "millions of years later", the fish hadn't changed physically at all, and they're still living, in our day. find me a fossil of a human with gills or fins, or some transitionary phase in the evolutionary process of human beings.
You talk as though one animal will undergo changes in its life. That's not how evolution works; just because some of this creature's decendants may have taken one evolutionary path hardly means they all did (and in fact it sort of has to be the opposite) and there are certain species out there that haven't changed much in millions of years. Crocodiles. Sharks. They'd be much better examples, except that the whole point is invalid because nowhere in any variant of evolutionary theory does it say that any one species HAS to change much over time.
Originally posted by Stealth
or better yet, explain to me why suddenly LIFE (<--keyword. not "simple multi-celled organisms) erupted at the beginning of the cambrian period. NOTE: didn't evolve over millions of years, but erupted.
First, the notes on the inherent incompleteness of the fossil record are quite pertenant here. I haven't done the detailed research into the Cambrian explosion to know for certain, but I'm fairly certain all life from that particular period was aquatic. If the conditions in the ocean weren't right for fossilization before that, we would have no record of the life that came before. Of course the more important point is what sort of window of time the record of this "explosion" take place? Seeing as how we're talking about the oldest known fossils on earth, you have to keep in mind that the resolution of any dating method is going to still be in the millions of years. (And that's assuming the dating is accurate to less than 1%, which it probably isn't). The cambrian period itself spanned hundreds of millions of years, and the growth of life where none existed before is relatively fast when conditions are favorable to it. Also, please do us all a favor and actually read something about the Cambrian Explosion that isn't paraphrased creationist bull****. Wikipedia would be a good start.
Originally posted by Stealth
Just because one second, you want a definition of Intelligent Design, and you refute the definitions that are thrown out why... because they're "too simple compared to evolution"? Yeah that's a great reason. Intelligent design is simple: For Christians, it means God created life (i.e. played a large part in the creation/design of life, as per the definition of ID). now you can't say "well who created God" or "how long has God been around", because some things humans just don't have answers for. If God does exist, there's no human that can tell how old He is. Second, you also can't say "well does mutation play a part in ID?" or any of those 'moot points', because that differs according to religion, etc. just as evolutionists have many different theories, so do IDs.
We attack the definition given because it is not a definition by any scientific principle. It's untestable, it's incohesive, and it doesn't stand up to prodding of any form. The points that evolutionists debate are beyond the level of high school biology anyway, which is really the crux of the whole damned argument. On the other hand, the points that ID supports debate are fundamental to the very concept of ID, which is a very clear indicator that it's not real science.
And what, exactly, does ID mean to non-Christians?
-
Since it's more or less on topic, I thought I'd throw this link out there.
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/)
-
give us an experiment, if ID is a theory, not just an assertions or speculation than it MUST, as per the definition of the word theory in a scientific contect, must be testable. come up with something, it doesn't even have to be practical at this point I just want SOMETHING that could posably test it, hell you don't even have to fully develop an full experiment, just give me some aspect of ID that one could make an experiment from.
-
[q]"... there are many reasons why you might not understand [an explanation of a scientific theory] ... Finally, there is this possibility: after I tell you something, you just can't believe it. You can't accept it. You don't like it. A little screen comes down and you don't listen anymore. I'm going to describe to you how Nature is - and if you don't like it, that's going to get in the way of your understanding it. It's a problem that [scientists] have learned to deal with: They've learned to realize that whether they like a theory or they don't like a theory is not the essential question. Rather, it is whether or not the theory gives predictions that agree with experiment. It is not a question of whether a theory is philosophically delightful, or easy to understand, or perfectly reasonable from the point of view of common sense. [A scientific theory] describes Nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And it agrees fully with experiment. So I hope you can accept Nature as She is - absurd.
I'm going to have fun telling you about this absurdity, because I find it delightful. Please don't turn yourself off because you can't believe Nature is so strange. Just hear me all out, and I hope you'll be as delighted as I am when we're through. "
[/q]
- Richard P. Feynman
-
Feynman is my hero. :D
-
Question: Why do we keep having these threads ad nauseam? There's no chance of either side ever being convinced.
-
It keeps our debating skills sharp for when someone tries to bring this into our schools :)
EDIT: And I will reiterate that I don't have any issue with ID as a system of beliefs. It's a incoherent system of beliefs that basically amounts to "science makes the way I read the Bible impossible, so it must be wrong" and really nothing else, but whatever. If people want to believe that and go about their lives, let them. It's when it gets pushed on the world as "truth" by being equated with very sound science, and taught to children on that same level of factual truth, that I have major issues with the whole thing. You don't learn about the parting of the red sea in History class, you shouldn't be taught that God created the world in 7 days in Biology. Believe what you want to believe. Go to church. Don't mascarade as something your not to force it on everyone else.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
Question: Why do we keep having these threads ad nauseam? There's no chance of either side ever being convinced.
Because if we don't challenge it, the uneducated person might think the loudest, most irrational person is actually right, y'know? There's always a worry that the most vocal minority is mistaken for being correct, after all.
If someone yells 'this is a flaw, and he said this', etc, to try and decry, well, anything, it's only fair we should pop up and point out that they're wilfully misleading people and ignoring evidence or, as I've noticed, making up or deliberately misquoting quotes.
The latter in particular pisses me off, especially when the sources are omitted (presumably to make it easier to quote out of context).
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
Question: Why do we keep having these threads ad nauseam? There's no chance of either side ever being convinced.
If presented some solid, real, scientific evidence I could be convinced. :p
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
Question: Why do we keep having these threads ad nauseam? There's no chance of either side ever being convinced.
Because God wills it.
-
Since you posted the thread, are you God?
I'll take that theory over ID really.
-
yup
/*smites some people*/
and just for fun
human with gills
(http://www.palaeos.com/Vertebrates/Bones/Gill_Arches/Images/Meckel4.jpg)
although technacly they aren't gills they are the same structures that form into gills in the animals that do have them.
-
I ran across this on CNN today. It's relevant here.
Bird flu 'resistant to main drug' (http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/09/30/birdflu.drugs.reut/index.html)
What's happened is that a strain of this virus, which may or may not have been present at all just a couple of years ago (for the purposes of this debate it really doesn't matter how old the strain is) has become a dominant strain in parts of Asia. From an evolutionary perspective, this happened because one viral cell gained a resistance to the common drug and multiplied. When the drug was applied to try to kill the virus, this one survived and went on to infect others. The cycle repeated itself, and over time the selecting factor (the medicine that was supposed to stop the virus from multiplying) made this strain the most efficient and most likely to survive. Well survive it did. If the strain is older, then natural selection (with human influence, intentional or not, as we're still part of that selection process) is being evidenced on a very rapid scale. If the strain is new, then the whole mutation-leading-to-competitive-edge theory is being proven again. Now I will make full disclosure on this issue; viral reproduction and evolution is a bit different from any true cell-based life. For that matter, no one has really decided if viri are actually alive. But the same principles apply. We can see natural selection and evolution much more readily in viri and simple bacteria just because they are rediculously simple in terms of their genetic code and overall structure in comparison to any higher-order life, and because their reproduction rate is so fast.
How would ID explain it? Pathogen evolution is a very real, very observable fact of nature, but I've yet to see an ID proponent even acknowledge that it happens.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
That's not proof. The whole look around you argument is nonsense. I see nothing that can't be explained by evolution.
Yet again you attack because you can't actually even state the theory of ID.
Fail to do that by tomorrow and I think we're going to have to say that I win.
Ok, Karajorma, do you want proof? Do you really want it, but first of all this is not about who wins the debate.
If you really want proof I sujest you go find it yourself, why you ask? Cause no matter what I post or anyone else posts, it's not gonna do anything for you, your gonna find someway to say you disprove it,and for you to belive anything you've got to see it yourself. So I sujest you go find God, go off by yourself for a little while. If you truly want to find proof, if you really in your heart want to know, belive me, God will find you.
However that is not what you want, you do not want to find God, I don't know maybe your scared of what you will find.Or you don't want to give up your natural selection or you want to be fully in control of you life. So, I Challange you, go find God.:nod: Same goes for all the rest of you.
-
You heard the man, Kara. Go find god. And if it happens to be Aphrodite, for goodness sake, close the door.
-
well here we have the principal issue, science isn't about haveing a forgone conclusion and trying to find proof, it's about makeing observations trying to figure out those observeations and testing to see if you are right. going out with the express purpose of finding God assumes that a God exsists and that there is evedence for it without haveing that evedence first. your line of thinking is diametric to science, and includeing it in a science class is just absurd, it'd be like a preist telling you in church to go on aobut town indulgeing in every dark impulse you have, it's just the absolute definition of the polar opposite of what it's all about.
in science you don't go looking to prove yourself right, because no matter what you think is right you will always find something that you can interpet as coroborateing. in science you go out and try to prove yourself wrong.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
well here we have the principal issue, science isn't about haveing a forgone conclusion and trying to find proof, it's about makeing observations trying to figure out those observeations and testing to see if you are right. going out with the express purpose of finding God assumes that a God exsists and that there is evedence for it without haveing that evedence first. your line of thinking is diametric to science, and includeing it in a science class is just absurd, it'd be like a preist telling you in church to go on aobut town indulgeing in every dark impulse you have, it's just the absolute definition of the polar opposite of what it's all about.
in science you don't go looking to prove yourself right, because no matter what you think is right you will always find something that you can interpet as coroborateing. in science you go out and try to prove yourself wrong.
Bob, you go find him too. Don't tell me how wrong it is in science and all that stuff, once again if you really want to find proof, go looking for it, like I said before if you really want to know go find Him. You want be disiponted.;)
-
And that is the worst possible argument to bring in to the ID debate. Because you're basically conceding that ID is not a science but instead is a manifestation of a belief in God, and then going on to say that everyone who "finds God" will then have the same belief as you. If ID were being used in any context besides the teaching of creation in schools, you might have a point. If you know of anywhere that this isn't the case, please do tell. Until then, keep your evangalism out of this thread.
-
Now that we've stated our case I think we evolutionists should keep ours out, too.
I wish we'd go back to debating the merits of teaching ID in schools vs. not. That's what's new and topical. All this creation vs. evolution stuff has been debated, as you say, 'ad nauseum.'
-
Originally posted by Galemp
I wish we'd go back to debating the merits of teaching ID in schools vs. not. That's what's new and topical. All this creation vs. evolution stuff has been debated, as you say, 'ad nauseum.'
WeatherOp has proven, beyond anything that I can do, the exact reason that ID has no merit for being taught in schools. It is religion hiding behind pseudo-science, nothing more, and by Seperation of Church and State it is not permissable in public schools.
EDIT: Because I don't want to steal the thunder of Bobboau's next post, this is going here.
What might not at least be an absolute lie would be a push to just eliminating origins discussions from public schools altogether. If you're arguing that evolution is some sort of religion, then the shoe fits for it being unconstitutional. Of course any scientist will tell you that true science is not a religion, so that's of very limited validity, but at least it addresses the right concerns. The fact that the ID camp isn't trying to force evolution out right now smacks of a hidden (ok, so not so well hidden) agenda, which really tends to drive people like me up a wall.
-
if I wanted to belive in farries bad enough I'd be able to go out and find evedence of them everywere, if I realy belived in them strong enough I'd feel there preasence. when I was a child I belived in monsters under my bed and in my closet, I could feel them watching me and on occasion I could actualy see them (down to sevral cases of rather frightening halucination on my part, not just seeing a sadow and thinking it was a monster actualy haveing a head or hand come out from under the bed, or seeing glowing eyes move in the dark, I could tell you some stories that would put your hair on end) but I eventualy realised that they always fell short of actualy hurting me and eventualy I realised that they were only as real as I thought they were.
and you know I have tried to find God, unfortunately he doesn't like sceptics, every time I thought I felt something or something happened, I'd stop and think, "is this realy a mirical?" I'd stop and I'd think do I blame god for all the bad things? why should I acredit all the good to him then? like the monsters under my bed I realised God was only as real as I wanted him to be and in my dispaire, I begged God to prove me wrong to do something, anything, that I couldn't explain, or at least to do something extreemly unlikely, for years I sat on my front poarch and said to God, if you are real, make a lightning strike here in front of me, please I just want something I can see, just some trifal showing of your power. in the schools as other kids were throughing rocks at me I asked God to protect me, in the classes I saught Gods help in obtaining wisdom and I don't just mean on tests, ongoing at night and during the days I asked God for help or at least for a sign. eventualy I realised I would get none, and that I was alone. I don't have people beating me and I don't have problems in school any more, God has never showen me a sign. God is a figmant of our culture, and though I have no doubt that you have unshakeable faith, and I realy don't care weather you agree with me, there is one thing you must agree with me upon, God is not within the realm of science, and trying to put him there will result in you not finding him.
if you think science has any place within the schools, if you think our childeren should be exposed to the principals of observation and experimentation as a disipline, if you think that the modern world is better with the food production desiese prevention and cures, the life spans three times what they once were, if you beleive that this is good, then you will keep God out of science, because if God gets into science one of them will be destroied. if however you keep your religon and your science seporate, you can still have your relationship woth God and reep the benifits of science.
-
All I'll say is that if ID is truly 'Intelligent Design' and not simply Christianity in a Lab-Coat then you should be teaching this. (http://folkloreandmyth.netfirms.com/creationmyths.html) as well, since after all, they all fall under the umbrella of Intelligent Design, and there are hundreds more like them.
http://www.timelessmyths.com/classical/creation.html
-
Indeed, and we can't forget the Hindu trinity, especially since this is a Freespace forum.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I could tell you some stories that would put your hair on end
Everyone, gather round the fire, and let chief Bob tell us some SCAAAAAARY STOOOOORIES!
-
once, I was sleeping on the edge of my bed with my parents, and a monster that looked quite similar to the gohst busters gargoil, but much smaller just sort of came up right in front of me. doesn't sound to bad, but think about it, you are a little kid and this thing just shows up, eyes glowing less than half a foot away from your head, totaly lit properly looking totaly real. I froze for a second it just sort of stayed there stairing at me untill I freaked out and turned twards my mom, when I turned back it was gone.
there was another common monster it was basicly just a set of huge hands that if I ever put my feet on the ground he'd grab me, and presumably do something unpleasent that I didn't want to find out. now that I think about it, the hands were about the size of a Vasudan hand... though they were a bit meatier.
now the realy scary one was this one time were I had this hypothosis, if I was under the bed when the lights whent out, the monsters couldn't be there, and then all I'd have to do was keep the ones in the closet at bay, and the dog was good at that, so, I go under the bed and try sleeping there, it works, first night, no monsters not nothing. next night, same deal, I'm prety hot **** no? keep doing this untill eventualy, one night I'm under there and thinking about it, trying to get to sleep, then I see something at my feet, something glowing, sort of a green glow like glow in the dark toy type things, two circular shapes, two eyes just a bit above my feet, looking right at me. I think: "hmmm, well I guess I wasn't right after all was I. nope not right at all, there is a monster, right next to my foot... crap!" I don't move for a few seconds, looking at it looking at me, and I think: "well it doesn't seem to be atacking me, maybe it's not a monster, it sort of looks like a couple glow in the dark constructs (a toy I had in great abundence) maybe there were a few of them under here and I just didn't noice them untill now, and for some reason they are hovering half a foot in the air" so I bend over to touch them (obviusly a briliant move, lets put our hand on the mouth end of a monster) and just as I'm thinking well it hasn't moved sence I started bending over it's probly nothing, they rushed right at my face, my hand whent right through the middle of them and they went right through my head and out from under the bed into my room and disapeared. I then proceeded to freak out and scream and run to mom's room running into my door then opening it, then running into her door then opening it, and continued to freak out for some time.
the oldest monster I had to worry about as a kid, was this nebulus floating thing that only came out in the dark, funny thing about this is I can still see it, it's a real optical illusion, go into a dark room and look into the darkest corner you can find, there'll be a little tingle of light caused by the receptors in your eye fireing randomly every now and then
and there were a bunch of snake things, holes would form out in the yard and a hord of large snake monsters would come out, I'd have to seal up the room I was in to keep them out, putting towens under doors and locking windows, putting heavy objects over top air vent's ect...
all of these manifested themselves in full blowen halucinations at least once, includeing both sight and sound.
-
Stealth, do you understand what a scientific theory is? Here's some definitions:
1 - A systematically organized body of knowledge applicable in a relatively wide variety of circumstances, especially a system of assumptions, accepted principles, and rules of procedure devised to analyze, predict, or otherwise explain the nature or behavior of a specified set of phenomena.
2 - Abstract reasoning; speculation.
You seem to be treating evolution as if it's the second definition, which is how theory is often defined in vernacular usage. But that's 100% wrong. A scientific theory is the first definition.
The theory of evolution can and has demonstrated the ability to predict and explain the changes that occur to species over time. ID has no predictive ability whatsoever. It is not science. It never will be, unless god is proven to exist.
ID is basically the god-powered version of genetic engineering, which artificially modifies organisms in ways that evolution can or has not done, eg, monkeys with genes for glow-in-the-dark ability that were spliced in from a completely different animal. This is no evolution, this is manipulation. Moreover, there's no proof for any actual 'intelligence' in the evolutionary record as opposed to our glow in the dark monkey which has been modified using scientifically tested means by intelligences (us).
Show us the money stealth. Give us one pro-ID piece of evidence, and lack of evidence does not count as evidence.
-
@ Bob
Seems to me someone exposed you to some horror movies when you were a kid. Neighbour friend of mine had sort of the same fears and nightmares, but that was because his parents were morons.
You're pretty ****ed up though.
The worst I ever feared were spiders and centipedes entering my ears, but then again, that was a justified fear because at any given time, we'd have about 5-10 spiders and centipedes in the apartment that we assuredly knew of (you could see them when they moved from place to place, place I lived at had palm trees outside, so you can imagine the heat and ultimately, the insects and bugs in abundance), and sometimes during the daytime they'd like to crawl all over you (centipedes), used to freak my mother out even though that type were only veggie eaters.
Neways, looks like you have quite an imagination there. Though it does sounds like borderline schizophrenia.
-
Originally posted by Shrike
The theory of evolution can and has demonstrated the ability to predict and explain the changes that occur to species over time. ID has no predictive ability whatsoever. It is not science. It never will be, unless god is proven to exist.
And that last bit might be a little hard to do, since the main tenent of God is faith, which sort of rules out proveability.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Bob, you go find him too. Don't tell me how wrong it is in science and all that stuff, once again if you really want to find proof, go looking for it, like I said before if you really want to know go find Him. You want be disiponted.;)
Bob....;)
1 Kings 19:11-12
11:And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
12:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
-
Did you even read Bob's post?!?
Originally posted by Corsair
And that last bit might be a little hard to do, since the main tenent of God is faith, which sort of rules out proveability.
Precisely. And any relationship with God has to be based purely in faith. Which is why any true Christian should oppose Intelligent Design, as it is an attempt to force children to accept God on the basis of someone elses words rather than on their own faith.
-
I went looking and was disapointed.
I would rather know a horable truth than a wonderful lie, that's how I've always been. I would love it if the things you say are true, but after looking for it, after wanting it to be true, I have found nothing.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I went looking and was disapointed.
I would rather know a horable truth than a wonderful lie, that's how I've always been. I would love it if the things you say are true, but after looking for it, after wanting it to be true, I have found nothing.
I don't want to be mean or anything, but thats not looking, true looking would be looking from the heart, not trying to call upon Him during trouble. See you cannot see thru the heart like I can, you will not see God working behind the scenes, look deeper, if you really, truly want to find him,, you will find him, I can assure you of that.:nod:
For as the verse said above, you will not find him in the wind, you will not find him in the fire, you will not find him in the quakes, you will find him in that still small voice speaking, then after you find him, then you will hear see him in the wind, then you will see him in the fire, then you will see him in the earthquake, But then you will still hear him in that still small voice.:nod:
-
You scare me.
And not in a good way.
I swear that's what the creepy people who try to sell me religious magazines say when they come to my door.
There's a reason why I don't open the door to them anymore. Okay the first few times was fun and we all had a laugh, but it started taking a turn for the weird after awhile.
-
I'm always fascinated by the assumption that God is male. Why does a supposedly singular deity need a penis anyway? I guess the music of the spheres is man's work.
(I still think Aphrodite is a lot more convenient. ;7)
-
I've always been of the stance that "He" and "Him" are not necessarily gender-specific. Just like "mankind" or "man" in the sense of our race. Such is how I've always interpreted it with God, when gender is not specified but a singular pronoun is needed, the language defaults to male. I don't see why God would have or need a gender. Which is why I find it really annoying when people refer to God as "She", simply because then they ARE specifying a gender. A big thanks to the Feminists for that one :doubt:
-
I was realy young, I could feel god with me and all the stuff you describe, I wouldant alow myself to consiter I was wrong about there being a god because it scared me.
what happened? I started looking at the world objectively, I started questioning myself, I asked unpleasent questions. I came to the realiseation that God is not real.
-
I've always been of the stance that "He" and "Him" are not necessarily gender-specific. Just like "mankind" or "man" in the sense of our race. Such is how I've always interpreted it with God, when gender is not specified but a singular pronoun is needed, the language defaults to male. I don't see why God would have or need a gender. Which is why I find it really annoying when people refer to God as "She", simply because then they ARE specifying a gender. A big thanks to the Feminists for that one
Yes, it was more of a rhetorical question. It's universal for cultures to default to the masculine when something needs gender identification. I'm just fascinated by large concepts being linguistically constrained.
God, in my view, is an emotion-- it is an impulse that lies within atheists and theists alike. The difference is that atheists ignore it, and religious people conclude that this instinct is based in reality. Too bad it doesn't matter. Heh heh.
-
yes.
so... can we all now agree that God does not belong in a bioligy class?
-
I'm waiting for Stealth's rebuttal, as I haven't seen him online since his last post. WeatherOp doesn't seem to be pretending that it's valid science.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
I was realy young, I could feel god with me and all the stuff you describe, I wouldant alow myself to consiter I was wrong about there being a god because it scared me.
what happened? I started looking at the world objectively, I started questioning myself, I asked unpleasent questions. I came to the realiseation that God is not real.
What happened? You reached the age of acountability, by reaching that age, you lost all the safe feeling you had, and it's because you are not safe in the arms of God like you were.
However, you don't know what it feels like, to be a child of God, like the song says,
"Do you know how it feels to be a child of the king, your heavenly Father owns everything, do you know how it feels to know you are loved, by the one who created the stars up above, do you know how it feels to know your allright when you lay your head on you pillow at night, and to know that it's real, tell me do you know how it feels"
Now while it might seam silly to some, and to others I might be crazy, but I'm glad I'm not.;) Good night.
-
well, ok, you want to teach that? in a calss? on biology?
-
I don't see why not-- it's a lot easier to understand. All that stuff about the Krebs cycle and carbon molecules just confused the hell out of me. I bombed those tests.
-
I think the debate is focusing more on "does evolution belong in a science classroom?" now. WeatherOp has already conceded that ID doesn't belong in schools. Stealth has avoided the question in wishy-washy ways.
Evolution belongs in science classrooms by definition, it's a scientific theory. I know someone will come by and then argue "Well, scientists still don't know exactly how the first organisms that everything evolved from were" or "There are still chances for evolution to be falsified by new species being discovered", but those arguments are silly. No theory of science purports to be perfect, or explain everything (well, aside from grand unification theories ;)). Nobody argues that Newton's law of gravity should not be taught just because we've yet to discover gravitrons or gravity waves, that's silly.
BTW: It's like a nasty sabotage attack really. Like "I don't have any rational thought or evidence behind my viewpoint... so let's take the other viewpoint out with pseudo-scientific BS". That's all Stealth's been doing in this thread...
-
Bob, can't you see that WeatherOp is using classic ID arguing technique on you? Instead of actually addressing the issue, they attempt character assassination as a diversionary tactic. In his case, it's "I've found God and therefore I'm saved, you should find [my God] too [because I can't come up with an answer to your question/reason for your response that doesn't shatter my own world view]". I've made my stance on that kind of proselytizing before and won't make it again, but it's a completely useless argument 99.9% of the time. And it pretty much prevents them from accepting any kind of fallacy on their part.
And the only reason I even brought up the question of evolution in the classroom is that it really seems like the logical next step from introducing Intelligent Design into the equation. Which of course is rubbish, since that would not only involve defining athiesm as a religion, it would be assigning religion-neutral scientific theory to that non-religion. So it isn't going to happen any time soon. I've just got to figure out if ID is a last grasp by literalists or if it is the visible head of some deeper conspiracy.
-
you realy want to know what turned me away from religon? you. people of faith. I would see people, things would happen and they would take it in stride without concern because god was protecting them, people spending untill they were $100,000 in debt, I have an aunt who was an alchoholic, when I was a child she was very determined and self asured, but over the years I watched her become dependent upon her religon untill she went insane, litteraly 'seeing visions of mary and her dead mother' insane. a few months ago we were hard into debt, we had to cut back on food to pay bills the school tuition for me my brother and my sister were all due, and I had to give my mom "the stash" to help pay off the bills, I was hard at work trying to get ourselves a workable budget, when all the sudden we got $4,000 from a lawsuit settlement regarding a medicine mom used to take. she said it was a miricle, I thought it was good timeing, I thought we should continue with the budget I had worked out, but no, 'god's takeing care of us son' a month later we were right back were we were. god isn't there he isn't going to help you, you are only going to help your self, and your kin. you can't count on God because god only gets credit after the fact,
I have never seen God in my life, and all the people who claim to seem to be worse from it.
but that's just me.
-
Bob, I can actually sympathise with you a lot there. I too have an aunt who is quite literally crazy (not to the visions point, thankfully) and she is literally the most self-centered person I have ever met to boot. She's 55 years old, and only two months ago started her first real job. She relies 100% on the charity of others (when she had nowhere to live, my grandparents BUILT HER A HOUSE. On veteran's stipends, a very meager farm income, and their life savings and she's still not grateful enough to them to pay the meager rent they oh-so-politely ask). Everything that goes right in her life (including my Grandparents' gift of a house) is a "gift from God", everything wrong is "God's test" even though she's royally ****ed herself over more times than I can count.
And as someone who is somewhat religious, that saddens me. I do wish people like that didn't exist because they represent the faith exceptionally poorly. For every one person they think they've converted, they turn 1000 away. But then I am in the camp that fully believes that taking care of one's own life is a first order priority, and doing God's work is only possible if your own life is in order. I believe that God does not interfere in this life, and looking for Him to do so is just wasting your life away. All the people I know who are comfortable in their faith don't need to go around proclaiming it to the world. The way I see it, Christianity really boils down to two things: be good to your fellow man, and try to encourage others, by word and example to do the same. The rest is philosophical and internal to one's own person, and so my beliefs there have nothing to do with how I interact with others. Those who claim to love the Lord and still wrong other people are not keeping the faith in any meaningful way. I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying that, but it's the closest thing to universal truth that I've found in my life so I'll stand by it unless I personally experience anything to discredit it.
And since my beliefs are my beliefs, I don't want them falsely presented as science. I want people to reach their faith in their own way, at their own time, and with their own interpretation. And really, I can't see how an honest Christian could want otherwise. I want to get that out there before the religious bunch comes in here and starts making this personal.
EDIT:The origin of the universe - and by that I mean whatever cosmic event left us with gobs of differentiated matter and energy - is a philosophical debate as much as it is a scientific one, but it really has nothing to do with ID or evolution. And it is only there that science is still murky enough to even think of presenting students with a "balanced" viewpoint if you're in to that sort of thing (though I favor the "we don't know" approach myself). I should probably clarify why I think it's important to share my religious beliefs. Since apparently "it's not science", which is the painfully obvious response, isn't effective, I felt I needed to clarify just why I vehemently disagree with ID in general and especially with its role as an attempted displacer of evolutionary theory. It goes against my religion to support it. I hope I've done that satisfactorily, but I'm sure I'm still going to have to defend my statements anyway.
-
Sounds more to me like Bob is a very lucid dreamer (Yes, lucid dreams can continue whilst you are awake) who had trouble controlling it when he was young. Do you remember your dreams nowadays? I used to have very similar experiences and my mind's self-defence was such that I can never ever remember my dreams these days.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
There's your evidence... the fossil record, probably THE MOST ACCURATE keeper of history to DATE, doesn't agree with evolution.
what's the response to that?
The response is quite simple - you don't know your palaeontology. There are dozens of transitional fossils, from simple animals (the best documented is the transition from regular to irregular echinoids), from more complex animals (as I mentioned above) and from simple to more complex animals. You can find these in the various links people have posted, on wikipedia (the Cambrian Explosion article is a very good one) and in textbooks. Go look for them. Stop spouting dogma and try to see the science. Then, if you still disagree with the evidence, come back and tell us why.
This is really frustrating because I know you're wrong. I've seen some of these transitional fossils with my own eyes, touched them with my own hands. They're there if you're willing to ask a few questions and actually look for the answers.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
a couple of fossils? even the fossils you mentioned are highly controversial, and the subject of many discussions and arguments to their validity. take the first one for instance. could EASILY be a dinosaur with feathers. why does that have to be the "evolution" of a dinosaur to a bird?
Are they highly controversial, or are you making that up? Did you look them up and try to find out about them, or did you just assume? You don't actually have to answer that because I know that you did not bother looking into them, because, apart from Archaeopteryx, neither of the two fossils I mentioned are in any way controversial, and the controversy over archaopteryx is far less significant than creationists make it out o be. Also note that those are just examples of long, much more comprehensive chains of evolutionary progress between the two end member groups. moreover, there are dozens of other transitions documented in the fossil record that I haven't mentioned.
As for Archaeopteryx, the answer is quite simple. It has the skeleton, teeth and bony tail of a dinosaur, and the feathers of a bird. Before it, there are more primitive feathered reptiles. After it, there are more advanced feathered reptiles and true birds. Where is the problem in that?
Originally posted by Stealth
look at the coelacanth. remember that extraordinary fish? claimed for a long time to be a fish developing limbs, that lived millions of years ago. until just a few years ago they found one living off the coast of Durban.......... a fish that had "limb" looking appendages, but obviously was not the cause of evolution, since "millions of years later", the fish hadn't changed physically at all, and they're still living, in our day.
[/b]
Nobody ever claimed the Coelocanth was developing limbs. The last Coelocanth fossils disappear at the end of the Cretaceous, hundreds of millions of years after limbs were already well developed. It's a member of the group of fish known as lobe fins, and the group evolved limbs all those millions of years ago, not the individual.
Originally posted by Stealth
or better yet, explain to me why suddenly LIFE (<--keyword. not "simple multi-celled organisms) erupted at the beginning of the cambrian period. NOTE: didn't evolve over millions of years, but erupted.
Simple fact is that it didn't - check out the wikipedia article - the development of sexual reproduction led to an invertebrate diversification that lasted between thirty and sixty million years. It's nothing at all like the "explosion" it's made out to be.
-
[edit]this was in responce to flipside, I sort of went off on just a tiny little a tangent, so feel free to ignore this post unless you want to here more about how fuct up i am. it has absolutely nothing to do with the topic[/edit]
I remember dreams, but there usualy mundain or not extrodanary enough for me to keep them for more than a few minutes.
funny thing, none of those events happened after I fell asleep, I was quite awake. and well the actual funny thing was, I actualy wanted nightmares, I thought they were cool, like a 3d first person horror movie. I had a couple reacuring ones, best one I can remember to this day I refered to as the 'devil stone rock' (named it when I was like 3 so give me a break) what I can remember basicly, my family went to a house for some party or something and I got seperated (went exploreing) I'd go through this laberinth like house untill I came to a room with ghosts in it, they told me to do something or something and I did it, and eventualy I'd make my way back to my parents who were outside in the bakc on a patio with some other people and there were a few large rocks behind one of wich I would realise the devil was hideing behind and then I'd wake up. I'd always try to go back to sleep to try to figure out what the hell was going on, but I could never get further than that. there was also a dream I had were a giant demon was eating the moon (and all sorts of other apochtoliptic stuff, but the moon eating was the only consistant theam). and a dream I had were the sky was red and I looked up and I could see all the planets aligned, a feeling of dread would overcome me and I'd hear or sence a loud noise or something and turn to face it and then woke up (from this I jokeingly came to prophisise that the world would end on may 14th 2000, because shortly after I started haveing this dream I say a star gazer eppisode that said all the planets would allign on that date and affter seeing that epp I never had that dream again)
lots of variants of me running around my childhood neghborhood and finding things changed or old things that I hadn't found when I lived there or there being some omenus 'thing' most memorable was basicly a floating manta ray type thing that left a trail of darkness.
a bunch of weird dreams with lots of bizar sadistic and sexual things going on (for instance a small woman doing mechanical backflips naked contorting herself every time she landed while a dog licked her genitals. I remember wakeing up and thinking: what... the... ... FAUCK!? :wtf: )
there have been very few dreams that truely frightened me, though there was one such dream not to long ago, I actualy remember the date, august 8th, I remember it because that was the day befor a girl I had been in love with for the last two years was suposed to be getting back from a trip. in the dream the girl was over at my house (and the setting seemed to change from my house to my grandma's house a lot at random for the most part, but it seemed when we were inside it was my house and when outside it was grandma's house) we were sitting in the liveing room and she had an ice pack because she had pulled a muscle or something while gone, we were talking about something, when a bunch of cop cars whent running by the house and pulled someone(s) over at the printing shop about 100(ish) meters from my house (this happens on occasion) she got freaked and wanted to go home, I told her there was nothing to worry about but she insisted, so I showed her out and she got in her car as I walked back in (the setting had now changed to my grandma's house) my grandma one of my uncle and my two closest (see them on rare occasion) cousins asked me were she was, I said she wanted to go home, then though she might still be in her car, I wen't back to find her and it looked like she was still there, untill I looked back to tell them she was there and I saw them all running away from me and around the house (wich relitive to the orientation of grandma's house was in the same direction as the printing shop) the girl was in front of them all and I figured they she was going to run around and I went to cut her off, as she came around the house I went to grab her, she had a look of 'aw you got me' and I was just about to put my arms around her when (and here is were it starts getting freaky) my arms got pulled together by some unseen force, I stoped and thought "hmm that was weird" and tried again this time not only did my arms get pulled together but I got pulled off into the sky by this dark sadowy (kind of hary) looking figure wich then let me go and I woke up. first time I woke up in a blind panic (my arms were crossed together BTW). and I was disturbed for the better part of the day. that girl never called me btw, I didn't hear from her for more than a month (a month and a day to be presice, on september 10th) untill she called me and told me in a 5 minute 12 second (phone history, I'm not that obsesed) conversation that, she moved to Chicago for school and she wouldn't be able to talk to me anymore (untill she gets back), I tried haveing a conversation with her about how things were and what she was doing, she said that she knew some girls up there, and mentioned someone named Cody, and upon asking who Cody was she said 'oh, you're kidding you know who he is', and I'm like "no, that's someone I've never met", I hear silence and the phone cuts out. confused I call her back, and she very quickly (almost as in a panic) tells me that she can't use her phone and she'll call me when she comes back into town, and I also hear that she has a 'frend' up there that she's been visiting all summer (wich would explain why I could never get her to do anything) when she had been telling me that she was going up there to look at schools. now honestly I had never told her (well that isn't completely true, I had but I think she thought I was jokeing) how I felt, and every time I tried bringing it up she was all "oh, I don't want a boyfrend" so I didn't push the issue, but she had to know I was constantly showering her with gifts and stuff. every time I was about to give up and move on she'd say something or do something that made me feel like a jackass for consitering it. so... ehm... yeah... no religion in the science class... :yes:
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
You can find these in the various links people have posted, on wikipedia (the Cambrian Explosion article is a very good one) and in textbooks. Go look for them. Stop spouting dogma and try to see the science. Then, if you still disagree with the evidence, come back and tell us why.
You know, I'd guess that the Wikipedia has very good coverage of all of the common ID reasonings. I may have to do a little digging.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Bob....;)
1 Kings 19:11-12
11:And, behold, the LORD passed by, and a great and strong wind rent the mountains, and brake in pieces the rocks before the LORD; but the LORD was not in the wind: and after the wind an earthquake; but the LORD was not in the earthquake:
12:And after the earthquake a fire; but the LORD was not in the fire: and after the fire a still small voice.
Aldos Instinctive Response
1-1: God does not exist but still exists in social groups due to the release of pleasurable neurochemicals during religious worship.
1-2: If God exists, he doesn't seem to do much nowadays
1-3: Nor is he very good at documenting himself
1-4: plus it would be a bit daft if God existed, 'gave' us these highly developed brains, and then expected us never to use them.
1-5: Man could have easily created God as God could have created Man
However, the issue of belief is beside the point. So long as you aren't suggesting that ID should be taught as science, I don't really object to you having Christian or otherwise beliefs, even if I disagree with the content or reasoning of them.
But I think it'd be a bit obvious that a belief fits none of the requirements for science. We have had hundreds of thousands of religions throughout time, after all, and they can't all be right. My point about bible literalism would be that, it's only divine from the POW of someone who believes it is already.
From an anthropological view, it's a book which was written by man, to satisfy the societal 'needs' perceieved by those men. So we have instructions about battlements on houses and not wearing mixed cloth, bits where killing of pregnant women is condoned (apparently there are several lines about 'slicing the belly open' to paraphrase), the earth has 4 corners, a politically motivated allegory between Nero and the Devil forming Revelations, exagerrated folklore such as forming the Flood mythology, etc - so it's basically hyperbole intended to convince the population to act in a particular way, using a 'supreme being' and the promise of an intangible reward (heaven) as leverage.
So whilst you can cite it as some form of proof.... it isn't. It's no more proof than 2001 is of the existence of aliens. And to a Muslim, Sikh, etc it's probably not regarded as literally true either (not to mention we know parts are not the literal truth, such as the obvious value of pi example, so we know the bible is not infallible). Because of this - even ignoring the complete lack of evidence behind - you can't teach one specific creationist theory as 'science' without having to teach all, as they are all equally merited (and equally lacking in evidence...).
And you can't teach 'ID' as a theory because it doesn't have any form. There are no answers, just a set of criticisms aimed at evolution which often wilfully ignore or misconstrue facts and explanations (sometimes, as evidenced here, 'because they are complicated'), sometimes supported by deliberate misquotation. Not only does it not have any characteristics redolent of science, it actually seeks to destroy science by ignoring the facts behind evolutionary theory - ID is, in effect, anti-science. And in that it's no less invalid than phrenology or the flat earth theory.
I'll admit that reading up on background stuff to this thread - particularly bits from the Bible - has actually convinced me to go with the aetheism route rather than my previous agnostic state.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
I'll admit that reading up on background stuff to this thread - particularly bits from the Bible - has actually convinced me to go with the aetheism route rather than my previous agnostic state.
yay! welcome to the path brother, you've been entered into the unholy lottery, and you'll be getting your gift basket sometime next week. :)
-
*Points and laughs at WeatherOp*
You lose.
I asked the proponents of ID to explain it as a scientific theory and all the replies on the thread ended up simply saying "look at the bible" (A book open to interpretation and therefore not scientific).
I just hope the court case that started this discussion goes in exactly the same direction cause the moment the propenents of ID start having to say look at the bible for an explaination of the theory it will get thrown out as being against the seperation of church and state.
-
Hmmmmmm... You certainly have interesting dreams Bob, I suspect you had a very religious upbringing (I was dragged along to Sunday school then Church every week) or your parents were the sort of people who invented monsters for every childhood habit, like the scissor-monster for little boys who suck their thumbs etc, parents sometimes don't realise how impressionable young children are, or how incredibly powerful their imagination is compared to adults. The one about the planets does sound incredibly Biblical in origin.
Come to think of it, it's probably the fact that I hate having fear used to control me, whether it be fear of bombs or fear of holy retribution that led to me being non-christian (sort of spiritual, more a case of 'I'll find out when it happens'). It seems to me that 'Worship me or spend an eternity in pain and torture' was always a rather extreme angle to use on 7 year olds.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Yeah?
--- Isaiah 40: 22 Isaiah recorded that the earth was round ("circle of the earth") approximately 2,200 years prior to Columbus' claim in 1492.
[You must not have known the claims of Thales of Miletus when working with shadows that not only saw that the Earth was a sphere (well, not exactly) but took a guess at it's radius using shadows!]
--- The Bible declares that the earth is round and hangs in space (Prov. 8:27; Isa. 40:22; Job 26:7). Man did not discover this fact until 1475. It was discovered by Copernicus.
[See above and "hangs in space"? as opposed to what?]
--- The Bible declares that air has weight (Job. 28:25). Galileo discovered it in 1630
[I'm still trying to discover when air was declared to be weightless]
--- The Bible declares that the earth revolves around the sun (Job 38: 13-14). This was not discovered by man until 1500. Again, Copernicus made this wonderful discovery
[oh... don't you mean... *gasps* Aristarchus?]
--- The Bible declares that messages can be sent forth by "lightnings" or electricity (Job 38:35). Lightning is the only word the Hebrews had for electricity. Modern radio proves the Biblical scientific fact
[Although this is more of a nitpick, I don't think radio waves = electricity :p]
--- The Bible declares that the stars innumerable (Gen. 15:5; Jer. 33: 22). Hipparchus said there were only 1,022 stars. Ptolemy said there were 1,026. Galileo was the first to teach they could not be numbered
[Hipparchus catalogged over 1000 stars! Ptolemy also! They didn't say there were only 1000 stars, they catalogged them! Also, the stars are not innumerable, or else gravity would be a *****]
--- The Bible declares that the life of the flesh is in the blood (Lev. 14:12). William Harvey did not discover this truth until 1615
[Life of the flesh is a very ambiguous term... not exactly sure what you mean by that, but I'm pretty sure Hippocrates didn't think blood was irrelevant as to include it as one of his four humours]
Just some corrections :p The issues I've left out I'm not aware of.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
yay! welcome to the path brother, you've been entered into the unholy lottery, and you'll be getting your gift basket sometime next week. :)
It'd better have mangos in it!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
*Bob's Freaky Dream*
I keep dreaming about choking. Last time I was in a sinking Submarine or something and decided I was kill myself by jumping under water rather than wait for the inevitable. I woke up mega short of breath like I had actually stopped breathing or something (there is a sleep disorder where the suffer stops breathing BTW). Really weird bit, I recall being in some trippy half sleep-half awake state and thinking "Hmm, better start breathing again"
Puts you in a funny frame of mind for the day.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Bob, can't you see that WeatherOp is using classic ID arguing technique on you? Instead of actually addressing the issue, they attempt character assassination as a diversionary tactic. In his case, it's "I've found God and therefore I'm saved, you should find [my God] too [because I can't come up with an answer to your question/reason for your response that doesn't shatter my own world view]".
That gets a good chuckle from me.:lol: Oh no WeatherOp is trying to drag you into religion and trying to prove ID to you. Dude I won't ever try to drag someone into religion, one reason, religion won't do zip for you and secondly, if I could scare you into religion it's not gonna do anything for you anyways.
God is perfectly able in getting you anyways, All I can do is tell you what the Bible says and what I've got, and pray, thats my part.
Once again I say, find God, not religion.:nod:
-
That's just it, you're insulting me* by telling me I haven't found God. How in hell would you know that? You should know that it is not a Christian's place to judge, and yet that's just what you're doing. The question is, do you realize it or not.
*I actually mean that in a most figurative sense. It's an illustration of a point, since the post you quoted and the responce you made are a bit incongrous given the posts in between.
-
Indeed. To claim an understanding of the ways of the gods is hubris, and as we've discussed in another thread, the gods will castrate you, or make you have sex with your mom, or something else bad.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
And as someone who is somewhat religious, that saddens me. I do wish people like that didn't exist because they represent the faith exceptionally poorly. For every one person they think they've converted, they turn 1000 away. But then I am in the camp that fully believes that taking care of one's own life is a first order priority, and doing God's work is only possible if your own life is in order. I believe that God does not interfere in this life, and looking for Him to do so is just wasting your life away. All the people I know who are comfortable in their faith don't need to go around proclaiming it to the world. The way I see it, Christianity really boils down to two things: be good to your fellow man, and try to encourage others, by word and example to do the same. The rest is philosophical and internal to one's own person, and so my beliefs there have nothing to do with how I interact with others. Those who claim to love the Lord and still wrong other people are not keeping the faith in any meaningful way. I'm sure I'll get flamed for saying that, but it's the closest thing to universal truth that I've found in my life so I'll stand by it unless I personally experience anything to discredit it.
I have to agree with this part. If you don't follow the most important of all comandments (actually two of them but of equal importance) thn you got no buisness calling yourself a real beliver.
EDIT - about that other thing:
Well scince can't explain the origin of the universe..in fact science has proven that it cannot prove any such theory (due to planks time and similar stuff). I have read al lthe latest theories that popped up one after another, only to be dismissed as more and more holes were found in it.
the only logical conclusion for me is that something must have started it all.. namely God. With that in mind, ID is not really far off, since by starting everything, you might say He designed it.
But that said it cannot be disproven or proven. I have nothing against it being MENTIONED in schools, but only as another possible theory. Nothing more, nothing else...
-
I still don't understand how you can claim there is a logical conclusion when there's still so much information we have yet to obtain. It's like looking at three pieces of a thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle and deciding you know what the picture is. (Note: This refers to the question of the universe's origin, not evolution.)
-
Well, I suppose there a bit of confusion about the old adage 'Whenever you have ruled out every other possiblity, whatever remains, must therefore be the truth.
Problem is with creation of the Universe is that there are new possibilities popping up all the time, as we learn more.
I don't rule out entirely the possibility that the universe was 'created' rather than came in to being, but applying a sentience, and indeed, a name to whatever did create the Universe is a leap of faith, for those that are strong in their faith, I with them luck, I have no wish for oblivion when I die, nobody does, but the line becomes blurred between fact and hope here.
The creation of the universe was a monumental event that happened so long ago in the past that most of what we have to learn from are echos, so learning about it is slow, but we'll get there, and maybe we will find God there waiting with open arms, and asking what took us so long, hope is a powerful thing. But we have to accept the possibility that maybe we wont.
-
I don't know where my Doves CD is.
I've looked in at least 3 different places, and not found it.
Thus, it must have been taken by God into heaven.
Back OT....
There is no evidence for creationism, nor even a concrete theory. It has no substance, not backing. It is composed and defined entirely by attacks upon evolutionary theory - not criticisms, or observations, but simple deliberate misconstruation of observed facts, going so far as to ignore the evidence in support or invent false quotes from esteemed scientists It is not, by any stretch of the imagination, science and should not be taught as such.
If we are satisfied with ascribing these things to 'God', not only do we halt the progress of human understanding and - dare I say - intellectual evolution, but we also invalidate the concept of God Himself.
Because who is to say the biblical story of creation is any more valid than the Greek, the Mayan, the Aztec, the Aboriginal, the Egyptian, the Viking, and so on myths?
Certainly none have any evidence to distinguish them, to make them any less 'true' than Christian mythos (or Jewish, Sikh, Hindu, Buddhist, Muslim....), and if you want to pass off the Bible as science, then it's open to discrediting. Such as the infamous explict value of pi, which is not only literally wrong, but further out than the values calculated by several civillisations preceeding (Egyptian and Babylonian were within 1% accuracy, Indians were a bit further out but still closer).
There is no evidence to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster - should we teach of the Glory of His Noodly Appendage as well as ID? Should we replace physics and astronomy astronomy with the flat earth / geocentric universe theory because some people can justify that with the bible?
Where does it end? Neurology with phrenology? Alchemy with physics?
-
I don't rule out entirely the possibility that the universe was 'created' rather than came in to being, but applying a sentience, and indeed, a name to whatever did create the Universe is a leap of faith, for those that are strong in their faith, I with them luck, I have no wish for oblivion when I die, nobody does, but the line becomes blurred between fact and hope here.
But doesn't use of the word "created" necessitate sentience? There can't be creation-- as opposed to simple occurrence-- without intent, and there can't be intent without sentience.
-
Depends on the definition of the word really, when Hydrogen and Oxygen react, you could say it 'creates' water, water wasn't there, a simple reaction takes place and water is suddenly there, at a cost of raw H and O and some energy.
The laws of physics suggest that the universe 'tends' towards a certain kind of behaviour in certain circumstances, a force does not need to be sentient to 'tend' towards certain actions, the universe could have been created by something outside of it purely as a natural reaction to certain pressures. I'm not saying I have proof or evidence or the like, this isn't a theory, merely very vague speculation and suggestion ;)
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
There is no evidence to disprove the Flying Spaghetti Monster - should we teach of the Glory of His Noodly Appendage as well as ID?
Yes.
-
Fair enough.
EDIT;
I vote that in addition, we put a stick on all Bibles saying
The contents of this book are argued to be conjecture and highly controversial. Please note the Bible is a book of faith and not proven fact.
Bless His Noodly Appendage.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
EDIT - about that other thing:
Well scince can't explain the origin of the universe..in fact science has proven that it cannot prove any such theory (due to planks time and similar stuff).
I would appreciate it very much if you backed your statement up, at the very least, with a couple of links to sources that acknowledge this. Hell, even an abstract from a research paper would be good. It's rather easy to proclaim that something has been "proven" (which, by the way, is an inappropriate term for scientific theories), especially when it's claimed to be some anonymous expert's doing. If you want to be taken seriously, back statements like this up.
-
Wikipedia - Planck constant.
you can easiyl find dozen opf articels on the begining of universe..
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Yes.
:yes:
-
Originally posted by StratComm
That's just it, you're insulting me* by telling me I haven't found God. How in hell would you know that? You should know that it is not a Christian's place to judge, and yet that's just what you're doing. The question is, do you realize it or not.
And you're right, it isn't a Christian's place to judge, however I'm not doing the judging.;)
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
Wikipedia - Planck constant.
you can easiyl find dozen opf articels on the begining of universe..
I'm asking you to present some specific examples of this proof you are referring to. That's the whole point; it's your claim, you should support it.
I bothered to read that article on the Planck constant in Wikipedia. The article did not mention the proof you mentioned, but mentioned the quantization of energy (discrete values opposed to a continuum of energy). How does that prove that science cannot theorize about the beginnings of the universe? I've also read plenty of articles on the beginning of the universe (such as the Big Bang article on Wikipedia) and I've yet to see any proof that science cannot explain the beginnings of the universe. So please post a specific source so we can actually understand what you're referring to.
-
*poof* i'm back.
you've all raised very good points, definatley worth contemplating and meditating on.
Ghostavo: your post was the only one i read on this page, but i'd advise you to learn english before replying to that post :) j/k ;)
I'll now let my side-kicks continue, as i see they have been
at ease :D
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
And you're right, it isn't a Christian's place to judge, however I'm not doing the judging.;)
Then maybe you need to go back and read your posts again. You certainly judged Bobboau a couple of pages back.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Then maybe you need to go back and read your posts again. You certainly judged Bobboau a couple of pages back.
Ahem, once again I'm not the one doing the judging.:nod:God has allready judged, I'm just posting it.
-
Oi, I don't even know where to begin. Actually, I do. When did God share his divine will, his omnipotence with you? Unless he has, it is indeed you making judgements that you believe God would make. That's a very different thing. The whole attitude that you know everything about God and cannot be wrong is an extremely arrogant and dangerous way of thinking.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
Ghostavo: your post was the only one i read on this page, but i'd advise you to learn english before replying to that post :) j/k ;)
Thanks for refuting his points oh-so-specifically. I must learn from this amazing method of debate.
*vague hand waving motions*
It is intuitively obvious that universal common descent and natural selection are true. Really. Go read Wikipedia.
If you don't agree with me, you need to learn English. Hah. J/K. Oh, and if you still don't agree with me you must go enlighten yourself of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendages. You will only be touched if you seek the FSM out with the noodles of your heart. NOODLES OF THE HEART FTW!
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Ahem, once again I'm not the one doing the judging.:nod:God has allready judged, I'm just posting it.
Having fun disobeying the Bible?
Matthew 5:5
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
[/b]
Mark 7:20-23
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
John 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Ahem, once again I'm not the one doing the judging.:nod:God has allready judged, I'm just posting it.
I see... So, you're telling me that God, in his infinite wisdom and power, has decided that instead of posting his judgement himself, he will instead tell YOU his judgement and have you relay it to all of us as his final word?
... Riiiiiiight
-
[color=66ff00]I have to admit that this is one of the best threads I've ever seen on HLP.
As a person who once believed in a form of ID (before it became formalised and was given a label) I find a lot of this discussion intruging.
I haven't really given up on the possibility of ID but two things strike me as important when considering it:
1. As beings that exist in a system based on rules science is the most valid way of understanding our surroundings and our existence. Those that ascribe to the belief that science is infallible or that science is a poor way of describing something simply do not get the fundamental idea behind science. Science is not there to disprove that any faith based entity exists, science simply allows us to gather enough information about the system in which we exist in order to allow us to understand the system. The fact that science attributes our physical form to evolution is due to it being the most likely answer based on the evidence and thus the most useful answer to us.
2. If something did construct us and they do not adhere to the laws of this system in which we exist then we have no possible way of understanding them or quantifying any aspect of them.
All science relies on using some aspect of this system to measure another aspect of the system lest it be entirely theoretical, anything outside of the system is thus unmeasurable. If some entity did create us by consequence of an intentional act then they also created science.
To me ID is an intriguing concept whereas science is a useful way of finding things out. It strikes me that both can be accepted provided some reasonable thought is given to the nature of science and the consequence of ID.
I can't say I've given this exhaustive thought so I'd like to hope there are parts of it that need to be tidied up or reconsidered. But then isn't that the entire point of discussion. :)
[/color]
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Oi, I don't even know where to begin. Actually, I do. When did God share his divine will, his omnipotence with you? Unless he has, it is indeed you making judgements that you believe God would make. That's a very different thing. The whole attitude that you know everything about God and cannot be wrong is an extremely arrogant and dangerous way of thinking.
Psst, read the Bible.;) Do I know everything about God? Of course not, I'll keep learning till the day I die, and if I could live 2000 years on this earth, I would'nt even barely scrape the tip of the iceburg on his knowledge.:nod:
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Thanks for refuting his points oh-so-specifically. I must learn from this amazing method of debate.
*vague hand waving motions*
It is intuitively obvious that universal common descent and natural selection are true. Really. Go read Wikipedia.
If you don't agree with me, you need to learn English. Hah. J/K. Oh, and if you still don't agree with me you must go enlighten yourself of the Flying Spaghetti Monster's noodly appendages. You will only be touched if you seek the FSM out with the noodles of your heart. NOODLES OF THE HEART FTW!
naaa i just seriously didn't understand what he was trying to say. for instance:
--- The Bible declares that the earth is round and hangs in space (Prov. 8:27; Isa. 40:22; Job 26:7). Man did not discover this fact until 1475. It was discovered by Copernicus.
See above and "hangs in space"? as opposed to what?
it's like... how about as opposed to popular beliefs of the time that included the earth resting on the back of four elephants, on a large turtle, that was standing on a large snake that swam in an infinite sea. ;) (no seriously)
either he didn't know that was one of the beliefs, or uhh i dunno.
-
Copernicus thought the earth was embedded in a transparent sphere. So did Aristotle for that matter.
-
Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]2. If something did construct us and they do not adhere to the laws of this system in which we exist then we have no possible way of understanding them or quantifying any aspect of them.
All science relies on using some aspect of this system to measure another aspect of the system lest it be entirely theoretical, anything outside of the system is thus unmeasurable. If some entity did create us by consequence of an intentional act then they also created science.[/color]
As far as entities beyond our understanding go, perhaps it won't be "science" (I use quotation marks, because science evelopes a lot of feilds) that is used as a key to understanding the higher beings, but much rather some aspects of it will open up new feilds which will allow us to find out more.
Personally I'm of the belief that what is below is above, and vice versa. Logic would state that if we're able to see microscopic organisms which we otherwise can't view with our normal eyes, it is more than likely there are "macrobes" out there, that steer/guide/influence our own world in ways we can't really comprehend yet, or possibly never will. If you think about Planets, Suns, Black Holes, etc. essentially all space matter as intelligent bodies with equal or greater memory than ourselves (after all, if you scratch the Earth, it keeps a record of it, for a very very very long amount of time), and their positions are potentially guided by their own "will" (scientific rules heh), then more than likely there may be higher "macrobes" that control those rules under different rules they have placed over themselves, into infinity really wherever the end is, if there is one.
That's more or less how I see it. As Ford said though, it's 2-3 pieces in a 1000 (or I'd say a much bigger number than 1000, hopefully not infinity) jigsaw puzzle, and you can't say (one way or the other) that you can even remotely start to see the picture.
I can't disprove of the statement that ID really is out there. It is just my opinion that it is rather unlikely to be in the form of a "Man" with a family such as Jesus, etc. etc. - because that's unlikely as far as I'm concerned. Anyone who attempts to connect ID and religion really isn't able to have a glimpse of an active big picture.
Personally, I take religion as a history book which uses euphamisms and "code words" (not like code, but like words that used to mean other words that we have today) to explain some parts of history, a history which was probably removed for some reason from our history, by either other men (har har Illuminati crazy conspiracy theories), or more likely some natural disaster which kicked so much ass that we weren't able to document it, yet have documents from before it happened.
Anyway, the last paragraph is sort of psycho-insane babble, since I just don't know, so that's ignorable, and I'm still having it under "things to ponder on". One thing is for sure though. The mass translations of the Bible, Koran, and whatever other holy book there is out there, most likely made it defective permanently if even one word was translated innacurately, which I'm pretty sure happened. To begin to even glimpse into those books, you need them in the most original issue, with the original language. Everything else is more or less an unintentional lie. That's for damn sure.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Psst, read the Bible.;) Do I know everything about God? Of course not, I'll keep learning till the day I die, and if I could live 2000 years on this earth, I would'nt even barely scrape the tip of the iceburg on his knowledge.:nod:
I have read the Bible. And as it merely offers an insight into the realm of God, as spoken and interpreted through the words of men, there is absolutely NOTHING in it that I can base an unchallengable world view from. The Bible offers no proof that God exists. None at all. It offers testaments to his power, but their acceptance relies completely on faith and faith alone. I am beginning to think that you don't know the difference between faith and provable truth, which quite frankly dumbfounds me as I can't see how the two of them could be mistaken.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
science has proven that it cannot prove any such theory
Science doesn't prove things. It disproves them. That is the fundamental difference between ID/Creationism and Evolution.
Science is uncertainty. We try to get closer to certainty by removing the uncertainties. A scientific theory is only considered 'correct' until new information comes to light that disproves it, whereupon the new information is included in the model to produce a better approximation of reality.
ID/Creationism jump straight for a 'certainty' and hang on for dear life. They are both an example of people saying 'this is what is true' and blindly hanging onto that certainty despite any and all evidence to the contrary. It marks a complete lack of curiosity. Both of these 'theories' are just trite ways of answering the question 'why?'. They're enough of an answer to prevent further questions but they don't actually provide any useful information at all.
Higher beings and Intelligent Design are for those who fear the unknown and need reassurance. Science is for those who aren't afraid of the unknown and keep on asking 'why?', even though they may never find a truly satisfying answer in their lifetime.
Finally, it's an all-pervading myth that the Universe had to come from somewhere. Fact is, we don't know what existed 'before' the Universe. Since Time is just another dimension, it may only have meaning within our Universe. Logically, cause and effect is only really valid within our Universe, since Time is an essential underpinning. Without Time, there's no temporal relationship between a cause and an effect (actually, on a quantum level, no Time means that nothing can affect anything else, but that's only relevant within our Universe since we don't know if quantum physics is anywhere near accurate outside, or even if there is an 'outside').
To summarise:
* A cause must occur not later than its effect.
* Causality requires Time.
* We don't know if Time is 'real' outside/before our Universe.
* Therefore we don't know that the laws of Causality hold true outside/before our Universe.
* Therefore, it is not a given that the Universe had to have a cause.
Note that the last statement does not indicate that the Universe definitely did not need a cause. It just means that looking for one before we know how the Universe came into existence and whether it has boundaries is pointless.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
it's like... how about as opposed to popular beliefs of the time that included the earth resting on the back of four elephants, on a large turtle, that was standing on a large snake that swam in an infinite sea. ;) (no seriously)
Didn't you say the term 'earth' was used in the bible for the land alone in a previous post?
-
It's worth pointing out that no one on this thread is saying that the possibility of an intellegent designer is impossible.
What we're all saying is that this particular theory for an intelligent designer is flawed and therefore not worth wasting anyone's time on, true believer or not.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
It's worth pointing out that no one on this thread is saying that the possibility of an intellegent designer is impossible.
What we're all saying is that this particular theory for an intelligent designer is flawed and therefore not worth wasting anyone's time on, true believer or not.
Because there's no evidence for it. And whilst belief can - and perhaps should - exist without requiring evidence, scientific theory cannot.
If people wish to teach ID in Religious education or church, i have no qualms with that - I've consistenly said that ID should be taught and RE. But not in science class.
-
Indeed, and if the turtle/flat Earth was created by some kind of deity, that that too is ID, the Earth created by a sentient being and should also be taught.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I have read the Bible. And as it merely offers an insight into the realm of God, as spoken and interpreted through the words of men, there is absolutely NOTHING in it that I can base an unchallengable world view from. The Bible offers no proof that God exists. None at all. It offers testaments to his power, but their acceptance relies completely on faith and faith alone. I am beginning to think that you don't know the difference between faith and provable truth, which quite frankly dumbfounds me as I can't see how the two of them could be mistaken.
[color=66ff00]*Applauds*
[/color]
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Didn't you say the term 'earth' was used in the bible for the land alone in a previous post?
when we refer to the "earth" we're referring to the spherical mass in space :p ;)
But in the Bible, many times "earth" is referring to the land, not the planet.
-
[q]He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. [/q]
'many' times? All times? How do you know what which means?...except, I guess, picking the abstract interpretation which suits your purposes.
Because.... you take those 2 quotes. if the land is earth, then the immobile statement is more or less ok (if you ignore bits like continental drift, geological formation of features and stuff). but if the land is earth in that context, it can't be suspended in nothingness.
Likewise, if 'earth' is the planet and suspended in nothingness (which is fine), then it can't be immobile, because it orbits the sun.
-
yes well you have to assume the Bible is right and twist reality to fit it. :)
-
Actually, considering the Bible is converted from an ancient version of another language, and some of those defintions of words are still in contention, it really is rather pointless quoting the Bible in such a way, there are still linguists who argue that the word that represents 'Virgin' in the New Testament is actually 'Young wife' etc,
http://www.thenazareneway.com/new_testament_biblical_inconsistencies.htm[/url]
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/fabprof2.html
Now the ones listed above could be errors in interpretation quite easily, and there is always the possibility of some bias be it intentional or not, but the Bible is far from an untainted translation of it's Ancient Hebrew/Greek counterparts.
Note : I have used the New Testament here, however, the old Testament has even more inconsistencies and confusion around it's interpretation.
-
Yup. Like "He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing." was changed to 'northern skies' in later translations. Or the stuff about weighting the wind; in later translations that became setting the force of the wind, and soforth. Or the Hebrew for sphere and circle being the same word.
So...I don't think it's in any way viable as a source of (what is presented as in ID) literal answers or evidence. It's not a factual book, in any sense that can be proven or even just shown. So the science classroom is not it's place, and without the bible, there is no basis for ID.
Id was formed off the back of the bible, defined by it's criticism (often deliberately or accidentally ignorant) of the 'aetheistic' (or as it is perceived) alternative of evolution, and doesn't exist as a scientific theory. The fact that no-one has been able to define literally the what, where, whens, whys, etc of the ID 'theory' is pretty good proof of that.
-
Y'know, i'm really surprised that nobody has referred to Kent Hovind's "Challenge", which i've seen some up in previous discussions, and the lack of reference to it - if you know what i'm talking about - is most definitely a good thing.
-
I've seen Kent Hovind's challenge denounced as "a sham and an embarrassment."
And that's from creationists who agree with him! :lol:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
[q]He stretcheth out the north over the empty place, and hangeth the earth upon nothing.
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved. [/q]
'many' times? All times? How do you know what which means?...except, I guess, picking the abstract interpretation which suits your purposes.
Because.... you take those 2 quotes. if the land is earth, then the immobile statement is more or less ok (if you ignore bits like continental drift, geological formation of features and stuff). but if the land is earth in that context, it can't be suspended in nothingness.
Likewise, if 'earth' is the planet and suspended in nothingness (which is fine), then it can't be immobile, because it orbits the sun.
assume sometimes it's referring to the 'land', and other times to the 'planet'... it still makes sense.
plus, remember at the time, saying the earth was "suspended upon nothing" was unheard of. so still correct.
-
Its interesting that you say that the Bible has no place in science, considering that archeologists (part of sciences) have found the bible to be an excellent source for locating and excavating long lost civilizations (the "fabled" Hitites among them). Semantecs aside, the science in the bible speaks for itself.
Now should ID be taught in Biology class? Of course not. Then again, neither should inconclusive theories of macro evolution and earth origins be preseted in a factual manner. Evolution and ID should be in college level courses where more matured students can see both sides and make up their own minds.
-
Problem is that they are only inconclusive because you misinterpret them.
If you look at the whole ID argument it's one big misinterpretation of evolution.
Again I suggest you get a copy of The Selfish Gene out of the library and actually read it. If you don't understand evolution how can you possibly comment on whether it is inconclusive or not.
-
No science class I ever took presented evolution as irrefutable fact. It was presented as a possible explanation--in accordance with the scientific method.
-
Now what is the difference between my "misinterpreting" evolution, and your "misinterpreting" the the context of Biblical writings?
Kara, you make an awefull lot of assumptions, on people that is.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Now what is the difference between my "misinterpreting" evolution, and your "misinterpreting" the the context of Biblical writings?
I understand the bible perfectly well. I disagree with it. You're welcome to search the thread and find a misconception from me about ID or christianity.
This thread on the other hand has been littered with misunderstandings of how evolution works including comments about how it is random and that idiotic thing about humans with gills.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Kara, you make an awefull lot of assumptions, on people that is.
Originally posted by Omniscaper on the other thread
an observed case of MACRO evolution have yet to be reported. Now if these crazy ants were to one day grow to extra legs and become arthropods... then I'll start taking the "evidence for evolition"
Ants suddenly turning into anthropods would be proof AGAINST evolution. You'll notice that I also posted several example of speciation on that thread too. Furthermore you differenciate between macro and microevolution when they are virtually the same thing.
That's three misconceptions in two sentences, one of which is so big that only someone who has confused saltationism with Darwinian evolution could ever make it and yet you're saying that I'm assuming that you don't understand the theory?
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I have read the Bible. And as it merely offers an insight into the realm of God, as spoken and interpreted through the words of men, there is absolutely NOTHING in it that I can base an unchallengable world view from. The Bible offers no proof that God exists. None at all. It offers testaments to his power, but their acceptance relies completely on faith and faith alone. I am beginning to think that you don't know the difference between faith and provable truth, which quite frankly dumbfounds me as I can't see how the two of them could be mistaken.
OK, I'm confused. Were we talking about, if what I said was judging, or are we back on the ID debate?:confused:
-
Originally posted by Stealth
assume sometimes it's referring to the 'land', and other times to the 'planet'... it still makes sense.
plus, remember at the time, saying the earth was "suspended upon nothing" was unheard of. so still correct.
Oh, 'assume'? Very concrete. And that should be taught? 'Assume' you're right, even if you have to make stuff up?
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Its interesting that you say that the Bible has no place in science, considering that archeologists (part of sciences) have found the bible to be an excellent source for locating and excavating long lost civilizations (the "fabled" Hitites among them). Semantecs aside, the science in the bible speaks for itself.
That's because the bible is a historical, mythological document. Same as we found the cities of Troy partly based on the Illiad, for example. That doesn't mean the bible is in any way factual, or relevant, to modern science. It just means it was written several thousan years ago, and the writers were making political or judgemental statements upon the world they lived in.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Now should ID be taught in Biology class? Of course not. Then again, neither should inconclusive theories of macro evolution and earth origins be preseted in a factual manner. Evolution and ID should be in college level courses where more matured students can see both sides and make up their own minds.
Strangely, more matured students came up with the theory of evolution. These students - now professors of course - have continued to research, develop and the theory. And in all that time, there has never been a break from the mainstream consensus that evolution is the best supported, best evidenced scientific explanation. There has never, AFAIK, been a peer-reviewed paper proposing ID as a solution to any current unknowns.
They can, of course, point out areas of investigation or where the theory is still being developed, and indeed will; it is by asking questions and not assuming the answers that we learn. Suggesting ID as some form of solution for that is sheer folly; unless you'd care to present scientifically valuable evidence of ID? Anything that qualifies it as science, or factual?
Put it this way.... would it be better to have an answer that may not be 100% correct, but we can show to be getting there (evidence), or to propose an answer which we know cannot be 100% correct, because it is inherently unprovable?
AFAIK the scientific principle of macroevolution have all been tested in the laboratory. and there's the obvious evidence of transitional fossils (mammal jawbones, legged seacow ancestors, and soforth). So.... we have a theory where the scientific principles are known to be true based on the study of microevolution, and we have evidence of prior macroevolution that shows it has happened (especially for Equines). We also have the commonalities of a shared genetic ultimate-ancestor, most strikingly in the sharing of a small group of polymers, enzymes, amino acids, etc across all (known) life.
But, the contention of ID is that.....all that evidence should be ignored or dismissed out of hand, and instead we'll say it's God. No evidence, no basis for even the existence of a supreme diety, let alone one with an interest in life, and certainly no attempt to explain the transitional changes in the fossil record. Unless you want to say God kept 'tweaking' stuff. In which case presumably He made a mistake with the original design - bad form for the omnipotent.
-
I don't see how scientific theory and faith can ever be compatable. They contradict one another.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
OK, I'm confused. Were we talking about, if what I said was judging, or are we back on the ID debate?:confused:
ID (although with a sprinkling of the former). Basically, the 'truth' or accuracy of the bible is entirely relative to the readers belief system, whereas as science - and by extension what is taught in science class - relies upon what is known, and what can be proven through experimentation.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Oh, 'assume'? Very concrete. And that should be taught? 'Assume' you're right, even if you have to make stuff up?
Ok, here is the verse.
He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.
Now I hope I don't have to you what a foundation is? It is what something is built on, now what is the Earth's foundation, it's core correct. Now has that core ever moved, now if you pull something off it's foundation, it's collapses. So, that tells me the foundation of the Earth has not moved, for if it did, it would cause all kinds of magnetic problems. I think some of you guys just need to think.:lol:
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
ID (although with a sprinkling of the former). Basically, the 'truth' or accuracy of the bible is entirely relative to the readers belief system, whereas as science - and by extension what is taught in science class - relies upon what is known, and what can be proven through experimentation.
Where did you get that from, I know what ID is, I was asking StatComm what we, me and him were still debating on, since he changed in the middle of it.:lol:
-
Understand the Bible perfectly!? Amazing!!!
Even the freakin POPE doesn't understand the Bible perfectly. Not that his title means anything really. There are people who have been reading the Bible their entire lives and yet they still dont understand all of its messages and concepts. I'm willing to bet you haven't even read it cover to cover. And I could careless whethher or not you did.
Ok, fine, I have misconceptions about evolutions. I don't feel I have to keep digging for all details and findings relevant to a scientific theory the infallible Karajorma has an absolute faith in, when it is the conclusions being made with it that are being argued over.
You can spout all the information and latest findings all you want. (and please do, I love good science article) And others will also likely spout Biblical passages to show thatit has been used and contain real science. Its obvious we have different conclusions and interpretations on TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF THOUGHT.
-
EDIT: Note to self, always quote.
Originally posted by Roanoke
I don't see how scientific theory and faith can ever be compatable. They contradict one another.
If set into the same realm of explanation, then yes. If you understand that faith should not attempt to explain the world we live in, and don't let your faith blind you to the reality of our plane of existance, then they don't have to at all.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
OK, I'm confused. Were we talking about, if what I said was judging, or are we back on the ID debate?:confused:
It was actually intended as a response to your presumed authority to decree God's judgement so in that sense it was on the judgement tangent. I was trying to point out that if you're basing your stance on the Bible as concrete evidence, as you seem to be implying, you shouldn't even necessarily believe in God. It's faith, not proof, that you must base that belief on. However, after writing it, I find that it's really very pertinant to the actual debate as well.
-
I think the point is ID involves no thought, and actually discourages it, where as Evo is the best the whole of mankind has come up with.
No one understands The Bible perfectly because it doesn't make perfect sense. It's full of contradictions for starters.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Ok, here is the verse.
Now I hope I don't have to you what a foundation is? It is what something is built on, now what is the Earth's foundation, it's core correct. Now has that core ever moved, now if you pull something off it's foundation, it's collapses. So, that tells me the foundation of the Earth has not moved, for if it did, it would cause all kinds of magnetic problems. I think some of you guys just need to think.:lol:
Yes, the core has moved; through space. Also, it is believed the core is in constant motion, the action of which causes the magnetic field round the earth.
Also, if you interpret earth as 'land' - and that's not my own interpretation - it means the sea is not, in fact, upon the core (which sort of contradicts the whole parting of the waves thing, too).
Furthermore, if you seperate the 'earth' from 'foundation' (i.e. surface from core), that other verse I quoted implies that the earth (the surface of the planet) hangs in space.... without any core. Unsupported, I believe the word was.
So it's contradictory.
Not to mention, the Catholic Church was morbidly oppossed to the concept of a non geo-centric universe (I mentioned this on page 2 I think; Galileo was subjected to an Inquisition that 'determined' the Earth was the centre of the universe). Same text; possible more accurate, due to the inherent chinese whispers effect of multiple translations over the centuries. But they interpret it opposite.
So not scientifically accurate, unless interpreted with foreknowledge of what science determined.
:lol:, indeed.
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Understand the Bible perfectly!? Amazing!!!
Even the freakin POPE doesn't understand the Bible perfectly. Not that his title means anything really. There are people who have been reading the Bible their entire lives and yet they still dont understand all of its messages and concepts. I'm willing to bet you haven't even read it cover to cover. And I could careless whethher or not you did.
Ok, fine, I have misconceptions about evolutions. I don't feel I have to keep digging for all details and findings relevant to a scientific theory the infallible Karajorma has an absolute faith in, when it is the conclusions being made with it that are being argued over.
You can spout all the information and latest findings all you want. (and please do, I love good science article) And others will also likely spout Biblical passages to show thatit has been used and contain real science. Its obvious we have different conclusions and interpretations on TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF THOUGHT.
Hell, you point out yourself the Pope doesn't understand the bible; and the history of the Catholic Church (being the dominant church in western european history, and thus the most convenient example) is riddled with misconceptions based on the bible and corrected by empirical evidence.
You even show you're not willing to try to understand. The reason kara can have 'absolute faith' (which is in itself a veiled insult, I see), is because he knows the evidence and empirical fact. You're so eager to avoid reaching the same conclusion, you willfully ignore the details.
All the bible can ever to is be correlated by science. Some things in it are known to be incorrect (pi!), so it can't be considered a 100% reliable source. Furthermore, the difference between factual statement - even assuming that statement is not something based on common knowledge of people at the time, rather than any divine insight - and parable is very much in the eye of the beholder. Hence the constant reinterpretation as science has shown new facts like the spherical, orbiting and rotating planet.
And this methodology would be proposed for teaching empirical fact?
-
You know what I have a new label for the fundies//shrubs:
Chauvinistic Capital-driven Calvinist Person
CCCP :p
-
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Understand the Bible perfectly!? Amazing!!!
Even the freakin POPE doesn't understand the Bible perfectly. Not that his title means anything really. There are people who have been reading the Bible their entire lives and yet they still dont understand all of its messages and concepts. I'm willing to bet you haven't even read it cover to cover. And I could careless whethher or not you did.
There is a difference between stating you know something perfectly and perfectly well you know.
Perfectly well = well enough.
Turn of phrase nothing more. I understand it well enough to suffice for this discussion. I ask you again to find a place where I've stated a misconception about the bible on this thread let alone anything anywhere near as huge as yours about evolution.
Originally posted by Omniscaper
Ok, fine, I have misconceptions about evolutions. I don't feel I have to keep digging for all details and findings relevant to a scientific theory the infallible Karajorma has an absolute faith in, when it is the conclusions being made with it that are being argued over.
It's a detail. Your misconception was f**king huge. It would be like me saying that I understood the bible and then going on about what Rama and Vishnu say in it.
Saltationism is not Darwinian evolution it's not even close. In fact creationism is probably closer than saltationism because at least some branches of ID accept the existance of darwinian evolution on a small scale even if they don't believe it did everything.
Ff you are so wrong as to confuse the two it's no bloody wonder that you reject evolution. That's your choice. No one is forcing you to learn how evolution works even at a basic level but if you are unwilling to even grasp the basic concepts of the theory how can you possibly tell me it's wrong?
If I say that the bible is wrong and then quote places where I can prove Buddah is wrong wouldn't you have the right to claim that I knew absolutely nothing about the subect and as such should go learn before commenting on it?
Originally posted by Omniscaper
You can spout all the information and latest findings all you want. (and please do, I love good science article) And others will also likely spout Biblical passages to show thatit has been used and contain real science. Its obvious we have different conclusions and interpretations on TWO DIFFERENT KINDS OF THOUGHT.
The thing is that this thread is about ID not creationism. ID encroaches on science. It claims that it actually IS science (when it quite plainly is not).
If I were to open up the bible, cross out genesis and write an evolutionary explaination in there and then force people to use that version in church alongside the original and then said it was because I wanted to give people the chance to make up their own minds I would hope that you would say some very rude words to me about it.
You have every right to teach the bible as it is in church. You have every right to teach it in RE class. What you do not have the right to do is dress it up as science and attempt to teach it AS science. That is every bit as wrong as rewriting the bible like I said above.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
which is in itself a veiled insult, I see
Of course it is. Oldest creationist trick in the book. Instead of answering the question at hand you take a minor detail and blow it entirely out of proportion in the hope of distancing yourself from something you can't answer.
That's why even after 250 posts we've only gotten half hearted attempts to answer the question I posed right near the start and instead have had page after page of attacks on evolution.
Maybe I'm being unfair. Maybe Stealth and the rest were honestly trying to answer my question properly and simply didn't grasp what I was saying but I don't think so. I stated it too many times and never got back more than a couple of lines followed by a load of off-topic misconceptions about evolution.
I flat out asked if ID meant that evolution was completely wrong or not and never got any answer back. That's not something that is subject to misinterpretation.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
Yes, the core has moved; through space. Also, it is believed the core is in constant motion, the action of which causes the magnetic field round the earth.
Also, if you interpret earth as 'land' - and that's not my own interpretation - it means the sea is not, in fact, upon the core (which sort of contradicts the whole parting of the waves thing, too).
Furthermore, if you seperate the 'earth' from 'foundation' (i.e. surface from core), that other verse I quoted implies that the earth (the surface of the planet) hangs in space.... without any core. Unsupported, I believe the word was.
So it's contradictory.
Not to mention, the Catholic Church was morbidly oppossed to the concept of a non geo-centric universe (I mentioned this on page 2 I think; Galileo was subjected to an Inquisition that 'determined' the Earth was the centre of the universe). Same text; possible more accurate, due to the inherent chinese whispers effect of multiple translations over the centuries. But they interpret it opposite.
So not scientifically accurate, unless interpreted with foreknowledge of what science determined.
:lol:, indeed.
First thing, the core has moved thru space with the earth, but once again, has the core moved out of the center of the Earth? No, of course not, the core is still as firmly planted in the earth as it was when it was created.
Now secondly, when I said the Core is the Earth's foundation, I ment it, not the dirt, land, or rock, the core is the Earth's foundation.
Here is why. lets unroll the earth like a map, flat. Like this.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a120/weatherop/fondation1.jpg)
Now lets roll it up into a ball, were did the foundation go? Did it disappear? No, look where it's at now.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a120/weatherop/fondation2.jpg)
But, once again if we cut a piece out, it's set out like above.
(http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a120/weatherop/fondation3.jpg)
And please stop bringing up what the Catholic church did, if you remember they also killed Marting Luther for telling them how corupt they were.
:nod:
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
First thing, the core has moved thru space with the earth, but once again, has the core moved out of the center of the Earth? No, of course not, the core is still as firmly planted in the earth as it was when it was created.
If this doesn't prove how much interpretation can change "what the Bible says" I don't know what can. It pretty clearly can have either meaning, if you want to be revisionist. Unfortunately not only does the core move through space with the earth, it also moves within the earth, as there's pretty strong evidence that the core rotates faster than the planet itself. And in your gross generalization, you've left out the Mantle which really does move relative to both the crust and the core. But ultimately this is a really stupid argument since a literal reading of the Bible indicates that earth or the Earth (either/or, both are wrong anyway) are built like you would build a house, which is patently false.
Originally posted by WeatherOp
And please stop bringing up what the Catholic church did, if you remember they also killed Marting Luther for telling them how corupt they were.
:wtf:
Dude, go read a book. Any book. Or watch the History channel. When you start misrepresenting well documented history you've got problems.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
If this doesn't prove how much interpretation can change "what the Bible says" I don't know what can. It pretty clearly can have either meaning, if you want to be revisionist. Unfortunately not only does the core move through space with the earth, it also moves within the earth, as there's pretty strong evidence that the core rotates faster than the planet itself. And in your gross generalization, you've left out the Mantle which really does move relative to both the crust and the core. But ultimately this is a really stupid argument since a literal reading of the Bible indicates that earth or the Earth (either/or, both are wrong anyway) are built like you would build a house, which is patently false.
Hmm, does anywhere in the Bible say the Earth is built like a house, no, and the Mantle sits on top of the Core too. And once again, the Core doesn't bobble, it doesn't bounce, it sits there, sure it rotates but it don't move., if it bounced around the Earth would have probley headed into the sun.
Originally posted by StratComm
Dude, go read a book. Any book. Or watch the History channel. When you start misrepresenting well documented history you've got problems.
Please explain.
-
Nothin' like paint brush pictures of biblical pseudo-science to brighten my day.
The Dwarves got it better:
(http://www.dwemer.whirlingschool.net/images/planets.gif)
What are planets?
The planets are the gods and the planes of the gods, which is the same thing. That they appear as spherical heavenly bodies is a visual phenomena caused by mortal mental stress. Since each plane(t) is an infinite mass of infinite size, as yet surrounded by the Void of Oblivion, the mortal eye registers them as bubbles within a space. Planets are magical and impossible. The eight planets correspond to the Eight Divines. They are all present on the Dwarven Orrery, along with the mortal planet, Nirn.
What is Nirn?
Nirn (Ehnofex for 'Arena') is a finite ball of matter and magic made from all of the god planets at the beginning of time, when Lorkhan tricked/convinced/forced the gods to create the mortal plane. Nirn is the mortal plane and the mortal planet, which is the same thing. Its creation upset the cosmic balance; now all souls (especially the Aedra-Daedra/Gods-Demons) have a vested interest in Nirn (especially its starry heart, Tamriel).
What are moons?
Small planets, insofar as one infinite mass of infinite size can be smaller than another. Planets do have orbits, or at least lunar orbits are perceived to happen by mortals. Moons are regarded by various cultures as attendant spirits of their god planet, or minor gods, or foreign gods. The moons of Nirn are Masser and Secunda. Moons are not represented in the Dwarven Orrery.
What is space?
Space is the interpretation of Oblivion, which is black and empty and surrounds the mortal plane. Space is infinite, but it acts just like a planet, in that Oblivion is 'surrounded' by Aetherius. You can see Aetherius by the stars.
What are stars?
The stars are the bridges to Aetherius, the magic plane. They are perceived as holes on the inside surface of space. Because they are on the inside of a sphere, all stars are equidistant from Nirn. Larger stars, therefore, are not closer to the mortal plane, they are just larger tears in Oblivion. The largest tear in Oblivion is Magnus, the sun.
Hail the Brass God, Numidium. The Prime Gestalt.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Please explain.
Unless the catholic church sent Raquel Welsh in a tiny submarine to stop his heart I think it unlikely that they were responsible for his death.
On January 23 Luther left Wittenberg accompanied by his three sons. The negotiations were successfully concluded on February 17. After 8:00 p.m. on that day Luther suffered chest pains. When he went to his bed he prayed, "Into your hand I commit my spirit; you have redeemed me, O Lord, faithful God" (Ps. 31:5), the common prayer of the dying. At 1:00 a.m. he awoke with more chest pain and was warmed with hot towels. Knowing that his death was imminent he thanked God for revealing His Son to him in Whom he had believed. His companions Justus Jonas and Michael Coelius shouted loudly, "Reverend father, are you ready to die trusting in your Lord Jesus Christ and to confess the doctrine which you have taught in His name?" A distinct "Yes" was Luther's reply. He died 2:45 a.m. February 18, 1546 in Eisleben, the city of his birth.
-
Ah, but motion is an all-inclusive definition. Rotation is motion. But you're not going to listen to anything based on, you know, the laws of nature (or apparently common sense for that matter) so it's pointless to try to explain further why this doesn't prove the Bible is right.
And Martin Luther wasn't killed by anybody. He died of natural causes. You said he was killed by the Catholic church.
EDIT: Beat me to it Kara :) For the record, I believe that's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Unless the catholic church sent Raquel Welsh in a tiny submarine to stop his heart I think it unlikely that they were responsible for his death.
Maybe they tried to kill him, I really can't remember, it's really been a long time since I really explored the part of History. Thanks for pointing that out.;)
But, I do know the Catholics did kill alot of people for preaching against them.
-
We're getting off topic here. Using the bible holistically as evidence for anything is simply dogmatic. If you wish to support Intelligent Design with specific evidence from the bible, do so. Otherwise stop talking about the bible and get back to the ID/Evolution issue.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Unless the catholic church sent Raquel Welsh in a tiny submarine to stop his heart I think it unlikely that they were responsible for his death.
****ing catholic miniaturization machines...
...
:lol:
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
We're getting off topic here. Using the bible holistically as evidence for anything is simply dogmatic. If you wish to support Intelligent Design with specific evidence from the bible, do so. Otherwise stop talking about the bible and get back to the ID/Evolution issue.
Nah, I've got alot of stuff to do, I've allready explained my views, and thats all I can explain really.;) Weather you want to listen to e'm, is completly up to you, I'll not be taking a hammer nd beating it in your barins. I'll let you people get this back on topic and keep debating on it. Have fun, but thanks for keeping it flameless, if it stays like this, I may be in some more debates like this.:nod:
-
Originally posted by StratComm
EDIT: Beat me to it Kara :) For the record, I believe that's an excerpt from the Wikipedia article.
Yep. I should have named the source but I'm getting sleepy here :)
-
Ordinarily I wouldn't have mentioned it, but I wanted to make sure that the anti-ID camp doesn't fall into the ID trapping of untracable sources. Even if it is 100% tangential :)
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Ordinarily I wouldn't have mentioned it, but I wanted to make sure that the anti-ID camp doesn't fall into the ID trapping of untracable sources. Even if it is 100% tangential :)
Trapping.:lol: Ohh boy here we go again, once again I won't "trap" anyone. Or I wouldn't admit I was wrong.;)
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Trapping.:lol: Ohh boy here we go again, once again I won't "trap" anyone. Or I wouldn't admit I was wrong.;)
Pulling things out of context is bad, k?
From Dictionary.com
Characteristic or symbolic signs: all the trappings of power.
ID arguments are always characterized by a failure to cite sources, usually because either those sources don't exist, are misquoted, or looking them up would result in realizing how discredited they actually are. Thus, failing to cite sources is one of the trappings of Intelligent Design.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Pulling things out of context is bad, k?
ID arguments are always characterized by a failure to cite sources, usually because either those sources don't exist, are misquoted, or looking them up would result in realizing how discredited they actually are. Thus, failing to cite sources is one of the trappings of Intelligent Design.
Once again :lol:, here is the thing if you want to belive I was trying to trap you, thats ok with me, you can just go ahead and think what you want.:lol:
-
Oh I give up. You're just not listening to me. Since even a simple english lesson is beyond your comprehension there's really no point in even delving into philosophical matters.
And for the record, none of the original "trapping" comment was even directed at you. Go back, read the definition I posted of "trapping", then read the initial post that you misinterpreted again slowly and just try to think about what I'm saying. Context and a good vocabulary FTW.
EDIT: And for those of you wanting to see a return to the ID debate itself, I do apologize. My attempts to caress the discussion back on-topic has inexplicibly backfired.
-
back to the last thing we were arguing that actualy had something to do with the topic.
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
this quite clearly states in as direct a manner as posable that the land was placed upon a suporting structure of some form, (it does not (here at least) mention any decription of this suporting structure, but for the moment I'll accept 'the core' as an acceptable interpetation ignoreing all the flat earth stuff in the bible and the implication of a flat earth presented here) and that either the land cannot be moved, or the foundation can never be moved (what ever the it was refering to). both of these are knowen to not be true. what it does not say it "the foundation can never move relitive to the earth".
-
Originally posted by StratComm
Oh I give up. You're just not listening to me. Since even a simple english lesson is beyond your comprehension there's really no point in even delving into philosophical matters.
And for the record, none of the original "trapping" comment was even directed at you. Go back, read the definition I posted of "trapping", then read the initial post that you misinterpreted again slowly and just try to think about what I'm saying. Context and a good vocabulary FTW.
Ok, I get it now, but then again you should have just told me the first post. Woo hoo you just proved WO has bad vocabuary, now go get yourself an award.;)
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Ok, I get it now, but then again you should have just told me the first post. Woo hoo you just proved WO has bad vocabuary, now go get yourself an award.;)
I did. I posted the correct definition, an example of how it is generally used, and how it related to the context in which I used it. I didn't expect to have to spell it out in crayon for someone who has put this much thought into the debate. :doubt:
I don't want to be bitter about this kind of debate, but when you're wrong just say you're wrong. It saves us all a lot of annoyances.
Originally posted by Bobboau
back to the last thing we were arguing that actualy had something to do with the topic.
"He set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved."
this quite clearly states in as direct a manner as posable that the land was placed upon a suporting structure of some form, (it does not (here at least) mention any decription of this suporting structure, but for the moment I'll accept 'the core' as an acceptable interpetation ignoreing all the flat earth stuff in the bible and the implication of a flat earth presented here) and that either the land cannot be moved, or the foundation can never be moved (what ever the it was refering to). both of these are knowen to not be true. what it does not say it "the foundation can never move relitive to the earth".
Actually the way I'd approach this is that if the foundation reference was ever intended to be literal, there would have to have been something to build the foundation on. Normally the foundation of a building is anchored to the Earth's surface in such a way that the building cannot move relative to that surface. If the earth is so anchored to its foundation, the core, then what is the core fastened to? Not only is this horribly inspecific, it doesn't address the fact that there cannot, by definition of gravitational force, be anything under the lowest layer of a solid mass. No substrate, no foundation. To call it such implies that there's something underneath, from which the earth must be held above lest it fall in.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
I did. I posted the correct definition, an example of how it is generally used, and how it related to the context in which I used it. I didn't expect to have to spell it out in crayon for someone who has put this much thought into the debate. :doubt:
I don't want to be bitter about this kind of debate, but when you're wrong just say you're wrong. It saves us all a lot of annoyances.
Dude, everytime I have posted when I was wrong, I posted it about thinking the church killed Luther, and then I posted it a second ago about the vocabuary, what more are you wanting?:sigh:
-
Originally posted by Stealth
it's like... how about as opposed to popular beliefs of the time that included the earth resting on the back of four elephants, on a large turtle, that was standing on a large snake that swam in an infinite sea. ;) (no seriously)
either he didn't know that was one of the beliefs, or uhh i dunno.
You said it, not me... science never said such thing.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Dude, everytime I have posted when I was wrong, I posted it about thinking the church killed Luther, and then I posted it a second ago about the vocabuary, what more are you wanting?:sigh:
Repenting for your sins against the Orii. Hallowed be the Orii. :devil:
-
WeatherOp: I'm still waiting for you to rebuke my Biblical argument that says you are blaspheming by claiming you know God's will. Or do you lack the ability to?
-
And we're all still waiting for the Hypothesis or Theory behind ID, something that - as Kara has pointed out numerous times - has not happened in almost 12 full pages of posts...
...And just for the whole 'unmoving foundation' arguement going on; Let's just review the main structure of the Earth (highly generalised of course), which is slightly more complicated than your diagrams (all information gathered from my Earth & Environmental Sciences / Geology Textbooks);
- Lithosphere; ‘The Rocky Sphere’. Rigid, outermost of the concentric layers that make up the Earth. ~100km Thick.
- Asthenosphere; A layer of Upper Mantle that ‘flows’ [notice that 'flows' indicates movement] when forces act upon it. <250km Thick, thicker when Lithosphere is thinner and vice versa.
- Mesosphere; Deep Mantle. Can transmit seismic shockwaves, and can flow/move by convection. [Again, note that this layer 'flows', indicating movement, even if it is slight]
- Outer Core; Liquid metal layer, composed of Iron, some Nickel, Oxygen & Potassium. [This layer is liquid, meaning that it moves]
- Inner Core; Solid core of Iron & Nickel. [This inner core, as mentioned before, rotates and thus creates the Earth's magnetic field (i'm being unbearably general here, but stick with me). Rotation indicates movement, not to mention the possible oscillations that might take place due to the spinning...it is spinning in liquid after all]
Indeed, no part of the Earth is truly unmoving, and that's discounting the orbital track of the Earth through Space. A foundation - which is in itself describing the Earth as a house - should really be stable and unmoving, and no part of this planet fulfills that role. So let's hear no more about this wacky bible exerpt.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
You said it, not me... science never said such thing.
you're missing the point. whether science said anything is completely irrelevant.
the POINT is at a time when the earth was, among other beliefs OF PEOPLE OF THE TIME, believed to be on the back of elephants, etc.
therefore, the Bible saying the earth is "hung in space" was not even considered at the time. in fact, it was laughed at, since THE WORLD believed something completely different.
-
I strongly doubt that THE WORLD as you're implying actually believed the world sat on the backs of elephants. As has been pointed out already, many contemporary cultures were already discovering that the world was round, were doing rather precise astronomical calculations, and were forming heliocentric theories of the universe.
-
How about we just accept that Biblical 'predictions' only make sense in hindsight?
Now, the thing with hindsight is that we already know the answer, and it's very easy to interpret the evidence accordingly without even realising we're doing it.
Therefore, as much as the God Squad here at HLP believe that they're interpreting this stuff with a truly open mind, they're really just deceiving themselves.
Of course, that's a fundamental requirement for favouring ID/Creationism over Science, so it's not really surprising.
What it does do is completely invalidate any argument based on 'predictions made by the Bible'.
-
I have a question...
There are lots of things the bible says to do, but would be either considered rude or downright criminal to do today. Or maybe just uncomfortable. Or maybe inconvenient.
How do you just pick-and-choose the parts of it that you like, and then argue that those are factual, when you reject other parts of it because you don't like them?
-
...and my final contribution to this thread:
(http://www.starsiege2845.com/forums/uploads/post-262-1128498800.png)
That's what I think about the shrubs. Except that Orks are cool, shrubs aren't.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
you're missing the point. whether science said anything is completely irrelevant.
the POINT is at a time when the earth was, among other beliefs OF PEOPLE OF THE TIME, believed to be on the back of elephants, etc.
therefore, the Bible saying the earth is "hung in space" was not even considered at the time. in fact, it was laughed at, since THE WORLD believed something completely different.
You are the one missing the point, you are discussing the validity of a sentence in a book of one religion against the saying of other religions/beliefs! What do you really accomplish there?
What I do agree is that the people who wrote the bible took the knowledge and some common beliefs/mythos at the time and wrote them onto the bible. So it's not a case of the bible having new info or something, it's the fact that it preserved some of the knowledge from those times.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
First thing, the core has moved thru space with the earth, but once again, has the core moved out of the center of the Earth? No, of course not, the core is still as firmly planted in the earth as it was when it was created.
Now secondly, when I said the Core is the Earth's foundation, I ment it, not the dirt, land, or rock, the core is the Earth's foundation.
Here is why. lets unroll the earth like a map, flat. Like this.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a120/weatherop/fondation1.jpg
Now lets roll it up into a ball, were did the foundation go? Did it disappear? No, look where it's at now.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a120/weatherop/fondation2.jpg
But, once again if we cut a piece out, it's set out like above.
http://i10.photobucket.com/albums/a120/weatherop/fondation3.jpg
And please stop bringing up what the Catholic church did, if you remember they also killed Marting Luther for telling them how corupt they were.
:nod:
Think of how much accumulated, scientific knowledge you're having to bend into context to come up with that explanation. Whereas the flat-earthists use (more or less) the exact same basis for their theory. As for the immobile earth.... as was pointed out elsewhere, even by your explanation it still doesn't explain earthquakes, tectonic shifts, etc - particularly the geological processes that form mountains, etc, and were unknown and unobservabe (due to their slow rate) to the writers of the bible.
In any case, where does your definition of foundations go between
" he suspends the earth over nothing."
and
" and when he marked out the foundations of the earth. "? Because if the earth is the planet, the top one is ok. Over nothing, fine. But if you define the earth, as you have, as being the (say) mantle, then clearly it's not over nothing. Unless you use dual meanings, which invalidates the whole thing as a reliable source.
EDIT; unless you ascribe the latter as marking out the foundations within the planet (earth), which of course contradicts science re: 'the earth is immobile'.
EDIT2; hell; just define what 'earth' means in the bible. Is it the planet, or is it the surface?
And I'm bringing up the Catholic church as an example of misinterpretation of the bible leading to a completely invalid (proven so) conclusion, which continued to be supported by the church (who of all people should be able to correctly interpret the bible), until it had been completely and irrefutably disproved by scientific exploration. In fact, IMO it's a good example of the Church actively seeking to hold back science lest for fear of it 'disproving' it (the church, or even the churches own interpretation of the bible), very similiar to IDs attempts to hold back evolutionary studies and brand it as aetheistic.
Originally posted by Stealth
you're missing the point. whether science said anything is completely irrelevant.
the POINT is at a time when the earth was, among other beliefs OF PEOPLE OF THE TIME, believed to be on the back of elephants, etc.
therefore, the Bible saying the earth is "hung in space" was not even considered at the time. in fact, it was laughed at, since THE WORLD believed something completely different.
There's absolutely no (literal) basis for concluding that is what it even means within the bible, beyond your foresight-aided interpretation. History that the idea of a flat, geocentric earth existed within Christian society for a very long time (centuries), which to me is pretty solid evidence that what you say is not the only literal interpretation, nor is it even the most likely or supported one.
So even when the world (or western, at least; I'm not familiar with Arab/Asian/etc historical views) was Christian, the idea of a spherical planet orbiting the sun, etc, was laughed at. i.e. that would be 'the people of the time' as you so succinctly put in capitals.
What is the only difference between your interpretation and, say, that of the Pope 600 years ago? Scientific discovery. And with a translated (multiple times), 2 thousand(+) year old allegorical story, it's easy to rewrite to suit yourself.
Of course, Pythagoras in Ancient Greece worked out the concept of a spherical earth; albeit not orbiting the sun but a 'hearth' of the gods (the model depicted the sun, etc, and other planets orbiting this hearth, with the earth closest. A 'counter earth' was placed inside earths orbit, acting to eclipse this hearth from view)
Ancient Indian astronomy worked out not just that the Earth orbited the Sun, but also that the stars were the same as the sun. Vedic literature (3000-1000BC) implies the earth is a sphere, by referring to the Sun as the 'centre of spheres'.
-
so now do you all see why Biblical evedence cannot be used in science (other than perhapse anthopology)?
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
There's absolutely no (literal) basis for concluding that is what it even means within the bible, beyond your foresight-aided interpretation. History that the idea of a flat, geocentric earth existed within Christian society for a very long time (centuries), which to me is pretty solid evidence that what you say is not the only literal interpretation, nor is it even the most likely or supported one.
So even when the world (or western, at least; I'm not familiar with Arab/Asian/etc historical views) was Christian, the idea of a spherical planet orbiting the sun, etc, was laughed at. i.e. that would be 'the people of the time' as you so succinctly put in capitals.
What is the only difference between your interpretation and, say, that of the Pope 600 years ago? Scientific discovery. And with a translated (multiple times), 2 thousand(+) year old allegorical story, it's easy to rewrite to suit yourself.
Of course, Pythagoras in Ancient Greece worked out the concept of a spherical earth; albeit not orbiting the sun but a 'hearth' of the gods (the model depicted the sun, etc, and other planets orbiting this hearth, with the earth closest. A 'counter earth' was placed inside earths orbit, acting to eclipse this hearth from view)
Ancient Indian astronomy worked out not just that the Earth orbited the Sun, but also that the stars were the same as the sun. Vedic literature (3000-1000BC) implies the earth is a sphere, by referring to the Sun as the 'centre of spheres'.
again you miss the point.
it matters not WHAT people didn't believe in the Bible, or believed instead that the earth was flat. it doesn't matter if everyone on earth believed the earth was flat, christian or not. the Bible still stated that the earth was not.
we're discussing the validity of the Bible here... not whether Christians ever listened to it :p
-
Originally posted by Stealth
it matters not WHAT people didn't believe in the Bible, or believed instead that the earth was flat. it doesn't matter if everyone on earth believed the earth was flat, christian or not. the Bible still stated that the earth was not.
No, it didn't. There's no point where the Bible is anything more than ambiguous on the whole matter. You've interpreted it, in a modern context, to not outright conflict with scientific common knowledge. That interpretation is not equivalent to unambiguous knowledge about our world, period.
-
Originally posted by Ghostavo
You are the one missing the point, you are discussing the validity of a sentence in a book of one religion against the saying of other religions/beliefs! What do you really accomplish there?
What I do agree is that the people who wrote the bible took the knowledge and some common beliefs/mythos at the time and wrote them onto the bible. So it's not a case of the bible having new info or something, it's the fact that it preserved some of the knowledge from those times.
maybe it's because we don't speak the same language, therefore you're having trouble understanding this:
The whole point here, was AT THE TIME NO ONE even CONSIDERED the earth being round or hanging in space. it was flat. it rested on elephants. end of story. so why does the Bible not talk about the earth being round and hanging in space......
THEREFORE the people who wrote the book did NOT take the "knowledge and some common beliefs/mythos at the time and write them onto the Bible"... because they all believed the opposite of what's written in the Bible. you understand!?
If you don't read anything else, do your best to understand this sentence:
The Bible talking about the earth hanging in space (or being round) was UNHEARD of at the time. so what crazy philosopher sat down and wrote information that everyone laughed at, that eventually turned out to be 100% accurate.
see where i'm coming from here?
-
Originally posted by StratComm
No, it didn't. There's no point where the Bible is anything more than ambiguous on the whole matter. You've interpreted it, in a modern context, to not outright conflict with scientific common knowledge. That interpretation is not equivalent to unambiguous knowledge about our world, period.
how is the Bible saying the earth hangs in space, or talking about the sphere of the earth an "interpretation"?
You can only play the "interpretation of the Bible" so far, and then it just doesn't make sense anymore. Unless you're implying that the translations over the years weren't accurate, and were edited to fit common beliefs?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
The whole point here, was AT THE TIME NO ONE even CONSIDERED the earth being round or hanging in space. it was flat. it rested on elephants. end of story. so why does the Bible not talk about the earth being round and hanging in space......
...
The Bible talking about the earth hanging in space (or being round) was UNHEARD of at the time. so what crazy philosopher sat down and wrote information that everyone laughed at, that eventually turned out to be 100% accurate.
actualy as has been mentioned about a dozen times now, many people of that time DID beleive the earth was round and part of a celestial system.
but more importantly the Bible DOESN'T say this, it is only YOUR INTERPETATION of it, comeing at it ASSUMEING IT CANNOT BE WRONG, and knowing that the earth is in fact a sphere, contorting the words of the Bible and reality untill you can find some obsure way of connecting the two, and then claiming that the bible stated something it did not, I could probly find ways of interpeting the Bible that says up is down, light is dark and green is in fact orenge but it wouldn't make any of these things true just because I could pick random bits of fact take them out of context reinterpet them a dozen times change the meaning of words from and stich them together with duct tape.
now pay atention here, this is the important part
you can make the Bible mean just about anything you want so useing it as the basis of finding scientific details/theory is absurd. even assumeing it is devinely inspired and that it does indeed contain the truth, you probly don't fully understand it and especaly when it comes to finding the rules that define how the mortal plane work, it seems as if these truths, if they exsist, can only be found after the fact, after we find them on our own (ie via science). so you CANNOT use Biblical evedence in science because Biblical evedence, if it is accurate, can only be found after a vast amount of interpetation.
now can we get back to werever we were when you claimed that Biblical evedence could be used in science.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
how is the Bible saying the earth hangs in space, or talking about the sphere of the earth an "interpretation"?
You can only play the "interpretation of the Bible" so far, and then it just doesn't make sense anymore. Unless you're implying that the translations over the years weren't accurate, and were edited to fit common beliefs?
Entirely possible. Especially in the case of, for example, Hebrew to Latin to Olde English to modern English. For example, the King James translation apparently has some bias in it which based around the Protestant concept of faith only. There has certainly been changes; for example in KJ the (para)phrase 'stretched the north over the empty place', in newer translations it becomes the north skies.
For example - your example - the word (hhug) used in the bible which you take to mean sphere, has the dual meaning 'circle' and 'sphere'. From the perspective of someone trying to prove the bible 'right', sphere would be the assumption. From the perspective of anthropology (AFAIK the majority of cultures believed in a flat earth theory, up to and well after its writing), 'circle' would seem more plausible (and indeed was the preferred translation until it was unequivocally proven the earth was spherical).
The bible does not (correctly) say the earth hangs upon space, either, because of contradictions on what the word 'earth' even means; in another passage it is described as immobile, in another it is described as having foundations. You can only reconcile this with modern knowledge by giving that 'earth' different meanings in those 3 (for example) passages.
(also, the concept of space as we know is not necessarily the meaning of space - or rather 'nothing' as described in the bible. AFAIK there's no explicit explanation of the sun, other planets, stars etc in an accurate astronomical sense, although I've not checked fully. certainly the description of God stopping the sun for a battle doesn't chime with reality)
Furthermore, when you ascribe correctness on the basis of divine inspiration, you are really assuming correctness via your own foreknowledge. What the bible does get right, is not necessarily attributable to Gods' divine guidance (for lack of a better term). The value of pi (whilst semi-close, is still wrong) was already known to a far greater accuracy by older cultures, and the concept of a spherical earth was known to the ancient Greeks. Another example being the concept of 'the circuit of the winds'; I would sincerely doubt it requires divine knowledge to notice which way the wind is blowing, particularly in an era when sailboats were used (for example).
As we cannot prove divine inspiration (neither in terms of accuracy of what was written, nor a divine mechanism, i.e. the existence of God), how can we possibly prove the correctness of some or all of the bible itself? As part of the principles of science is a reliance on empirical fact, the bible simply does not qualify for consideration, any more than, (for example) Beowulf can be considered a literal historical document.
-
or penny archade as a documentation of the laws of physics.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
how is the Bible saying the earth hangs in space, or talking about the sphere of the earth an "interpretation"?
It is by the fact that the passages you posted make no explicit reference to either a sphere or space. It can be forced to fit with other knowledge, but it is not explicitly stated. Most places actually infer the opposite of a spherical earth.
Originally posted by Stealth
You can only play the "interpretation of the Bible" so far, and then it just doesn't make sense anymore. Unless you're implying that the translations over the years weren't accurate, and were edited to fit common beliefs?
And haven't we been making this case since Biblical evidence was first brought into this debate? I know of no one that calls the King James version 100% accurate to the original texts, and that's assuming that what we have as "original texts" are even unmodified from their original (now lost) form. You're taking a stance that even literalist Biblical scholars won't touch with a 10-foot pole, because a simple comparison between two translations of the same book are in fact very different.
-
Bob: Check your spelling in that post, it's atrocious.
Anyway. Point is, however you choose to interpret it: if a scripture talks about the Earth hanging in space, not suspended by anything, when at the time beliefs were completely opposite, then JUST PERHAPS it was right.
just perhaps.
Translations do change words, and wording, as to be expected. but they don't change from, for example: "Earth on elephants" to "Earth suspended in space"... they may change 'space' to 'nothing', and such, but c'mon. stop pulling the blinds down in front of your eyes intentionally.
actualy as has been mentioned about a dozen times now, many people of that time DID beleive the earth was round and part of a celestial system.
no they didn't.
maybe a handful, and they were laughed at for their beliefs.
-
IF that is what it talks about, which is itself a matter of intepretation and furthermore not something (i.e. the correct supposition of the planet Earth being within the vacuum of space) that could be placed down to divine insight due to it being an existing theory.
I'd point out the concept of a spherical, 'hanging' earth is scarcely the opposite of the rest of the worlds' beliefs. In the 1st century, Pliny the Elder (23-79) declared the world was agreed that Earth was spherical (in his 'Natural history'); this, I would wager, too early to be down to biblical influence. (I'm ignoring the 'rest' of the world, i.e. those continents outside western europe and the middle-east/north africa; I know the Greeks believed in a spherical, earth in space, and the Indians, and apparently the Chinese had a similar BC-era opinion, although I've read varying descriptions of whether it was a sphere or hemisphere they regarded the earth as)
EDIT; specifically, all educated Greeks and Romans accepted the spherical earth theory by about the 3rd century CE.
edit2; I've been trying to check exactly how entrenched - if atall - the flat earth theory was in the church during medieval times. From what I can tell, they stuck pretty much to the Greek (spherical) model, although they objected to the non-geocentric view of the universe from Copernicus and Galileo, etc. So if I said the medieval (etc) church was flat-earthist, I was almost certainly wrong about that.
Evidence of other middle eastern mythology (which would have inspired the OT writers) would seem to make a flat earth description more likely (http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm). As the spherical earth theory would be more accepted by the time of the NTs' writing, it would be more likely to be found in those books.
However, 'just perhaps' is not good enough. 'Just perhaps' is not a solild or suitable factual basis for forming an... idea that is to be taught as scientific theory. If[/i] evolutionary theory was a guess without evidence (that might 'perhaps' be right), then ID (nee creationism, and specifically biblican creationism due to it's main proponents) could be considered a valid alternative.
But evolutionary theory is not just a guess, as it is derived from, and tested against, empirical facts and evidence. It is, the most plausible, most empirically supported theory and the only one (vis-a-vis creationism) that has the criteria of a scientific theory.
-
I'd point out the concept of a spherical, 'hanging' earth is scarcely the opposite of the rest of the worlds' beliefs. In the 1st century, Pliny the Elder (23-79) declared the world was agreed that Earth was spherical (in his 'Natural history'); this, I would wager, too early to be down to biblical influence. (I'm ignoring the 'rest' of the world, i.e. those continents outside western europe and the middle-east/north africa; I know the Greeks believed in a spherical, earth in space, and the Indians, and apparently the Chinese had a similar BC-era opinion, although I've read varying descriptions of whether it was a sphere or hemisphere they regarded the earth as)
First let me ask you if you're familiar with the dates some of the Biblical books were written... you talk about so-and-so in first century CE, and then the greeks, etc. and that's somewhat impressive
......... until you realize that the writing of Job was completed in 1473 BCE (<-- Keyword. QUITE a few years before the cultures/people you mentioned).
And thus i rest my case.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf
WeatherOp: I'm still waiting for you to rebuke my Biblical argument that says you are blaspheming by claiming you know God's will. Or do you lack the ability to?
:Matthew 5:5
Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.
meek
adj 1: humble in spirit or manner; suggesting retiring mildness or even cowed submissiveness; "meek and self-effacing" [syn: mild, modest] 2: very docile; "tame obedience"; "meek as a mouse"- Langston Hughes [syn: tame] 3: evidencing little spirit or courage; overly submissive or compliant; "compliant and anxious to suit his opinions of those of others"; "a fine fiery blast against meek conformity"- Orville Prescott; "she looked meek but had the heart of a lion"; "was submissive and subservient" [syn: compliant, spiritless]
out of the dictionary, not blaspheming
:Mark 7:20-23
And he said, That which cometh out of the man, that defileth the man. For from within, out of the heart of men, proceed evil thoughts, adulteries, fornications, murders, thefts, covetousness, wickedness, deceit, lasciviousness, an evil eye, blasphemy, pride, foolishness: All these evil things come from within, and defile the man.
Yep, but once again when you become born again, and with God living inside you cannot be wicked, while you may still do things against God, due to man's sinful nature.
Not blaspheming
:John 8:7
So when they continued asking him, he lifted up himself, and said unto them, He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.
Yep, do I have the right to kill you because your sinful, no, cause I'm still human too, I'm still sinful. Even tho God lives inside me, I'm still human I'm still gonna fall.
Now tell me how I'm blaspheming. Do I know God's will, yes it's all in the Bible, and then God tells me personally if what I do is right or wrong and then the Bible is there to back it up, and then he tells me His perfect will for my life. However I cannot tell you to be a preacher, missionary or something else cause I do not know God's will for your life.
But, Bible tells me to preach.
2 Timothy 4:2
Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all long suffering and doctrine
And then Jesus tells me to
Matthew 28
19Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
20Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.
So, I cannot tell you God's will for your life, but I can preach unto you "Ye must be born again".:nod:
-
What case? You still haven't even remotely shown that the Bible is specific on a round-earth theory. You've shown that you can INTERPRET it that way, not that it say such a thing. Pretty f***ing huge distinction. We're WAY off on a tangent here, but there has been nothing show anything more specific than that the Bible is a horrible source for "factual" information, simply because you can't get anything close to full agreement on what it says, much less what it means.
EDIT: WeatherOp, the difference is that while preaching is a mandate from Christ, proporting to know the explicit will of God (in your case, by saying with certainty who has and has not found him) is blasphemy. No mortal can possibly know that sort of thing. Quote Biblical references to preaching all you want, it won't change that fact.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
First let me ask you if you're familiar with the dates some of the Biblical books were written... you talk about so-and-so in first century CE, and then the greeks, etc. and that's somewhat impressive
......... until you realize that the writing of Job was completed in 1473 BCE (<-- Keyword. QUITE a few years before the cultures/people you mentioned).
And thus i rest my case.
See my edited in reference to middle eastern mythology and the literal interpretation of the OT (particularly the 'firmament'). I don't believe Job explicitly states a spherical earth, anyways.
Also, the date of the book of Job is in dispute; 700 BC, 550 BC, or 400-300 BC (source; http://www.cresourcei.org/books/job.html). Only the first date would bring it before Pythagoras' theory. And none of this would make such a statement - if that is what it is - divinely inspired. The Indians observation of not only a spherical earth, but one orbiting the sun, predates even your date of Job.
I know that Job is regarded as being a man who lived to a whopping 140 years old in the 1st or 2nd millenium BC, but that isn't really relevant as there's no guarantee he existed, or that the tale was not modified through centuries of verbal folklore.
I am, of course, assuming there was no retrospective editing to the OT.
-
:sigh:
Evolutionary theory provides no data on the topic of intelligent creators. Therefore, it is neither a threat nor a boon to any side in the "Does God exist?" debate.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
See my edited in reference to middle eastern mythology and the literal interpretation of the OT (particularly the 'firmament'). I don't believe Job explicitly states a spherical earth, anyways.
Also, the date of the book of Job is in dispute; 700 BC, 550 BC, or 400-300 BC (source; http://www.cresourcei.org/books/job.html). Only the first date would bring it before Pythagoras' theory. And none of this would make such a statement - if that is what it is - divinely inspired. The Indians observation of not only a spherical earth, but one orbiting the sun, predates even your date of Job.
I know that Job is regarded as being a man who lived to a whopping 140 years old in the 1st or 2nd millenium BC, but that isn't really relevant as there's no guarantee he existed, or that the tale was not modified through centuries of verbal folklore.
I am, of course, assuming there was no retrospective editing to the OT.
suddenly invalidates all your CE theories, doesn't it. you can always tell when someone's running out of ideas in an argument. hehehe.
also, Job does talk about the earth not being suspended by anything.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
But, Bible tells me to preach.
not wanting to take all the glory from whoever's involved in this debate, but just wanted to throw something in:
You acknowledge that the bible tells Christians to preach, yet how many "Christian" religions actually preach, like Jesus did? Think about it.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
suddenly invalidates all your CE theories, doesn't it. you can always tell when someone's running out of ideas in an argument. hehehe.
also, Job does talk about the earth not being suspended by anything.
I honestly have absolutely no idea how to even begin to respond to that. Maybe that the person out of ideas isn't aldo, since there's no content there whatsoever, but that's about it.
-
:wtf: ?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
maybe it's because we don't speak the same language, therefore you're having trouble understanding this:
The whole point here, was AT THE TIME NO ONE even CONSIDERED the earth being round or hanging in space. it was flat. it rested on elephants. end of story. so why does the Bible not talk about the earth being round and hanging in space......
THEREFORE the people who wrote the book did NOT take the "knowledge and some common beliefs/mythos at the time and write them onto the Bible"... because they all believed the opposite of what's written in the Bible. you understand!?
If you don't read anything else, do your best to understand this sentence:
The Bible talking about the earth hanging in space (or being round) was UNHEARD of at the time. so what crazy philosopher sat down and wrote information that everyone laughed at, that eventually turned out to be 100% accurate.
see where i'm coming from here?
Although I'm not a native english user, I think I wrote clearly when I exposed that the idea that the earth was round was proved by many MANY ancient greek philosophers!!! Explain how the pythagoreans had that knowledge 500 years BC! It was NOT unheard of, no matter how much you shout about, it was not unique it had been discussed and proven before. As for the earth hanging in space, no scientific theory EVER considered that the earth was hang by turtles or whatever. Those were beliefs and beliefs are not science. Spheres inside spheres was a theory that tried to explain the form of the universe and still as the spheres didn't exactly touch each other they... would be hanging by nothing. So as you can see, the bible didn't exactly told anything new, just gathered information from sources and put it there.
Concluding, shout as much as you want, I understand you perfectly clear. Just because my mastery of this language isn't as good as the majority of this forum doesn't mean you can dismiss my arguments with a simple "english n00b!".
Next time someone tells me the bible was written by divine inspiration, I'll tell them I solved my science tests by "divine inspiration"!
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
so now do you all see why Biblical evedence cannot be used in science (other than perhapse anthopology)?
*Smacks Bobboau*
Stop giving us a bad name :p
No *real* archaeologist wakes up in the morning thinking "I'm going to find the lost city of Atlantis, then Troy, and finally the lost tribe of Apsu-Hek!"
Generally what happens is you find a site, then when correlating it with historical and material evidence you wind up finding out it was this city mentioned in myth. (also mentioned in real historic documents, but until then assumed to be allegory)
All of the "biblical" cities found are also mentioned in contemporary historic documents. (Greek, Sumerian, Phoenician, etc.) There are plenty of cities though in that book that appear to be purely mythical in nature as nothing in real life resembles their descriptions/events.
So no self-respecting archaeologist uses the bible as a primary source, it needs other evidence as well. (generally the truth of the events is between what the Hebrews and Phoenicians wrote...)
-
Originally posted by Stealth
not wanting to take all the glory from whoever's involved in this debate, but just wanted to throw something in:
You acknowledge that the bible tells Christians to preach, yet how many "Christian" religions actually preach, like Jesus did? Think about it.
Sorry, I didn't really get that, can you please help me out.;)
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
:sigh:
Evolutionary theory provides no data on the topic of intelligent creators. Therefore, it is neither a threat nor a boon to any side in the "Does God exist?" debate.
how true..
What' the hell is keeping this thread going? the discussion is pointless anyway...
-
Originally posted by Stealth
suddenly invalidates all your CE theories, doesn't it. you can always tell when someone's running out of ideas in an argument. hehehe.
also, Job does talk about the earth not being suspended by anything.
Sorry?
I'll admit not checking the date of Job until after you mentioned it, but even if it implies a spherical earth (which is in itself a big leap of faith, based on mythologies of that time and around that area, including the literal hebrew translation of the OT), only the furthest back estimate would place it as before the Greek concept of the spherical earth, assuming that a) the Greeks were the first in Western europe (which I'm not sure of; I know that the spherical or circular earth concept was common and accepted enough by around 400-300BC for it to be depicted on coins, something which was more likely to come from, say, the Romans or Greeks than Judaism) and b) that Job itself was not reinterpreted over time.
And, for the bugger-knows-how-manyth time, there is a clear contradiction between the interpretation of 'earth' in that hangeth upon nothing quote, with other uses of the earth; the most blatant being, of course, describing the earth as having foundation.
And another being "And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so. And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas...; which would clearly differntiate the 'earth' as being land, and hence not the planet.
Also;
[q]Exodus 20:4
4Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.[/q]
[q]Genesis 1
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
2And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.
6And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
7And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which were under the firmament from the waters which were above the firmament: and it was so.
8And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
9And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry land appear: and it was so.
10And God called the dry land Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that it was good.
11And G[/q]
(1 implies that the water existed before land; i.e. the predominant ancient - IIRC - belief in the middle east that the 'world' was land surrounded by an endless ocean or river. 6/7 implies earth/the land sits on top of water. Hebrew use of 'firmament' apparently corresponds to a beaten metal plate)
[q]
Genesis 7
11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
[/q]
(implies that heaven is a physical object within the sky; i.e. the ancient model of foundation-earth-heaven shaped in a sort of dome. The 'hangeth upon nothing' would in that context refer to the whole kit and kaboodle)
In fact, the more I read of the - for lack of a better term - genesis of the Ot, the more I'm led to conclude it meant a flat earth, given the mythological origins influencing the Ot writers(please read http://www.religioustolerance.org/cosmo_bibl2.htm if not already).
Even if the bible was the first - by your very liberal and foresighted interpretation - do identify these concepts in Western Europe, it is still centuries behind the concepts of Vedic literature in India. So this 'knowledge' would neither be divine nor unique, as it was already known earlier and elsewhere through observation.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
[q]
Genesis 7
11In the six hundredth year of Noah's life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.
12And the rain was upon the earth forty days and forty nights.
[/q]
(implies that heaven is a physical object within the sky; i.e. the ancient model of foundation-earth-heaven shaped in a sort of dome.
:lol:And when it rains cats and dogs, it really is raining cats and dogs. But, I'm not gonna get involved in this.
-
Originally posted by Ace
*Smacks Bobboau*
did I say archaeology?
no...
I was actualy thinking more along the lines of cultural anthropology, the people who study the way cultures veiw themselves and others, and how there related and the traditions and history (both real and legendary) ect...ect...
:headz:
-
Originally posted by Sesquipedalian
:sigh:
Evolutionary theory provides no data on the topic of intelligent creators. Therefore, it is neither a threat nor a boon to any side in the "Does God exist?" debate.
Precisely, and the topic of this discussion is whether "Does God exist?" belong in a school setting. Particularly in a science class. WeatherOp has been quite straightforward in answering this. :yes: Some of the people in this discussion continue to dodge the question though.
BTW: I don't think any scientific theory on the beginning of the universe necessarily conflicts with a belief in God either, but that's off topic.
-
and you know the earth is suspended, buy the sun, if it werent for the sun pulling on us all the time we'd go flinging off into space, so the earth in fact is suspended by something.
-
Originally posted by Bobboau
did I say archaeology?
no...
I was actualy thinking more along the lines of cultural anthropology, the people who study the way cultures veiw themselves and others, and how there related and the traditions and history (both real and legendary) ect...ect...
:headz:
Since archaeology is smacked into anth, and every 'thumper I've spoken to thinks I'm supposed to be some sort of christian crusader out to prove the bible right for them by being interested in archaeology, it was a bit of a knee-jerk reaction.
-
Abiogenesis could possibly have a bearing on the existence of a creator. Evolution does not.
-
Originally posted by Kamikaze
Precisely, and the topic of this discussion is whether "Does God exist?" belong in a school setting. Particularly in a science class. WeatherOp has been quite straightforward in answering this. :yes: Some of the people in this discussion continue to dodge the question though.
BTW: I don't think any scientific theory on the beginning of the universe necessarily conflicts with a belief in God either, but that's off topic.
Yes and I still stand by that. So, lets put this debate in the history books.
Let me start by saying, there is not any scienctific evidence on ID, while I see evidence all over the place that does not count as science. Now, lets hit the other side, there is also no evidence of the universe starting by itself. So, what should be taught, nether of it.
But, if you want to teach NS and the Big Bang, you must also say there may be a Creator, as some of you have said. Cause if you teach NS, but leave the possiblity of a Creator out, you are therefor teaching something you are not sure of and have no evidence to support, same way with if you teach ID and don't teach NS.
So, to uphold the Neutrality of the Constitution, you ether teach both or none. As you don't force ether on anyone.
Anything else that needs to be added? If not, lets end this thread.:nod:
-
While, if there ever may be a rational argument that ID would make sense in, that's not the point. Origins of the Universe, if they are ever properly taught in public schools, would be so taught in a Physics class. Those pushing ID are trying to get their pseudo-religious crap pushed into Biology classrooms. There, it has absolutely no place even under the pretense of there being conflicts with scientific explanations for the origin of the universe.
However, the statement that Big Bang theory shouldn't be taught does not follow from a discussion on where the universe came from. There's a whole lot of evidence (I'd dare say nearly irrefutable, but that's asking for trouble) that points to an expanding universe, and everything we can see shows that the spreading goes back as far as anything in the Universe. Therefore it follows that everything originated from the same point in space if the curve is extrapolated back far enough. What came before that is certainly open to debate, but Big Bang theory is very sound science. And it shouldn't be pushed out because it steps on some people's philosophical toes.
And you certainly cannot equate Natural Selection with Big Bang theory in terms of provability. There are countless REAL WORLD EXAMPLES of natural selection at work. You can't just leave that out. Nor can you say that there was a creator that established the world as it is today with the same credibility, as it in this case actually goes very much against hard scientific evidence.
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Let me start by saying, there is not any scienctific evidence on ID, while I see evidence all over the place that does not count as science. Now, lets hit the other side, there is also no evidence of the universe starting by itself. So, what should be taught, nether of it.
But, if you want to teach NS and the Big Bang, you must also say there may be a Creator, as some of you have said. Cause if you teach NS, but leave the possiblity of a Creator out, you are therefor teaching something you are not sure of and have no evidence to support, same way with if you teach ID and don't teach NS.
I agree with the first part of your post, but not the second.
First of all, please provide some scientific evidence of natural selection or the big bang theory being incorrect. Note that the big bang theory does not actually explain what happens before the universe started expanding. The big bang theory only explains what happened a *very* small amount of time after the expansion of the uinverse started.
Second, "I don't know" is an acceptable answer in science. Obviously the big bang theory depends on something existing prior to the expansion of the universe (some hypothesize it was a special form of energy), but it cannot explain what this beginning was in its current state. That's perfectly acceptable. The big bang theory matches the observed evidence (e.g. cosmic background radiation) and makes sense by itself. Another theory (or an extention of the big bang theory) will need to explain what came before.
Another example of this is gravity. We do not yet know exactly what causes gravity, but we know what it does. Some people are trying to show how quantum field theory applies to gravity. Others are trying to find a "gravitron" particle or gravity wave. That doesn't mean we shouldn't teach Newton's law of gravity in school.
By the way, it would not be acceptable for science teachers to teach God as a possible cause of the big bang. That's not even an acceptable scientific hypothesis, it's outside the field of science entirely. Science cannot address anything that is not testable.
-
Personally, you can believe in either form... Darwinism or Intelligent Design (Made it sound cooler than Creationism... kinda like the new tone to it :D ), but to me I'd rather believe in one because it gives me more to look forward to...
-
But Darwinism isn't a system of beliefs. The two are not equivalent. I don't know how many times that has to be stated. And it certainly doesn't provide justification for teaching it in schools.
-
I think you have to have faith to believe in either one. To me, that counts for something.
-
Originally posted by StratComm
But Darwinism isn't a system of beliefs. The two are not equivalent. I don't know how many times that has to be stated. And it certainly doesn't provide justification for teaching it in schools.
That's the core idea behind ID, to confuse the ignorant (not neccissarily stupid, just ill informed) that the Theory of Evolution & Intelligent Design are completely equal, valid arguements. It's sad to admit, but a good portion of the United States - at least in the states where the ID debate has already occurred - holds this belief; that the two are completely equal and should be treated that way. Tin Can has shown this rather well, in his mindset that 'Darwinism' is on par with religeous belief. Without a doubt, this is a view perpetuated by ID proponents.
EDIT: @Tin Can; You don't have to have faith to know Evolution is right, as the evidence holds up quite nicely. Faith is something that only religeon truly needs, as without faith (blind faith I might add), there is absolutely nothing holding up any notion of a higher being.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I think you have to have faith to believe in either one. To me, that counts for something.
We're getting off topic again. Do you agree with ID in biology classes? Do you agree with evolution in biology classes? Why?
-
Originally posted by WeatherOp
:lol:And when it rains cats and dogs, it really is raining cats and dogs. But, I'm not gonna get involved in this.
You've already illustrated my point; it's impossible to clearly demarcate which parts of the bible are parable/mythologically derived and which are (or, rather, could be) literal descriptions.
Indeed, that very phrase 'raining cats and dogs' could well be taken literally without foreknowledge of the culture that created it; it could be twisted into all manner of different meanings, from the literal sense of raining animals, or so the most abstract sense of some strange belief that animals are thrown down from the sky rather than born.
Because of this, it's very easy for someone - say Stealth here - to go back, read it, and fit in interpretations based upon existing 3rd party knowledge (i.e. scientific or philosophical concepts). My understanding is that the most consistent anthropology/mythology in that area, at that time, would make it highly likely the OT was written based on an agglomeration of multiple, flat earthist creation myths, and conveys that message.
(that would not, of course, mean the NT shared the same view; it was written after Pythagoras and the spherical earth was accepted theory)
Even if you accept that sort of liberal* reinterpretation, it still doesn't make the bible a valid source as it can only be verified through independent empirical investigation; nee science.
Hence why, to go back OT, ID has no place in the classroom, as it has not literal/factual basis. Ignoring the fact we've gone, what, 6 pages and seemingly not a single person has been able to define what ID is beyond 'God did it'.
*if someone doesn't know the meaning of the word liberal in that context, they're getting a kicking
Originally posted by WeatherOp
Yes and I still stand by that. So, lets put this debate in the history books.
Let me start by saying, there is not any scienctific evidence on ID, while I see evidence all over the place that does not count as science. Now, lets hit the other side, there is also no evidence of the universe starting by itself. So, what should be taught, nether of it.
But, if you want to teach NS and the Big Bang, you must also say there may be a Creator, as some of you have said. Cause if you teach NS, but leave the possiblity of a Creator out, you are therefor teaching something you are not sure of and have no evidence to support, same way with if you teach ID and don't teach NS.
So, to uphold the Neutrality of the Constitution, you ether teach both or none. As you don't force ether on anyone.
Anything else that needs to be added? If not, lets end this thread.:nod:
There is no scientific basis for any creator (empirical evidence, etc). The bible is not valid in this regard either (see above).
More importantly, there is no scientific (testable, observable) theory for either a) the creation of the universe by God or b) the creation of life by God.
In the case of a) we can test many of the hypotheses behind the big bang theory based on observing, for example, cosmic background radiation; up to the first few nanoseconds of its existance (bearing in mind time was created at the big bang, which was an exponential increase, so there's still a hell of a lot to find). So there is an explanation being formed for the reasons behind it, the physics, etc, and the aforementioned evidence is supporting that.
(cosmic background radiation is a perfect example of scientific hypothesis being tested; it was predicted a big bang would leave cosmic background radiation, and lo and behold, they found some. this sort of testable scenario is what is absent from all religious based doctrine)
It's not complete, of course, but no-one has ever said that. But it's the best supported theory, and if we want to expand it we need to keep asking questions, not throw it away.
There is no explanation, let alone observable evidence of God creating the universe. Nor is there any attempt to explain how or why God existed before all other matter. That explanation does not fit any of the accepted criteria required for a scientific theory; hence it is not science.
b)There is plenty of evidence for evolution, etc. But none for ID, and no theory to even examine for that. (brief, cos this bit has been done to death)
Remember, if you wish to teach Christian creationism in science, you have to teach all other creation mythologies. Ever. Because they all have the same amount of supporting evidence, and all can be bent liberally to suit.
What you should do, IMO, is teach (the various tenets of religious) creationism in Religion Education (as you point out, none of the 'evidence' for ID is science, it's religious/belief based and thus should be put into RE), and Evolution, etc, in Biology (i.e. the appropriate science class). To place ID in a science class, without it holding any form of scientifically testable or validatable qualities as science is sheer folly. In the event of an unexplained part of, say, evolution or the big bang, the explanation is simply 'this is being investigated'.
Not prejudging another, evidenceless explanation, whatever that may be. I would judge it to be a massive violation of church and state if the explanation for every unanswered question was determined to be 'God'. Don't know 5+5? Put God! It would be simple indoctrination, and based on the debate I've seen here and elsewhere, completely inaccurate and factually wrong.
By holding science as inherently aetheistic, too, you're making a major mistake in exactly what science is. Science is effectively agnostic; the issue of God in science is determined by evidence, not feelings. So long as there is no evidence, it would be wholly fallacious to involve God as science. As the concept of a supernatural diety/dieties is inherently un(and dis)proveable, too, it can never have a role in the reasoning of science; what use is a universal 'maybe'?
Would you amend mathematics classes to teach pi=3 because the bible says so? Otherwise is 'forcing' 3.14...etc onto people, by your statement.
Science in science class, religion in RE class. What the hell is wrong with that?!
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I think you have to have faith to believe in either one. To me, that counts for something.
That's a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science - evolution being the example here - abhors the concept of faith. It relies upon empirical evidence, and testable hypotheses.
-
I differ on that, since we can't really see how far back our "evolutionary" stages went, as far as how we turned into man from ape. The simple principle is that we just don't know. We can take swings at it, guess as to what we might have evolved from, and try and explain it, but we never know. The same goes with Intelligent Design. We just dont know...
You have to put your faith in either one because both have explanations we can't or have yet to prove, and both have explanations for things to come we can't forsee.
-
Utter nonsense. Are you seriously stating that unless we see something happen ourselves we can never deduce what must have happened?
Are you saying that suppose you come across a fallen tree you couldn't ever say whether it was a normal tree that must have fallen over or a strange kind of mutant tree that grows sideways along the ground simply because you didn't see it fall over?
-
When taking a swing at something as big as something we wont ever know, then yes, I'd rather see it myself.
In the end, can we prove any of it? Not really. We can look at things, try and find out how far back they date, maybe relate them to another species, but I refuse to believe we started out as bacteria.
Are you saying that suppose you come across a fallen tree you couldn't ever say whether it was a normal tree that must have fallen over or a strange kind of mutant tree that grows sideways along the ground simply because you didn't see it fall over?
Exactly. We have no idea.
-
... I assume the stump was just out of your cone of vision then?
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
...but I refuse to believe we started out as bacteria.
Hrm. Science is based on placing impartiality over belief. Religion is based on placing belief over impartiality.
But, if you want to teach NS and the Big Bang, you must also say there may be a Creator, as some of you have said. Cause if you teach NS, but leave the possiblity of a Creator out, you are therefor teaching something you are not sure of and have no evidence to support, same way with if you teach ID and don't teach NS.
I don't think leaving a Creator out is necessarily incomplete. AFAIK there's no direct evidence that supports the idea of "Intelligence Design". I think to make everyone as happy as possible while still teaching NS it must be included, but I don't think in a scientific textbook it should be necessary to spell it out.
Part of the problem I've seen is that this being a touchy subject, there are some teachers who flat-out refuse to believe that it's true, and thus have serious problems with teaching it in-class. I figure putting it in-context as "This is what the scientific community thinks, this is the evidence" (Which should be the curriculum anyways) "but there are other opinions that are not covered in this class eg intelligent design."
Of course my HS bio teacher was especially creative, and pointed out to the class that if they didn't believe in it, they could use what they'd learned in the class in debates to about ID vs NS.
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
When taking a swing at something as big as something we wont ever know, then yes, I'd rather see it myself.
In the end, can we prove any of it? Not really. We can look at things, try and find out how far back they date, maybe relate them to another species, but I refuse to believe we started out as bacteria
Can we prove any of it? Yes, it is quite possible. Your refusal to not believe we all started out as bacteria? That's totally cool. Nobody here is trying to force anything on you. But the fact is, the evidence points to the fact that we did indeed start out as a Bacteria-like organism, and if you don't want to accept that, Stealth's camp is right over there...
Also, has anyone realised the sheer irony of the name 'Intelligent Design'...? :p
-
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
When taking a swing at something as big as something we wont ever know, then yes, I'd rather see it myself.
In the end, can we prove any of it? Not really. We can look at things, try and find out how far back they date, maybe relate them to another species, but I refuse to believe we started out as bacteria.
We can prove the mechanisms (and have). Your (apparent) definition of proof would require time travel and observation of every animal that has ever lived; so it's really a definition designed to make proof seem impossible.
You also make the assumption 'we'll never know', which I've noticed is a cornerstone of ID type ideas and the complete antithesis of science. Although we have evidence of both micro and macroevolution anyways, like equine fossils (equine evolution has a very good fossil record), and the observation of things like bacterial adaptation against penecillin, or insects against pesticide.
On the subject of macroevolution, we have strong evidence for common origin; for example, out of the 320 naturally occuring amino acids, all known life uses the same set of 22 to build proteins. There is also the sharing of 'ubquitous' genes, which exist across all known life and appear to fulfill a common purpose (i.e. would come from a base source). The same 4 nucleic acids (guanine, thymine, adenine, cytocine) form all known DNA/RNA.
So we have evidence of macroevolution, and demonstrated microevolution on the lab (which in itself demonstrates the principles of macroevolution). We have a weight of evidence supporting a common ancestor, and a nested evolutionary hierarchy, including fossil evidence of transitionary forms (including of the homo genus, even if the 'missing link' is still to be found).
And this is in spite of the inherently incomplete nature of fossil evidence.
Technically, we started out as a series of chemicals that formed (evolved) into polymers, amino acids and soforth, and then bacteria.
To rephrase karas argument;
We find a tree lying in the woods. We know that all trees can fall down, and that all grow vertically (so their leaves can reach the sun for photsynthesis). We also know the roots should be in the ground to draw up water. Additionally, we can see the trunk, etc, is identical to surrounding trees (which, of course, are known to only grow vertically). The tree may also appear dead or decaying.
But in your mind, you can't decide whether it fell down or started like that?
-
religon relies on faith, science relies on the lack there of, the only reason people believe anything in science is because of evedence, the fossils, genetic links, stuff like that, it all makes sence, there is no evedence for a deity so it takes faith to believe in one. in science you have a theory and it makes predictions and if it fails to make (corect) predictions it is droped, in religion you have a beleife and it is right, if you find somehting that says it's wrong, it is you who are mistaken, and you need to try and figure out how to work this something into the truth of your faith.
-
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/10/06/science/sciencespecial2/06canyon.html
This annoys me. People still think the world is only 5000 years old.
-
On the other hand
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/10/05/creation_evolution/
Schoenborn said: "Without a doubt, Darwin pulled off quite a feat with his main work and it remains one of the very great works of intellectual history. I see no problem combining belief in the Creator with the theory of evolution, under one condition - that the limits of a scientific theory are respected."
He explained that in his view, those limits would be overstepped if scientists claimed that evolution proves that there could be no creator. Since science has never made any such claim on evolution's behalf*, it looks like it's still OK by the Vatican.
Looks like the roman catholics on this thread can quit arguing. The vatican has stated yet again that it is against ID even if it does (obviously) believe in God.
The really funny thing is that it completely f**ks over Stealth's argument because you've got one billion people who now have to look at the bible and interpret that it means evolution is correct :D
-
Albeit worth noting that the Vatican doesn't include abiogenesis in that.
I think the church knows that science cannot prove or disprove God, simply because of the supernatural nature of the God concept. I don't think evolution is aetheistic anyways, so it's not really a 'threat' to the religion; it's being presented as such (by creationists) in order to provide a pretext for introducing religious doctrine into the school system.
So I'd imagine, what they see is the proponents of ID making a tit of themselves effectively trying to hold back scientific progress and making christianity (As the main religion behind ID, in terms of the US 'controversy') look antiquated and out of touch with reality. And hence losing potential worshippers.
-
Pretty much.
As for abiogenesis, this debate was about ID vs Evolution. I want to see evolution taught in class as the only currently recognised scientific theory because quite simply that's what it is. There are no competing theories so it should be taught on its own.
With abiogenesis we are much more in the dark scientifically about that and I dont think that abiogenesis should be taught in schools beyond a cursory glance at the best supported theories. Due to the rather heavy nature of the biochemistry involved it's a subject that's pretty much beyond school children anyway so I'd rather see the time spent on making sure kids understand evolution instead.
I'm not at all upset that the Vatican isn't endorsing abiogenesis as unlike evolution there is very little evidence to support any of the theories. Even the more outlandish ones (life came here on a comet etc) have very little ground to make up to catch the more popular theories. Once there is more proof I'd expect them to change that point of view but for now I'd settle for getting all the catholics in the world to swap sides on this debate :D
-
/me sneaks into this thread to nail the typical easy targets
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
Personally, you can believe in either form... Darwinism or Intelligent Design (Made it sound cooler than Creationism... kinda like the new tone to it :D ), but to me I'd rather believe in one because it gives me more to look forward to...
Your emotional feelings about an idea do not have anything to say about whether it's valid or not. Argument from Emotion is a fallacy, and you know it.
Originally posted by .::Tin Can::.
I think you have to have faith to believe in either one. To me, that counts for something.
What you think, and what fact is, are to different things.
You need faith to have ID, there is more than plenty of independantly verifiable empirical evidence to support Darwinistic evolution. We have observed it to happen.
You are making an argument from ignorance: you have never informed yourself as to what your opposition actually things, what evidence they actually have, etc so that you can attempt to make the claim that they're equal from ignorance of any difference.
You know better Tin Can. Why don't you just finally join the adult world and think for yourself and actually look at what the evidence is? Are you afraid that the evidence will strip you of your emotional comfort blanket? Come on! Grow a backbone.
-
Karajorma: there is a LOT more evidence in support of abiogenesis than you think
(make sure you read the entire article)
goddammit.. someone defaced the wikipedia article by removing a lot of relevant and important information.
what an *******.
Basically: we've recreated abiogenesis in the lab inside containers that were made up of the same chemicals that comprised the atmosphere of early earth. For a while this expiriment had been discredited by some data that was collected about atmospheric conditions and some assumptions about how certain gases would behave. These discrediting factors were found to be incorrect and the validity of the lab work was found to be strong.
-
Actually i was today listening to the first lecture of a paneuropean Network Course in Astrobiology and atleast by the ESA scientiest told us quite directly that we can not be certain what kind of an atmosphere we had on this globe when the organic molecules and the RNA-life were developing. Early life didn't leave any fossil traces to be tracked (i mean the pre-cellular life).
And he offered two other possibilities how to produce organic molecules from inorganic matter, the black smokers (deep sea) and ofcourse the meteorites (bringing either organic matter (for abiogenesis) or RNA/cellular life (panspermia)). That is not to say that these molecules couldn't have been formed in 'primitive' atmosphere by large electric charges (like lightning) or that all three methods could have co-operated.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Karajorma: there is a LOT more evidence in support of abiogenesis than you think
You're making an incorrect assumption there. I'm well aware of how much evidence there is in favour of abiogenesis but the question is how much evidence is there to support one theory over another?
The reducing atmosphere experiements support Cairn-Smith's inorganic clays theory almost as much as the primordial soup theory for instance since all they prove is the existance of amino acids and other basic building blocks. They don't provide us with evidence of the first appearance of replicator (and neither would I expect them to).
EDIT : Wanderer's basically stated what I was on about too. Anyway we'd better stop talking before the creationists start thinking that just cause we're discussing how abiogenesis occured it means that we're discussing if abiogenesis occured. :D
We've spent over one hundred years with the same misconception over evolution after all :D
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Basically: we've recreated abiogenesis in the lab
Lets be fair - we've creaed Amino Acids. AFAIK, we haven't got them to link up into proteins yet.
On another note
From that article
"You see any cracks in that?" he asked. "Instead of bending like that, it should have cracked." The material "had to be soft" to bend, Mr. Vail said, imagining its formation in the flood. When somebody suggested that pressure over time could create plasticity in the rocks, Mr. Vail said, "That's just a theory."
"It's all theory, right?" asked Jack Aiken, 63, an Assemblies of God minister in Alaska who has a master's degree in geology. "Except what's in the Good Book."
[/b]
No way that guy has a masters in Geology - it'd be utterly impossible to get past 1st, maybe 2nd year without accepting an old earth. It's just too fundamental to the science.
-
Originally posted by aldo_14
You've already illustrated my point; it's impossible to clearly demarcate which parts of the bible are parable/mythologically derived and which are (or, rather, could be) literal descriptions.
...(removed the 50 paragraphs of stuff).....
No, we haven't "illustrated your point", we've proved how thick you can be.
You say a scripture talking about the "floodgates of the heavens" being opened IMPLIES a "earth in a dome", or whatever you were going on about.
c'mon man. you're taking this "the Bible is open to massive interpretation" to a level that's just idiotic. to an extent it can be interpreted. but if the Bible says ABC, it means ABC... so you can stop trying to make your "Bible is open to interpretation" points.
the only point here is the Bible's predicted things that were later found true BY SCIENCE. whether you like to acknowledge it or not.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
No way that guy has a masters in Geology - it'd be utterly impossible to get past 1st, maybe 2nd year without accepting an old earth. It's just too fundamental to the science.
It was probably a Christian college if so. I don't qualifications mean much unless the source is given; we have way too many dodgy degree mills as is (Derek Smart Phd anyone?).
Originally posted by Stealth
No, we haven't "illustrated your point", we've proved how thick you can be.
You say a scripture talking about the "floodgates of the heavens" being opened IMPLIES that the earth is in a dome-shaped sky, or whatever you were going on about.
c'mon man. you're taking this "the Bible is open to massive interpretation" to a level that's just idiotic. to an extent it can be interpreted. but if the Bible says ABC, it means ABC... so you can stop trying to make your "Bible is open to interpretation" points.
the only point here is the Bible's predicted things that were later found true BY SCIENCE. whether you like to acknowledge it or not.
The bible says heaven has windows in that particular passage. Windows. Is that to be taken as literal? The bible explicitly says first there was a vast water, then land, then the sun (and soforth), with humanity coming before the animals. Is that literal? The bible describes the firmament, which is translated from a hebrew meaning a sheet of beaten metal; i.e. the concept of a solid dome forming heaven. Is that literal?
The bible does not say the earth is round. It says hhug, which can make a 2 dimensional circle as well as sphere; surrounding mythologies would strongly indicate a 2 dimensional view of the world, based upon shared elements.
The predictions you speak of are your interpretation, based upon your foreknowledge. You are picking passages that you can twist the meaning of to suit your means, despite the fact they are often contradictory in literal terms (earth upon nothing, earth immobile being an example).
And even assuming that these most liberal of interpretations is correct - which I doubt - these still aren't things that can be placed down to divine inspiration due to their discovery or observation in other cultures with no connection to the Christian/Jewish culture.
So the bible hasn't predicted anything. You've taken 2000 years of translations, and adapted the meaning to suit scientific knowledge. That's not prediction, that's interpretation.
Frankly, if the best you can do is call me thick... well, it shows how laughable the whole 'bible as science' position is. Words like 'thick' and 'idiotic' won't conceal the fundamental wrongness of proposing a religious doctrine as scientific evidence, nor will they conceal the inherent contradictions within. And they won't convince anyone any quicker, too.
-
Originally posted by Stealth
the only point here is the Bible's predicted things that were later found true BY SCIENCE. whether you like to acknowledge it or not.
Give one example which right away isn't ripped apart.
-
And I'll add a qualification to that; human history doesn't count as science. Before we wind up with a dozen examples of "how it's been used to find lost civilizations".
-
I think the article I posted is the best example of interpretation. The Vatican has stated that evolution is correct so they are interpreting that the bible supports evolution while stealth is claim that it opposes it.
Those are completely opposite points of view yet they both come from interpretations of the same book.
-
You'd think the Vatican might know about that sort of thing, too. Of course, I think the real pretext to this is that stealth wants the bible regarded as scientific fact, theory and proof all-in-one.
-
@karajorma
And who do you think is right - a horde of educated men who devote their whole life to the interpretation of said text or a couple of people who read the book at home and start drawing conclusions?
-
I don't think anyone beyond the original writers could give you the correct, literal meaning (parable or otherwise) of the bible. All other interpretations would be affected by years of societal change and development, and the interpretations of those before; let alone if they were using translated texts.
The need to express interpretation in modern terms that may not exist in the original Hebrew or Greek, which in itself presents a problem with strict accuracy; the same concepts probably do not exist in modern days (or even in previous times) as at the time of writing.
-
Originally posted by TrashMan
@karajorma
And who do you think is right - a horde of educated men who devote their whole life to the interpretation of said text or a couple of people who read the book at home and start drawing conclusions?
I don't think any of them are right if they are interpreting it as fact. The same body of people have had over a thousend years to study the book and not one of them interpreted it as meaning that evolution occurs until after Darwin discovered it.
Even once the structure of DNA was determined and heredity proved and evolution was starting to look concrete it still took the Vatican until 1996 to admit that science was correct and that as that as far as they were concerned there was no creation vs evolution debate.
So the bible is no more proof that evolution happens than it is proof against evolution.
I think this proves that you absolutely can not interpret the bible as fact. The Vatican should have learned this when they had a go at Galileo and Copernicus but if they're finally realising now that the they should interpret the bible as symbolic then I have to praise them for being able to throw off the dogma that other creationists have been unable to relinquish.
Might be nice if they made a bit more of a song and dance about it so that it didn't have to be an atheist who brought this to the boards attention though :D
And now I've got a question for you Trashman. I'm assuming that you're a catholic here but does that mean that since the pope himself has stated that evolution is accepted by the Vatican that you will drop all objection to the theory from now on?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
the only point here is the Bible's predicted things that were later found true BY SCIENCE. whether you like to acknowledge it or not.
As I said earlier in the thread, you cannot evaluate the bible holistically. Parts of it may be valid and true, but other parts are blatantly fantastical. You can provide specific evidence from the bible, but you can't use treat the whole thing as some infallible source of truth.
So, what specific evidence does the bible have that evolutionary theory is incorrect or that Intelligent Design is a scientific theory? Note that "this part of the bible must be true, because some other parts were true" is not valid for reasons in the above paragraph.
-
The hard part of abiogenesis is getting the amino acids - once you have that spontaenous protein formation is easy
certain simple proteins are known to be replicators and these simple proteins can easy form in a random "amino acid soup"
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The hard part of abiogenesis is getting the amino acids - once you have that spontaenous protein formation is easy
certain simple proteins are known to be replicators and these simple proteins can easy form in a random "amino acid soup"
Got a link?
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The hard part of abiogenesis is getting the amino acids - once you have that spontaenous protein formation is easy
From what i've studied of Urey & Miller, it seemed pretty easy. I concur with Kara, linky please...
-
I think I remember reading something about this in relation to reasearch on prions (mad cow desise/althimers/ect)
-
I though that carbonyl sulfide with few metals can catalyse the oligopeptide formation (perhaps even polypeptide = protein) formation, and carbonyl sulfide it is a common vulcano exhaust gas. Also rapid termperature change as organic matter flows to cold sea floor (2 to 4 C) from black smokers (over 100 c) can cause spontaneous formation of peptides, though only quite short ones.
Really hard part is to explain where did the sugar came from? The backbone of RNA/DNA requires a certain sugars molecules (ribose/deoxyribose) and formation of these compounds is much more difficult to explain than protein formation. In addition also RNA can also catalyse chemical reactions and perhaps even act as replicator.
Haven't got links though, yet.
-
Originally posted by Wanderer
I though that carbonyl sulfide with few metals can catalyse the oligopeptide formation (perhaps even polypeptide = protein) formation, and carbonyl sulfide it is a common vulcano exhaust gas. Also rapid termperature change as organic matter flows to cold sea floor (2 to 4 C) from black smokers (over 100 c) can cause spontaneous formation of peptides, though only quite short ones.
Really hard part is to explain where did the sugar came from? The backbone of RNA/DNA requires a certain sugars molecules (ribose/deoxyribose) and formation of these compounds is much more difficult to explain than protein formation. In addition also RNA can also catalyse chemical reactions and perhaps even act as replicator.
Okay, I lost you at "I thought"...:wtf:
-
Point was that both amino acid and (later on) protein formation can be explained with current knowledge but the formation of sugars needed to keep the only known biological databank together is much more difficult to explain.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
The hard part of abiogenesis is getting the amino acids - once you have that spontaenous protein formation is easy
That is totally contrary to everything I've ever read on this stuff - you definitely need a link.
-
I always read that the Urey-Miller experiments shown the spontaneous formation of amino acids to be simple given the correct conditions and electrical (lightning) stimuli. Although it's now believed the primoridal atmosphere was a less reactive combination than the Urey-Miller experiment, which has been somewhat more difficult (although they have produced a single amino acid in that experiment, so getting amino acids is proven).
Perhaps Kazan means protein 'evolution'? Or maybe polymer formation from monomers in a liquid environment?
-
Originally posted by Stealth
the only point here is the Bible's predicted things that were later found true BY SCIENCE. whether you like to acknowledge it or not.
OK, we've now got fairly good evidence in favour of 'Stealth is an idiot'. Of course, this probably can't proven, but I don't expect it to be disproved any time soon.
Taking all this back to basics, the Creationist camp is favouring ignorance and blind faith over a desire to learn. A cynic might suggest that's because it's easier to control people if you indoctrinate them with a set of beliefs and suppress curiosity about the facts.
Is that it? Science is undermining your safe and happy little world where you're one of God's Chosen Species? Taking away your feeling of superiority?
Welcome to Reality. Your early ancestors were chemicals. Deal with it.
-
Wanderer: they think the first replicators were simple RNA chains - and it's very easy to determine what the atmosphere was made out of in times passed because of gas-capture by rocks and ice.
aldo_14: Although it's now believed the primoridal atmosphere was a less reactive combination - for a while that was true, but that was the false assumptions i made reference too. Further study has found that the primordial atmosphere was atleast, if not more, reactive than the mixture Urey-Miller used.
I'm sorry i cannot grab linkies - all the source citations were attached to that wikipedia article that has since been replaced with a much less detailed one and I swinging by to post without enough time to dig in google :(
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Wanderer: they think the first replicators were simple RNA chains
I wouldn't dispute that the formation of RNA is important but Wanderer is correct in stating that the appearance of sugars is a more complex problem that you've glossed over.
You can't have RNA without having ribose and the Urey-Miller experiments never resulted in the formation of any sugars as far as I'm aware.
Besides the belief that RNA was the first replicator is one theory amongst many. I've already mention Cairn-Smith's inorganic clays theory on this thread for one example.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
Wanderer: they think the first replicators were simple RNA chains - and it's very easy to determine what the atmosphere was made out of in times passed because of gas-capture by rocks and ice.
aldo_14: Although it's now believed the primoridal atmosphere was a less reactive combination - for a while that was true, but that was the false assumptions i made reference too. Further study has found that the primordial atmosphere was atleast, if not more, reactive than the mixture Urey-Miller used.
I was going by a book published 2003, so fair enough. The source cited was, IIRC, H2O by Ball, which is dated 2000. So it's obviously somewhat problematic relying on books for this sort of thing, but the internet has it's own problems with a lot of deliverate disinformation. I swear, if I see another 'science' page quoting ****ing Gish I'll explode into incadescent rage. Or mild annoyance.
What I've been able to find out was that about that time geologists believed volcanic activity would have massively increased levels of less reactive CO2, etc in the atmosphere; presumably the basis for the previous. But since then they've determined there could/would likely be a significant methane contribution from volcanic seabed activity.
Albeit, I suppose it's somewhat of a moot point as they've been able to form amino acids within the (simulated) co2-heavy atmosphere model, just in lesser quantities and more difficulty.
(As an aside, I finally got round to ordering The Blind Watchmaker, having spent weeks trying to find it in normal bookshops. You'd have though a gigantic Borders would have it, but nooooooo)
-
Good book that one Aldo. I'm sure you'll enjoy it :) I prefer The Selfish Gene personally if only for the Nice Guys Finish First chapter :D
-
aldo: yep, relatively lower abundance doesn't matter when you have sheer mass :D