NationStates Jolt Archive

It doesn't. Have you ever heard an "eviloutionist" talk about what were are going to become?
yes i have

Sorry but my crystal ball is out getting fixed.

The future is anybodies guess. Will our brains evolve? Will we have cyborgs? Will we merge with an alian race?

As to your to being insulted by being a step above an ape? No why should I? Considering Man and war; we have the capacity to be animals. Yet when have you ever heard of an animal screwing or killing something else for a percentage?

are you saying apes are better than us? and is war really wrong, like you're trying to make it sound.

yes i have

This one should be interesting. What pray tell did they say they were going to become?

This one should be interesting. What pray tell did they say they were going to become?

they had a theory about us all eventually evolving into the lost race of dragons and ending our days in a world wide orgy. i know that's not the typically belief, but it has been theorized

they had a theory about us all eventually evolving into the lost race of dragons and ending our days in a world wide orgy. i know that's not the typically belief, but it has been theorized

they also said the reason we would become dragons was because dragons were the most wise, all-knowing beasts.

they had a theory about us all eventually evolving into the lost race of dragons and ending our days in a world wide orgy. i know that's not the typically belief, but it has been theorized

they also said the reason we would become dragons was because dragons were the most wise, all-knowing beasts.

You've got to be kidding me. I highly doubt that this has been theorized seriously. Are you sure they weren't being sarcastic?

well. let's see.
about the chimps using tools: a lot of animals use tools. I've seen a bird (not trained) use a stick to crack open an egg.

Actually few make and use tools. There are birds that do but can you name anything else.


self-aware. all animals are self aware (accept maybe pigs?) that's why they preen themselves.


WRONG! Cleaning is not self aware. Ever read Harlow? Selfaware is realizing something is different as in the chimps dot tests.


ability to lie: how? they don't speak. and if they lie in their own "language" how do we know that they're lieing?

Video photage of an experiment with signing chimps. The staff realized one was getting double if not triple allotments of "treats" The chimp was challenged over his main handler giving him a treat and he kept signing back no.


make war: almost all animals "make war" ever seen two horses fighting? or maybe a group of birds flying at and attacking a different group of birds that are "trespassing on their territory"?

That is not war. The horses are fighting for dominance over breeding. The birds are defending territory.

The Chimps of the Gombe had a situation were a group splintered off to form another group. The main group was observed to be have missions looking for key individuals of the splinter group and killing them. They didn't simply kill any they found. Rudimentory tactics.


rudimentary politics: almost all animals have a "class system". I mean, even in a pack of wild horses, there is a male leader. There is always a "weaker" group that is "looked down upon". (that includes the complex social structures)

Again chimps do much more. How is it that a weaker male overthrows a much stronger younger male? He formed an alliance with another male and over powered him.

Sorry but do some reading on chimps.....

yes i have

All right. Show your evidence. Who what where and when?

Now mind you having a "theory" of what might happen is different then standing there and saying this is what will happen.....

they had a theory about us all eventually evolving into the lost race of dragons and ending our days in a world wide orgy. i know that's not the typically belief, but it has been theorized

*blinks* I smell a theologian talking.

-edit-

Or at least a weak attempt of sarcasm.....

*blinks* I smell a theologian talking.
a few blinks was my exact reaction. i don't think he was on crack... he didn't show it at least. i ran into him in the mall.

a few blinks was my exact reaction. i don't think he was on crack... he didn't show it at least. i ran into him in the mall.

also, why does that sound like a theologian? i'm lost... (as usual)

he was not being sarcastic either. He wrote a book on it and showed me. it wasn't published but it was rather lengthy. he said he had been having troubles getting it published (for obvious reasons)

welll good night. i'll check back in the morning

Oh because we know the religious groups are oh so tolerant.

They claim the right to discriminate on the basis of their religion, (ie not hire homosexuals and head start money going to groups that say they have the right to only hire christian teachers) and yet they are being desciminated against because a univirsity that has no obligation to accept every applicant is discriminating against them because their text books are found lacking.

If they want a religious "science" class then they should probably go to Bob Jones University.

exactly what im thinking.
they can discriminate against gays, other religions, and ideals, but as soon as u dont allow them to preach their fables in school, your discriminating. GOD ISNT REAL.
^
fact

You've got to be kidding me. I highly doubt that this has been theorized seriously. Are you sure they weren't being sarcastic?

yeah, see my other post about the book he wrote. at first i thought he was kidding me, but he got upset when i didn't take him seriously

exactly what im thinking.
they can discriminate against gays, other religions, and ideals, but as soon as u dont allow them to preach their fables in school, your discriminating. GOD ISNT REAL.
^
fact

well, see, you're discriminating against us right now.

yeah, see my other post about the book he wrote. at first i thought he was kidding me, but he got upset when i didn't take him seriously

I'd have laughed in his face quite frankly. Also I'd probably asked him what he was smoking and where I could get some.

Actually few make and use tools. There are birds that do but can you name anything else.



WRONG! Cleaning is not self aware. Ever read Harlow? Selfaware is realizing something is different as in the chimps dot tests.

my dog can look at a room, leave, i'll put something different somewhere in the room, and he'll find it. that's "self aware" or at least how you describe it. how is looking at SOMETHING ELSE being self aware?


Video photage of an experiment with signing chimps. The staff realized one was getting double if not triple allotments of "treats" The chimp was challenged over his main handler giving him a treat and he kept signing back no.

and how do you know that the chimp actually knew what he was saying? he may have only known the "sign" no


That is not war. The horses are fighting for dominance over breeding. The birds are defending territory.

The Chimps of the Gombe had a situation were a group splintered off to form another group. The main group was observed to be have missions looking for key individuals of the splinter group and killing them. They didn't simply kill any they found. Rudimentory tactics.

what looked like missions. okay, you may be correct here. but still, were you the one saying that apes were better because they DON'T use war? cause that's what somebody else was saying...



Again chimps do much more. How is it that a weaker male overthrows a much stronger younger male? He formed an alliance with another male and over powered him.

also, my dogs join alliances with other dogs, and corner my cat ,which normally would have whipped both of their butts. that's the same thing, isn't it?

Sorry but do some reading on chimps.....

how old are you?

I'd have laughed in his face quite frankly. Also I'd probably asked him what he was smoking and where I could get some.

LOL. i was about to, but then he suggested that he "show me what it was going to be like", and i was laughing so hard it was silent. wow.

well, see, you're discriminating against us right now.

Invidious discrimination classifies people into different groups in which group members receive distinct and typically unequal treatments and rights without rational justification.-wikipedia

So how the hell is what he is saying discrimination? Is he discriminating against you by not letting you discriminate?

Invidious discrimination classifies people into different groups in which group members receive distinct and typically unequal treatments and rights without rational justification.-wikipedia

So how the hell is what he is saying discrimination? Is he discriminating against you by not letting you discriminate?

no, i'm saying that he's obviously biased. for your information, schools HAVEN'T been alloud to teach anything to do with christianity. one of my teacher friends wasn't alloud to put up a christmas tree for her kindergarden class because it was "christian" (which, no it is not, but that's besides the poit), she wasn't alloud to decorate in the colors red and green because it was "christian", she wasn't alloud to have her kids sing Silent Night with the rest of the Jewish, Buddhist, and Islamic songs because it was "christian". guess what. my teacher friend ISN'T a christian

Yes there is, because action requires time! How the hell do you act without acting in time! Please tell me, as I'd really love to know.
So you (and the rest of us) don't exist, since there could be no "event" by which we are here, since at one point there was no "time" (itself being a product of the 'big-bang' and the formation of our "universe").
Wrong. It wasn't the formation of the universe; it was the formation of the spatiotemporal continuum. It wasn't even an action per se.


Action does not "require" time, sorry pal...
Sorry pal, it does. Otherwise, you're stealing the concept.

Define for me "action" without the use of time. G'won, I dare you.



for YOU action requires time because YOU ARE CONSTRAINED BY "TIME" (and indeed many other aspects of what you observe as "reality"); you're a "temporal" being, in a "temporal" world observing things from a "temporal" refference point. Your problem is that you can't lift yourself past the three basic dimentions.
Your problem is that you think you can define action without reference to time. You further think that you can argue ad ignorantium and get away with it.



Nope. Causality does not apply qua universe, but within the universe. Since it is the metaphysical ground, the universe must always exist, and causality cannot apply to it.
You need to learn the meaning of "qua".
I know what it means, and I used it properly.


The universe can't "always" exist,
Yes it can.


given that it has a definitive start point.
WRONG!

The SPATIOTEMPORAL CONTINUUM has a start point, not the universe.

Learn the damned difference.

no, i'm saying that he's obviously biased. for your information, schools HAVEN'T been alloud to teach anything to do with christianity. one of my teacher friends wasn't alloud to put up a christmas tree for her kindergarden class because it was "christian" (which, no it is not, but that's besides the poit), she wasn't alloud to decorate in the colors red and green because it was "christian", she wasn't alloud to have her kids sing Silent Night with the rest of the Jewish, Buddhist, and Islamic songs because it was "christian". guess what. my teacher friend ISN'T a christian

now you tell me who's discriminating. give me an example of any religion other than christianity being discriminated against in school societies. Evolutionists shouldn't complain, because that's what's being taught in the public schools

They have.

I have a question: if creation is true, why do we have no evidence of it? Why do we have no evidence of god?
we do have evidence.
No we don't.


you're just obliviously blind to the world around you.
ad hominem fallacy and argument from blatant assertion.


i mean, seriously. how could things possibly form from nothing by themselves
Strawman, and hypocrisy, since you're the one who claims god created everything from nothing.

How could god "just be", anyway? That makes no sense.


and HOW have humans changed?
Immunities and such.

You *really* need to educate yourself as to what evolution is. Don't listen to Hovind, Gish, etc. They're proven liars, frauds, and con-men.

I'm not saying you're right, and i'm not agreeing with you, but you're not an idiot for your beliefs. and i'd appreciate it if you'd not consider me an idiot either
If you don't want to be considered an idiot, don't have idiotic views. Cretinism is an idiotic view. Attacking evolution with lies is the mark of an idiot.

i have a question for you.. if the "fishes" (as the writer of the first article you gave me) turned to birds, then why are there still "fishes" today?
If adults come from babies, why are there still babies?

actually, evolution does have to do with the origin of life.
Actually, it doesn't. Abiogenesis deals with the origin of life.


ever heard of "the big bang"?
That's COSMOLOGY.

Remember how you said you didn't want to be thought of as an idiot? Well maybe you should educate yourself so you DON'T look like an idiot!

no, i'm saying that he's obviously biased. for your information, schools HAVEN'T been alloud to teach anything to do with christianity. one of my teacher friends wasn't alloud to put up a christmas tree for her kindergarden class because it was "christian" (which, no it is not, but that's besides the poit), she wasn't alloud to decorate in the colors red and green because it was "christian", she wasn't alloud to have her kids sing Silent Night with the rest of the Jewish, Buddhist, and Islamic songs because it was "christian". guess what. my teacher friend ISN'T a christian

1. I've seen plenty of situations where christianity has been taught in schools. Not grade school mind you but highschool it is taught.
2. I really couldn't give two shits about what display is put up for holiday display but I have seen numerous schools where christmas trees were used but no other religion's holiday decorations were.
3. I am unaware of any Jewish, Buddhist, and Islamic songs that are sung on christmas let alone sung on any other days in schools.

so are you saying that one day humans will just be stupid creatures compared to the next "smartest creature". aren't you a little insulted that somebody actually thinks that you're just a level up than an ape?
No.

Why--are you?

And don't you believe that we came from dirt, anyway? So who are you to talk?

they had a theory about us all eventually evolving into the lost race of dragons and ending our days in a world wide orgy. i know that's not the typically belief, but it has been theorized
By whom?

Did you hear it on some Kent Hovind program?

now you tell me who's discriminating. give me an example of any religion other than christianity being discriminated against in school societies.
All of them are, equally.

And what is an "evolutionist"?

BAWAA, your links are not proof. The only evidence in all of your links is that animals look very similar. This is, as you say, evidence that one animal came from the other, after all, they have striking resemblences.
But, this can also be evidence for creationism. If animals are similar, then it is evidence supporting that they were all made by the same designer. For example, an artist's paintings are generally similar. Same with life.
Of course, this doesn't mean that very different animals weren't designed by the same creater. Just like how, from time to time, an artist will create something very different from all o their other works, so it is with life.

All of the evidence everyone uses here, including both creationists and evolutionists, is the same, and is evidence for both.

Now that you've hopefully seen that you're all using the same kind of evidence, I can give you evidence for creationism that is not for evolution.

1 - The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-thermodynamics.html
This is a law that is easily observed. Everything dies, breaks down, etc. in an endless doward spiral. Ultimately nothing really improves. Just ask any environmentalist!

2 - Lack of "positive mutations"
You will agree with me that natural selection by itself cannot make evolution happen. For example, there are trillions of combinations of DNA, and any one person could have any combination out of these trillions. There is so much variety human beings can have. But, no matter what the combination of genes, a person will still be human.
Therefore, the only way for someone to evolve is through a mutation.
But the problem is, mutations never result in gaining of information, they result in the loss of information. Nobody anywhere has witnessed a mutation which gains information. (Just a note: vary rarely, mutations occur which improve an organism. For example, strains of maleria which will not die from vaccination, or from maleria antidotes. However, all of these are from loss of information, not gaining of information.)
Microbe to man evolution cannot occur, because genetic information is constantly lost, never gained. Have a look at this site: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chapter5.asp

there's two serious problems for evolutionists.

and by the way, in answer to your question a couple of pages ago, yes, I am seriously saying that God created the Platypus. (I mean, seriously, BAWAA, what was that ment to mean anyway?)

but still, do you think that humans will one day be a highly lesser species compared to somebody else? do you think that one day we will be treated like animals? just some thoughts. and nobody answered my question about if you feel the slightest bit insulted by somebody saying you are just a step up from an ape?

Some of us already ARE treated like animals by other humans. Specifically, gay,, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender humans are often treated little better than animals by some unfeeling assholes who claim to be "Christian."

BAWAA, your links are not proof.
Actually, they are.


The only evidence in all of your links is that animals look very similar.
Thus showing that you never looked at the links. Thanks for proving yourself to be a liar.



But, this can also be evidence for creationism. If animals are similar, then it is evidence supporting that they were all made by the same designer.
Why doesn't the designer have a designer? Please don't special plead.


All of the evidence everyone uses here, including both creationists and evolutionists, is the same, and is evidence for both.
No, it is not.


Now that you've hopefully seen that you're all using the same kind of evidence, I can give you evidence for creationism that is not for evolution.

1 - The Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Even answersingenesis.org says not to use that piece of crap argument.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

What other refuted-to-death crap do you have?


2 - Lack of "positive mutations"
answersingenesis.org says not to use that one, too!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

exactly what im thinking.
they can discriminate against gays, other religions, and ideals, but as soon as u dont allow them to preach their fables in school, your discriminating.

no shit! And the asswipes don't even acknowledge that they are, themselves, discriminating asswipes.

I'm a christian. My sister's lesbian. I also have a lesbian friend.
I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I love them. So does God, as a matter of fact. Very much. I don't hate you either. Please don't generalise.

I'm a christian. My sister's lesbian. I also have a lesbian friend.
I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I love them. So does God, as a matter of fact. Very much. I don't hate you either. Please don't generalise.

Well it seems to me that the most vocal and vociferous of our opponents to just being allowed to live our lives, and be happy, and be left the hell alone to do it...are those who LOUDLY proclaim their Christianity!

Well that was fun. :p
The best is that he quotes from answersingenesis.org, but one of the arguments Ken Ham says not to use is "no beneficial mutations!".

I think God would be upset if time in Science classes was squeezed by adding I.D. to the curriculum. Very upset indeed. That's what churches are for, no?

my dog can look at a room, leave, i'll put something different somewhere in the room, and he'll find it. that's "self aware" or at least how you describe it. how is looking at SOMETHING ELSE being self aware?

Aware of surroundings is not self-aware. Ok. You haven't heard of Harlow. If you didn't know chimps like looking at themselves. Harlow had mirrors with them. What he did was to drug his chimps and he painted a non-intrusive red dot on their heads(didn't itch, etc). When they woke up, each one of them when they went by the mirror looked, noticed the dot and ran over and looked at it. Tried to rub it off.

Take a dog and or horse, do the same to them and I doubt they will notice it.



and how do you know that the chimp actually knew what he was saying? he may have only known the "sign" no

Because the chimp knew several other signs so it wasn't just random signing.


what looked like missions. okay, you may be correct here. but still, were you the one saying that apes were better because they DON'T use war? cause that's what somebody else was saying...

No they were missions. They took out the core individuals of the rival troop. As such it quickly disolved. Never mind the fact the intent was to kill them. How often do horses and dogs fight to the death? Most of the time they will run the other off.


also, my dogs join alliances with other dogs, and corner my cat ,which normally would have whipped both of their butts. that's the same thing, isn't it?

Well sort off. That's more pack hunting. What I am describing (or at least attempting) is that chimps form alliances to promote their social standing in the troop.

If you can find it, Chimpanzee politics and peacemaking amoung primates would be good reads for this area. Both are by the same author De Waal. They are about primatology and not evolution so you will not "soil" your eyes ;)

I'm a christian. My sister's lesbian. I also have a lesbian friend.
I don't agree with their lifestyle, but I love them. So does God, as a matter of fact. Very much. I don't hate you either. Please don't generalise.

Unfortunatly, you are a minority so it's not really generalizations.....

Kent Hovind

BAAWA!

Wash your mouth out with soap!

We don't use that kind of language here!

yeah, see my other post about the book he wrote. at first i thought he was kidding me, but he got upset when i didn't take him seriously

Me?

Sorry but you are mistaken if you think you upset me.

also, why does that sound like a theologian? i'm lost... (as usual)

he was not being sarcastic either. He wrote a book on it and showed me. it wasn't published but it was rather lengthy. he said he had been having troubles getting it published (for obvious reasons)

Ok so you ran into a crackpot. You going to say there aren't any religious crackpots?

One nut doesn't disolve the theory.

One of the beautiful things about science is the review by peers.

Quote:
Sorry but do some reading on chimps.....

how old are you?


I missed that one.

Well I am as old as my tongue and a little older then my teeth.

I am older then you think. ;) And I have been around. Name drop time. I have met Dr. Goodall, Dr. Veder, and Dr. Johanson

Departing from the biological aspects for a bit, evolution is present around us all the time. Take an example: Wal-Mart

ID advocates would have one think that someone just sat down one day and designed this gigantic superstore and because that's what we have today, that's how it's always been. However, the pilgrims didn't just land on the shores of America and start building Wal-Marts. There's a tremendous amount of infrastructure that has to be in place before one can even think about setting up a Wal-Mart, otherwise, they would be springing up in third-world countries.

Even Christianity itself is subjected to evolution. The diversity of denominations today was a gradual change over time. It may have started off as everyone huddled around Jesus, but then groups splintered off because they didn't like this idea or that idea and now there's more denominations than you can shake a stick at. In many ways, denominations appear to have simillar structures because they all started out as the same group, but now, they run the gamut from slick televangelism to people dancing with snakes.

Back to the biological aspects of things. There may not be enough information in a single-celled organism to create a person, but it doesn't mean the potential is not there. What about two single celled organisms? One gets damaged, hangs around the first one and now you have a two celled organism with more information than either one. Add more damage and more connections and you can have a complicated organism in no time.

Actually, they are.



Thus showing that you never looked at the links. Thanks for proving yourself to be a liar.



Why doesn't the designer have a designer? Please don't special plead.



No, it is not.



Even answersingenesis.org says not to use that piece of crap argument.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/thermo.html

What other refuted-to-death crap do you have?



answersingenesis.org says not to use that one, too!

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html

#1- I'm not Answers in Genesis. And besides, the points I made make sense, and they are plausible arguments against evolution. Anyone with common sense can understand them.
#2- The links you gave me- well, look at that! The mutations link proved my point! thanks! You see, it is irrelevent whether or not a mutation is harmful of helpful, what counts is whether or not information has been gained. This has never happened. As your link has told us all, most mutations are neutral. Gaining of information never happens. Microbe to man evolution cannot happen.
-the thermodynamics link says that earth isn't a closed system. well of course it's not. but the universe is. (i thought that that would be obvious.)
Also, what the Second Law actually states varies greatly. Just look it up on google, there are plenty of varients.
When creationists say that everything tends to go from order to disorder, it holds true, regardless of exactly what the second law states. It can easily be seen that everything tends to breakdown into disorder.
Another point your link said was that order that came from disorder is evident. (for example, lightning) Well, that would be expected from a designer who appreciates art! And remember, things TEND to break down from order to disorder. Evolution requires chance mutations, which means that it will tend to degenerate.
When things are done on purpose by an out side source, they will not degenerate. I wrote a bit more about this in the thread "Prove me wrong", if you'd like to take a look.
It then went on to say that because we can se natural selection changing animals today, it doesn't break any physical laws. However, Natural selection never causes a life-form to gain information, only lose it or cause it to stay the same. This means disorder, not order. Natural selection is not the same as evolution. Natural selection obeys the laws of thermodynamics. Evolution does not. The link tried to say that because natural selection obeys the law, evolution does too.
#3- For most of my points you're either ignoring them or contradicting them. If you want to argue in a "Yes it is", "No it isn't" fashion, go somewhere else.

as to you BAAWA's question, "who designed the designer?"
Not the most, um, intellectual question.
God is not from the universe. He made all of the natural Laws. He doesn't have a creator, because he doesn't need one. he's not within the confines of time, space, probability, etc. He's not in time, so he just was, and is.
In Exodus, God told Moses His name was "I Am". He is. it's not very hard to understand.

BAAWA.

QUOTE: "Are you saying that god is a mathematical set without a limit? If so,then god exists solely as a concept, and hence couldn't create the universe."

I told you in the following line that that was a straw man for your straw man. Maybe you didn't read it. Or maybe you're dodging the issue again.

QUOTE: "You certainly are [crying about etc.]."

Um. No? For a minute there, you almost convinced me. I was like, "Maybe I am crying and just don't know it." But I eventually, through at least a solid hour of deep introspection, came around and concluded that I have not been crying. [/neededsarcasm] I have NOT been convinced that you even have a point outside semantics. Remember, if one person gets to set all the definitions, he will always win. Always (unless he's just being stupid). You do not get to set the definitions for everybody. When I say "universe", I do not necessarily mean "the world that I can sense." This is because I realize that my senses are (more than likely) inadequate for observing the entire universe. It would be unscientific of me to assume that there cannot be anything else. I leave the option open, as any good scientist will (and will seek). This is not arguing from ignorance as long as it doesn't mistake ignorance for proof. They are separate ideas, except in propaganda. By the way, I've obviously looked AaI up, and it is a very basic concept that I happened to already realize. Knowledge of terms is merely trivia. You mistake it for education. Don't say that I am uneducated because I was missing a bit of trivia. That's "uneducated" of you to assume.

QUOTE: "Lying again, I see."

No, I'm not. Even in this post, you failed to address the issue. (I said you were dodging the issue.)

QUOTE: "It absolutely is.

You're in over your head, and you're frantically trying to attack me so that you will not look bad. Not working."

I am certainly not in over my head. I was not being frantic about it. Your insults are about the only ones that can be described as frantic, as they are standing in the gap for points, which are, oddly, missing in your posts.

QUOTE: "And one was provided for you. Did you not go to your local library and look for the book? If not, then don't cry to me for your lack of initiative.

Why are you being such a child?"

Dude, chill. You telling me not to be frantic.... I already said I did not catch your source. Even if I did, you said it was a book? You have not cited page numbers or other references to his ideas. How am I to research it if I do not have access to the entire book online, where I can do word/phrase searches? Do you expect me to read the entire book looking for it? This does not qualify as acceptable research on your part. It will be ignored, out of sheer practicality and scientific convention (maybe principle, too =P ). Besides, there should be the same information available on the internet, right? Or is this book not reviewed by the scientific community?

QUOTE: "How can a being be outside time? Explain that.

Y'see this is what it boils down to: the assumption that beings can be outside of time. That begs the question, drops the context, and steals the concept. IOW: it's fallacious to the core.

Why don't you provide me the ontological base for using words apart from the referent which provides the meaning, i.e. the universe. Unless and until you do, all this crap about a being apart from time and the universe is just the same as typing lkjslk sa oiayr g adliyner,n d xhdf nu5f hs78. IOW: nonsense. Gibberish. Gimblebabble. Garblefarb."

Finally, something with a little more meat to it. A welcome change.

All you have to do is look at light. Special relativity. The option is certainly open, even within our understanding and observation. Theoretically possible.

About ontology. It is (still) a philosophy. Don't tote it around like it is science or God. (Well, you could tote it around as your "God", I suppose, but that'd be rather hypocritical for you.)

Possibly, I am misunderstanding you on "Why don't you provide me the ontological base for using words apart from the referent which provides the meaning, i.e. the universe." I'm getting the impression you're using your definition of "the universe" to base your definitions in. Right? Why is your definition/understanding of universe so much better?


*insert HUGE time lapse involving a concert =/ *


And omnipotence is not ad hoc if God is real.

Much of your argument is based on ad hominem (with a few other good ones), and I have been reciprocating a portion of that. Let's just get to the point and toss the blaringly obvious propaganda techniques out the window, deal? Or are you afraid to... =P Tough to resist, I know. ;)

Well, the forum time says 7:48 PM on the most recent post. This one will be behind the times. Sorry.

#1- I'm not Answers in Genesis. And besides, the points I made make sense, and they are plausible arguments against evolution. Anyone with common sense can understand them.

No, the arguments don't make sense. Thats the problem.

#2- The links you gave me- well, look at that! The mutations link proved my point! thanks! You see, it is irrelevent whether or not a mutation is harmful of helpful, what counts is whether or not information has been gained. This has never happened. As your link has told us all, most mutations are neutral. Gaining of information never happens. Microbe to man evolution cannot happen.

Mutations do add information (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html)

-the thermodynamics link says that earth isn't a closed system. well of course it's not. but the universe is. (i thought that that would be obvious.)
Also, what the Second Law actually states varies greatly. Just look it up on google, there are plenty of varients.
When creationists say that everything tends to go from order to disorder, it holds true, regardless of exactly what the second law states. It can easily be seen that everything tends to breakdown into disorder.
Another point your link said was that order that came from disorder is evident. (for example, lightning) Well, that would be expected from a designer who appreciates art! And remember, things TEND to break down from order to disorder. Evolution requires chance mutations, which means that it will tend to degenerate.
When things are done on purpose by an out side source, they will not degenerate. I wrote a bit more about this in the thread "Prove me wrong", if you'd like to take a look.
It then went on to say that because we can se natural selection changing animals today, it doesn't break any physical laws. However, Natural selection never causes a life-form to gain information, only lose it or cause it to stay the same. This means disorder, not order. Natural selection is not the same as evolution. Natural selection obeys the laws of thermodynamics. Evolution does not. The link tried to say that because natural selection obeys the law, evolution does too.

Things don't break down because of entropy (http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF001_2.html)
More from wiki on the 2nd Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_law_of_thermodynamics#Evolution.2C_creation.2C_and_the_second_law)

Unfortunatly, you are a minority so it's not really generalizations.....
I would like to think that we are the majority and that the minority is just a lot louder (ie Pat Robertson has his own show) but that may be wishful thinking....

I would like to think that we are the majority and that the minority is just a lot louder (ie Pat Robertson has his own show) but that may be wishful thinking....

I will buy each and everyone of you a round if you can accomplish that! ;)

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "And what is an "evolutionist"?"

What's an "xer"?


QUOTE: (Dobbs) "I think God would be upset if time in Science classes was squeezed by adding I.D. to the curriculum. Very upset indeed. That's what churches are for, no?"

True. God doesn't want Christians to be jerks or force it on others. However, some Christians have gotten defensive about evolution being shoved down their kids' throats. I mean, I may not mind it, personally (I agree with much of it), but if you don't learn evolution, you're socially doomed. It's not fair...but that just makes it a tougher question. Evolution is governmentally and socially sanctioned, and I don't see a way around it. Toughy. :(


QUOTE: ("Le Foret Noir" (The Forest guy)) "Unfortunatly, you are a minority so it's not really generalizations....."

It is a huge generalization, as well as your above post itself. You think you know most Christians. Whoever it was thought Christians were mostly intolerant. I happen to know a large number of Christians. (Almost) The only ones with tolerance issues are the really old ones, and they have to pray about it all the time ('tis a vice, and they know it). It kinda came with the society they grew up in. Intolerance is a very small minority there. Many of them opposed gay marriage...but that's due to a definition issue.

Even if you were right, it would still be a generalization. You would still be making a judgment on a population based on a sample. And trust me, your sample is plenty biased. I'm assuming a lot of what you see about Christians is from the media and the internet. BTW, my sample comes from a very large number of churches. Not pictured: fundamentalists (the ones all over the freaking internet, who I've never met closer than e-mail, thankfully) and Catholics, of which I know only a few (and they're fine).

True. God doesn't want Christians to be jerks or force it on others. However, some Christians have gotten defensive about evolution being shoved down their kids' throats. I mean, I may not mind it, personally (I agree with much of it), but if you don't learn evolution, you're socially doomed. It's not fair...but that just makes it a tougher question. Evolution is governmentally and socially sanctioned, and I don't see a way around it. Toughy. :(


Evolution is the baisis for a LARGE portion of biology and all the other natural sciences

Evolution is also a valid scientific theory ... if you care to argue that sciences are not important to your childrens education go for it ... but pardon my laughing my ass off at you

Not to mention being horribly depressed at your childrens future edcuational prospects as well as ability to survive as a productive member in society with any sort of comfort
It is important because it is a basis of thinking that has been found most productive to society

But by all means mentaly and socialy handycap your children
Just dont expect sympathy when they dont understand the world around them and are turned down for a quality education because they dont meet the basic requirements

Careful, remember I'm in favor of teaching it.

Also, remember that evolution is but one theory within science...

"if you care to argue that sciences are not important to your childrens education go for it ... but pardon my laughing my ass off at you"

If you understand mutation and natural selection, you'll be fine even in advanced biology classes (sans requiring evolution). These are only a part of evolution. Besides, the only good science requirement for a liberal arts education is the ability to use science, not the knowledge of theories. You can get a superior education even without knowledge of the theory of evolution.

You can get a superior education even without knowledge of the theory of evolution.

:D That's funny.

How? :confused:

"within" means that He operates inside of it... MY point is, He operated both WITHIN and WITHOUT the universe... Being a "part" of something, however, means that you are a component of "it"... Realistically the "universe" is far more a "part of" the Creator, than the Creator is a "part of" the universe. It really differns on what is mean by "apart" and "a part" when dealing with the issue... Wether you're dealing with a component connectivity, or dealing with the presence One can be inside of a house for example, while not being "a part" of that house... The house can be ran and controled by yourself while not actually being a "component" of the building... Of course both me and the building are constrained.... But God isn't constrained by "physical" limits such as that....
Then he is not within. Within has borders, limits.

A better example would be manipulating the contents of a Doll House.... I can reach "inside", and change things, but still be "outside"... And therefore "Exist" within and without that small Doll House.
No, the examples are getting worse in terms of understanding what you seem to be trying to say.

Before i say anything about this, i'd like to answer a question: Has anybody here actually researched the science behind creationism?
i doubt it. because you are all treating it as if it is a theory which is somehow beneath the theory of evolution. a closer look will reveal that they have about equal evidence. you cannot prove evolution, and you cannot prove creationism.
What is the Theory of Creation, then? How did God do it?

A Theory of Creation would offer up an explanation for how God did what he did when he created the universe.

I agree that ID should not be taught as a science class, but it would be better suited for the philosophy class. I mean, the belief that there is some sort of natural, rational order to the universe is not exactly a new idea. Take the Ionian philosophers for example (Plato, Socrates, etc.) I think that would be a good compromise.
ONLY if Darwinism where to be relegated to that state as well!

I'd like to clarify definitions at this point to avoid confusion, in as far as the defintion of magical vs mystical. When watching a magic show on stage, if someone asks you how a trick was done, all one can say really is "I don't know" and be genuinely sincere with that response. There may be a perfectly good explanation, but it is just unavailable.

Mysical, OTOH, just defies explanation, not understanding. It's enitely possible to talk about the taste of apples with someone that has eaten apples, but when it comes to trying to explain how an apple tastes to someone that has never eaten one, one is at a loss for words. It's not that one doesn't understand how an apple tastes, it's just that there is no way to explain it to someone that cannot relate to the experience.
"It's magic," is precisely the right phrase to use: there is no explanation available to the audience at the time of viewing the alleged phenomenon. That's what makes it magic.

It is precisely the right idea being put forward, because with a supernatural cause there is no explanation --no possible explanation, ever (because if an effect is seen in the natural world, an natural explanation then becomes possible that will always supercede the "explanationless" explanation).

When you're taking about the supernatural, it's not just "I don't know," it's "I can never know." The magician is not talking.

Mystical is, as you indicate, another thing; it is characterized by understanding things in terms of symbolism.

more evidence agains evolution:

The following are just some of the little publicised facts which contradict the "proven fact" of evolution theory.
*snip*
Contradicting evolution is not an argument in support of the Creation. It is certainly not evidence of the Creation. Yet every time someone asks for evidence of the Creation, people start pointing in this direction.

What is the Theory of Creation, then? How did God do it?

A Theory of Creation would offer up an explanation for how God did what he did when he created the universe.
Any research in even a minute amount would show you the explenation for how this was done. Pick up any Bible and there it is in black and white! It ceertainly doesn't take a genius to figure that out! or ask any Christian, Native American, Muslim, Buddist about their version of Creationism.

Any research in even a minute amount would show you the explenation for how this was done. Pick up any Bible and there it is in black and white! It ceertainly doesn't take a genius to figure that out! or ask any Christian, Native American, Muslim, Buddist about their version of Creationism.
The Bible clearly says the words God spoke while he created. Is this, then, the Theory of Creation --God speaks certain words, and matter/energy comes into being?

I just want a statement of what the theory is.

I am tired of little children thinking they can "prove" that they are right and that their parents are wrong by "proving" that Darwinism is the correct religion and that their parents have been mislead for centuries back. The theory of evolution has been proven time and again that it is worthy of no more recognition than that of another religion. No matter how many times you try to prove that blue is pink it will not work. Creation is in EVERY way just as or more valid and provable than the "scientific" religion of Darwinism and most of the things that science has given names to knowing they exist but can't prove what or how it is and works have had explanations in the Bible and/or other religious books for centuries. I am not going to try and disporve your beliefs any longer since I don't try and make people doubt their religion. I may try to make them think about their religous choice but I am finding that Darwinists are unwilling to acknowledge their beliefs and are just a waste of time to try any realistic conversation with since inevitably it comes down to essentially name calling while I try to reach some sensible debate.

we do have evidence. you're just obliviously blind to the world around you. i mean, seriously. how could things possibly form from nothing by themselves and create something logical? and HOW have humans changed?
That is evidence that things exist, but that things exist is not it itself evidence that The Creation happened.

The Bible clearly says the words God spoke while he created. Is this, then, the Theory of Creation --God speaks certain words, and matter/energy comes into being?

I just want a statement of what the theory is.
It is basically that "thru Faith I can do all things." God spoke the universe into being. With humans God actually took the time to make us out of the very earth we have been given dominion over. What more do you want? TG me, I am done here!

Evolution has the same odds of occouring and being true as that of a twister going thru an airplane graveyard and putting together a perfectly functional 747!

I am tired of little children thinking they can "prove" that they are right and that their parents are wrong by "proving" that Darwinism is the correct religion and that their parents have been mislead for centuries back. The theory of evolution has been proven time and again that it is worthy of no more recognition than that of another religion. No matter how many times you try to prove that blue is pink it will not work. Creation is in EVERY way just as or more valid and provable than the "scientific" religion of Darwinism and most of the things that science has given names to knowing they exist but can't prove what or how it is and works have had explanations in the Bible and/or other religious books for centuries. I am not going to try and disporve your beliefs any longer since I don't try and make people doubt their religion. I may try to make them think about their religous choice but I am finding that Darwinists are unwilling to acknowledge their beliefs and are just a waste of time to try any realistic conversation with since inevitably it comes down to essentially name calling while I try to reach some sensible debate.

Darwinism can be disproved by the Scientific Method (it however has only been strengthened). It is science, not a religion. Branding it a religion is just some way of dismissing it as one would Islam or Paganism.

Darwinism (along with E=MC2) has radicaly changed the Philosphical structure of the Western World however (Humanism, Existentialism, Absurdism all have roots in them for example). But there is a difference at present between Philosophy and Science (as well as between Philosophy and religion).

I am tired of little children thinking they can "prove" that they are right and that their parents are wrong by "proving" that Darwinism is the correct religion and that their parents have been mislead for centuries back.
Me too! It does nothing to prove the Creation. I wish they'd stick to the topic, which is Creationism/ID, instead of going off a tangent about evolution.

Creation is in EVERY way just as or more valid and provable than the "scientific" religion of Darwinism and most of the things that science has given names to knowing they exist but can't prove what or how it is and works have had explanations in the Bible and/or other religious books for centuries.
Ah! There's that comparison again. If Creationism is a valid and provable theory, it should stand up to any and all scientific theories in comparison, not just the Theory of Evolution. Proving the existence of something, or even proving beliefs as real, is another thing entirely. We can discuss that topic in some other thread.

I am not going to try and disporve your beliefs any longer since I don't try and make people doubt their religion. I may try to make them think about their religous choice but I am finding that Darwinists are unwilling to acknowledge their beliefs and are just a waste of time to try any realistic conversation with since inevitably it comes down to essentially name calling while I try to reach some sensible debate.
Why are their beliefs "a waste of time" and yours not?

So does this mean you are going to stop name-calling? ("little children")

It is basically that "thru Faith I can do all things." God spoke the universe into being. With humans God actually took the time to make us out of the very earth we have been given dominion over. What more do you want? TG me, I am done here!

Evolution has the same odds of occouring and being true as that of a twister going thru an airplane graveyard and putting together a perfectly functional 747!

Do you know how many suns and planets there are in the universe? Plenty, with plenty of oppurtunities for life to arise.

Living things are not machines nor are they perfect things (and there is no design). That is a common fallacy.

What is the Theory of Creation, then? How did God do it?

A Theory of Creation would offer up an explanation for how God did what he did when he created the universe.

For something to be a Theory it has to be testable!

Aw, man. Omega....

You're going to have 5 people each pick the same 17 lines out of your post and make fun of you, and I'm going to have to sift through all of it to find the rest of the discussion. =(

I'll just say that I disagree with you. I do know what you are saying, that evolution is a religion. It truly is mistaken for one all the time. But, in itself, it is not a religion. It is not mutually exclusive with Creationism by any means.

What is the Theory of Creation, then? How did God do it?

A Theory of Creation would offer up an explanation for how God did what he did when he created the universe.

It would also look at the evidence for a creation (there is none) and would also have to look at the evidence for a god (there is none.

I am tired of little children thinking they can "prove" that they are right and that their parents are wrong by "proving" that Darwinism is the correct religion and that their parents have been mislead for centuries back. The theory of evolution has been proven time and again that it is worthy of no more recognition than that of another religion. No matter how many times you try to prove that blue is pink it will not work. Creation is in EVERY way just as or more valid and provable than the "scientific" religion of Darwinism and most of the things that science has given names to knowing they exist but can't prove what or how it is and works have had explanations in the Bible and/or other religious books for centuries. I am not going to try and disporve your beliefs any longer since I don't try and make people doubt their religion. I may try to make them think about their religous choice but I am finding that Darwinists are unwilling to acknowledge their beliefs and are just a waste of time to try any realistic conversation with since inevitably it comes down to essentially name calling while I try to reach some sensible debate.


Evolution is science and we can see evolution at work.

Religion is based on fairy stories that have been disproved over and over again.

Why doesn't the designer have a designer?



There is the real problem with creationist ideas. They refuse to entertain the idea that our universe could just spring into existance out of nothing - but reject the idea that, if they are correct, then god had to spring into existance out of nothing.

The universe is all around us, we have a wide body of evidence for its existance.

God is nowhere to be seen, We have no evidence for his existance - in fact we have no evidence that points to the need for a god to exist at all.

we do have evidence. you're just obliviously blind to the world around you. i mean, seriously. how could things possibly form from nothing by themselves and create something logical? and HOW have humans changed?

Go on, post just one bit of evidence, I dare you.

For something to be a Theory it has to be testable!
No. For a theory to be scientific it must be testable. You can't test the axiom of choice (or even Peano's axioms) so at least some mathematical theories are not testable.

yeah, but how could genes know when they need to change or not? i'm not shooting you down, i just want to hear your opinion about it.

Genes change through mutation.

If a change is a good one for that organism then it will have3 an advantage over its fellow organisms and so it will live longer and breed more. A good mutation therefore comes to dominate a species over time.

If the change is a bad mutation then the reverse is true and, in general, the family with the mutation will soon die out.

Of course there are a lot of so-so mutations. They do not confer an advantage/disadvantage at the time but do spread into a larger population. At some point in the future, as their environment changes, this mutation may have an effect on survival one way or another.

One such mutation in humans produces the problem called Sickle Cell Anemia. It is a very good example of evolution at work.

http://kidshealth.org/teen/diseases_conditions/blood/sickle_cell_anemia.html

i have a question for you.. if the "fishes" (as the writer of the first article you gave me) turned to birds, then why are there still "fishes" today?

Because that is not how evolution works. Let me try and explain.

We will imagine an animal called a Dodot. It lives in temperate climes and is covered in a rich dark brown fur. One particular male Dodot suffers a genetic mutation which gives him white fur. It does make him slightly more liable to get eaten by the local prey animals but he does survive and he breeds.

A few generations later the White Dodot has come to form about 10% of the total Dodot population. The a small ice age comes. All Dodots have thick fur and live in warm burrows underground. There is still enough food for all of them but suddenly the Brown Dodot starts to fall prey to predator birds that spot him against the snow far easier than his white relatives.

Up to now Dodots have been one species, in fact one population. But now the snows start to retreat and the White Dodots (who no accounft for 80% of the population) start to suffer predation - except those that follow the retreating snowline. Soon you have two populations. One almost entirely white, one almost entirely brown.

Now you have the makings of a divergance of species. In time the mating patterns change, the Polar Dodot breeds early because they have to raise their young in the shorter summer. The Southern Dodot breeds later. Suddenly the two can nolonger interbreed. We have two genuine seperate species.

You see, just because there is evolution and adaptation doesn't mean the original population dies out (though it can).

So yes, birds are decended ultimately from fish. But most of the stages between have also left survivors and fish still swim in our seas.

#1- I'm not Answers in Genesis.
But you utilized it, so you shouldn't be a hypocrite and use the arguments they say not to use, all the while saying that they have the answers!



#2- The links you gave me- well, look at that! The mutations link proved my point!
Well look at that---you lied!


thanks! You see, it is irrelevent whether or not a mutation is harmful of helpful, what counts is whether or not information has been gained.
Wrong. Dembski is a crackpot.

http://www.talkorigins.org/design/faqs/nfl/


-the thermodynamics link says that earth isn't a closed system. well of course it's not. but the universe is.
2LoT only applies to closed systems WITHIN the universe, not qua universe itself.

Try again when you know what you're talking about.


When creationists say that everything tends to go from order to disorder, it holds true, regardless of exactly what the second law states. It can easily be seen that everything tends to breakdown into disorder.
Actually, the 2LoT is about the amount of usable energy in a system, and not "everything goes from order to disorder".


Another point your link said was that order that came from disorder is evident. (for example, lightning) Well, that would be expected from a designer who appreciates art! And remember, things TEND to break down from order to disorder. Evolution requires chance mutations, which means that it will tend to degenerate.
Non sequitur.


#3- For most of my points you're either ignoring them or contradicting them.
You had points?


If you want to argue in a "Yes it is", "No it isn't" fashion, go somewhere else.
When you present some evidence, I'll give you more than just gainsaying. But until then, all you get is gainsaying because all you deserve is gainsaying.

as to you BAAWA's question, "who designed the designer?"
Not the most, um, intellectual question.
Actually, it is.

If the designer wasn't designed, then you're special pleading, which is a fallacy.


God is not from the universe. He made all of the natural Laws. He doesn't have a creator, because he doesn't need one.
Special pleading.


he's not within the confines of time, space, probability, etc. He's not in time, so he just was, and is.
ad hoc fallacy.

Try again.

Are you saying that god is a mathematical set without a limit? If so,then god exists solely as a concept, and hence couldn't create the universe.
I told you in the following line that that was a straw man for your straw man.
No you didn't. And I have used no strawmen.


You certainly are crying about it
Um. No?
Um. Yes.

You're attempting to argue from ignorance, bucko. Unless and until you can provide me with the ontology for "apart from the universe", you can't even say that it's possible.


Lying again, I see.
No, I'm not.
Yes, you are.


Even in this post, you failed to address the issue.
Since I addressed the issue, you have lied again.


It absolutely is.

You're in over your head, and you're frantically trying to attack me so that you will not look bad. Not working.
I am certainly not in over my head. I was not being frantic about it.
You are on both accounts. You have no idea of that which you speak, so you're attacking me to make it look like you do. That's just childish.


And one was provided for you. Did you not go to your local library and look for the book? If not, then don't cry to me for your lack of initiative.

Why are you being such a child?
Dude, chill.
Take your own advice.


You telling me[ not to be frantic.... I already said I did not catch your source.
No, you did not.


Even if I did, you said it was a book? You have not cited page numbers or other references to his ideas.
Don't need to; you need to read the book. By an archaeologist. Who is an Israeli. Who did digs in Egypt/Sinai peninsula.


How am I to research it if I do not have access to the entire book online, where I can do word/phrase searches?
There are these big buildings with lots of books in them. They're called "libraries". Perhaps you should visit one.


Do you expect me to read the entire book looking for it?
I expect you to read the entire book, period.


This does not qualify as acceptable research on your part.
Yes it does.

It will be ignored, out of sheer practicality and scientific convention
No--it will be ignored on account of your cowardice.


How can a being be outside time? Explain that.

Y'see this is what it boils down to: the assumption that beings can be outside of time. That begs the question, drops the context, and steals the concept. IOW: it's fallacious to the core.

Why don't you provide me the ontological base for using words apart from the referent which provides the meaning, i.e. the universe. Unless and until you do, all this crap about a being apart from time and the universe is just the same as typing lkjslk sa oiayr g adliyner,n d xhdf nu5f hs78. IOW: nonsense. Gibberish. Gimblebabble. Garblefarb.
Finally, something with a little more meat to it.
There's always been something with meat to it, liar.


All you have to do is look at light. Special relativity.
Blatant assertion. Rejected as such.


The option is certainly open, even within our understanding and observation. Theoretically possible.
No, it is not.


About ontology. It is still a philosophy.
And a science.


Possibly, I am misunderstanding you on "Why don't you provide me the ontological base for using words apart from the referent which provides the meaning, i.e. the universe." I'm getting the impression you're using your definition of "the universe" to base your definitions in.
There is only one.


And omnipotence is not ad hoc if God is real.
Yes it is.


Much of your argument is based on ad hominem
No it's not.

Are you afraid to provide the ontological base for "apart from the universe"?

And what is an "evolutionist"?
What's an "xer"?
christer.

One of my favorite things to watch is when the xers get upset about the use of "x" as the stand-in for "christ", when it was the early xers who started the practice!

evidence against evolution:

Evidence #1
There are no transitional links and intermediate forms in either the fossil record or the modern world. Therefore, there is no actual evidence that evolution has occurred either in the past or the present.

Yes there are - our museums are full of them.

Evidence #2
Natural selection (the supposed evolution mechanism, along with mutations) is incapable of advancing an organism to a "higher-order".

Where do you get that daft idea?

Evidence #3
Although evolutionists state that life resulted from non-life, matter resulted from nothing, and humans resulted from animals, each of these is an impossibility of science and the natural world.

Evolutionists just explain the evolution of life - nothing else.

As for the rest, we have proof that each happens. There is no evidence, let alone proof, for gods.


Evidence #4
The supposed hominids (creatures in-between ape and human that evolutionists believe used to exist) bones and skull record used by evolutionists often consists of `finds' which are thoroughly unrevealing and inconsistent. They are neither clear nor conclusive even though evolutionists present them as if they were.

Early mad was a very endangered species. It is not surprising that few fossile record is so rare.

However, each find does go to prove the development of the modern "great apes" including man.


Evidence #5
Nine of the twelve popularly supposed hominids are actually extinct apes/ monkeys and not part human at all.

I assume you have evidence for that claim?


Evidence #6
The final three supposed hominids put forth by evolutionists are actually modern human beings and not part monkey/ ape at all. Therefore, all twelve of the supposed hominids can be explained as being either fully monkey/ ape or fully modern human but not as something in between.

Not good with Paleoanthropology are you :)

4 million years of evolution (or up to 14 million years if you work back to the common ancestor of all modern apes including man) is not to be ignored.


Evidence #7
Natural selection can be seen to have insurmountable social and practical inconsistencies.

Then I'm sure you can give an example.

Evidence #8
Natural selection has severe logical inconsistencies.

See above question.


Evidence #9
The rock strata finds (layers of buried fossils) are better explained by a universal flood than by evolution.

Are they? Funny how the older, less evolved animals dies first and the more modern died later. Oh and millions of years passed while they all died.

I am tired of little children thinking they can "prove" that they are right and that their parents are wrong by "proving" that Darwinism is the correct religion
Ad hominem fallacy, and blatant lie.

Creationism is not scientific. It has no evidence. It's junk.

It is basically that "thru Faith I can do all things."
Then leap off a building and fly.

No, "do not tempt god" will not work.


God spoke the universe into being.
Impossible.


Evolution has the same odds of occouring and being true as that of a twister going thru an airplane graveyard and putting together a perfectly functional 747!
False. Paley's watchmaker has been refuted to death.

Quote:
Sorry but do some reading on chimps.....

how old are you?


I missed that one.

Well I am as old as my tongue and a little older then my teeth.

I am older then you think. ;) And I have been around. Name drop time. I have met Dr. Goodall, Dr. Veder, and Dr. Johanson

i know this is really late, but just saying this in case black forrest comes back and sees it:

news flash, you've been arguing with a 14 year old

I know what it means, and I used it properly.


"qua" is femine singular of "qui".... You used it to mean "without" or "outside"; which is not what it means. The word you should have used was "sine" (as the closest latin of 'without').. given that you placed it in oposition (within your second clause) to "within"... So, if you "know what it means"; then you "know" you didn't "use it properly"... So, since you think you used it properly, you obviously did not know what it meant.... Since I have informed you, you now "know", and are therefore expected to use the proper latin term (since you want to use it in the first place) for the proper context. "qua" =/= "without"... The closest construct to your usage in that sentence would be as "from" (in connection to, relating to) which makes clause 1 and clause 2 of the statement contradictory; saying that Casuality does not exist (connected to) the universe [and therefore exists as an element apart from], "but within" then contraditing the first clase [reconnecting the causality].... I assume you have pulled the term "qua universe" from the term in use "universe qua universe" (universe from universe), an expression in explanation of the occilating universe theory; though not actually understanding that is in fact what it is explaining.

WRONG!

The SPATIOTEMPORAL CONTINUUM has a start point, not the universe.

Learn the damned difference.

Universe is scientifically defined as: "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole."

There is no distinction between the two. The "universe" = that Spatio-Temporal continuum.

i know this is really late, but just saying this in case black forrest comes back and sees it:

news flash, you've been arguing with a 14 year old

So?

Does that mean I should right you off as being a kid?

Or maybe my debating you might make you curious about things and look at things more ;)

ONLY if Darwinism where to be relegated to that state as well!
Well, how about Newtonianism, too? It's been displaced by Einsteinism and Hawkinsism in the 20th Century. Obviously it's totally wrong, too, and should be taught as a philosophy.
:rolleyes:

It is basically that "thru Faith I can do all things." God spoke the universe into being. With humans God actually took the time to make us out of the very earth we have been given dominion over. What more do you want? TG me, I am done here!

Evolution has the same odds of occouring and being true as that of a twister going thru an airplane graveyard and putting together a perfectly functional 747!
So the Theory of Creation is also a theory that only works for God, not for humans? Because I have faith in a lot of things that will never come to pass in this lifetime, at least one of which is impossible.

Do you know how many suns and planets there are in the universe? Plenty, with plenty of oppurtunities for life to arise.

Living things are not machines nor are they perfect things (and there is no design). That is a common fallacy.
Well, the structure of DNA, that builds off the parent strings, can be considered a design, no? The thing is they are not intelligently designed.

To me, at least, the contention of a design is not a good argument. It is the intent behind that design (nature has no intent).

"qua" is femine singular of "qui".... You used it to mean "without" or "outside";
No, I did not. I used it in the sense of "this qua this".

Therein lies your problem.

Have a happy day, enjoy your crummy job.

Universe is scientifically defined as: "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole."

There is no distinction between the two.
Yes, there is. The S-T continuum is akin to the inside of a balloon.

Yes, there is. The S-T continuum is akin to the inside of a balloon.

A balloon which contains the whole of our universe.

A balloon which contains the whole of our universe.
The whole of the continuum. If/when the continuum ends (ala the big crunch, for example), the universe will still exist.

The whole of the continuum. If/when the continuum ends (ala the big crunch, for example), the universe will still exist.

Nooooo. If the big crunch comes then our universe ceases to exist. However, it is doubtful a big crunch will ever happen as there is not enough matter in the universe to overcome the expansion.

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAAWA
"Are you saying that god is a mathematical set without a limit? If so,then god exists solely as a concept, and hence couldn't create the universe."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"I told you in the following line that that was a straw man for your straw man."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "No you didn't. And I have used no strawmen."

QUOTE: (Random Junk) "Are you saying you cannot define infinity? A straw man attacking a straw man..."

Obviously, I did. This is a case with actual proof of lying, despite having no good reason to do so (I dunno if that's better or worse than having a reason.). However, "Straw Man" was the wrong descriptor here (I used the term too generally for propaganda techniques.). Here is the original statement.

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "To define is to limit. To attempt to get around that by making an "unlimited" attribute is purely ad hoc and smacks of exaggeration to the nth."

"To define is to limit" is a semantic assertion that says nothing can be unlimited (if there is a word for it). Is the available space in the universe unlimited? Can time be eternal? What is it that allows time to continue? My point is that this does not prove anything. Also, it implies that omnipotence was something invented in response to attacks. An unsupported claim.


Quote:
Originally Posted by BAAWA
"You certainly are crying about it"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"Um. No?"

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Um. Yes.

You're attempting to argue from ignorance, bucko. Unless and until you can provide me with the ontology for "apart from the universe", you can't even say that it's possible."

First of all, AaI has nothing to do with me crying about anything. Second. ontology is metaphysics and has no hard proofs. To say that my not providing you with an answer to a particular philosophy is preventing my side from being possible is what you call "Petitio Principii"; you assume that ontology is the last word without providing proof of it. Additionally, God is "apart" from the universe (he did create it), but He is not a non-factor. Therefore, He is "a part" of the universe. He does not require the universe to exist, nor does He "not exist" relative to us because he is outside the universe; He plays a huge role in our world. By being able to affect our reality, he must "exist."



Quote:
Originally Posted by BAAWA
"You're in over your head, and you're frantically trying to attack me so that you will not look bad. Not working."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"I am certainly not in over my head. I was not being frantic about it."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "You are on both accounts. You have no idea of that which you speak, so you're attacking me to make it look like you do. That's just childish."

I know what I am talking about, as I am addressing the various issues. This is an Ad Hominem attack with no backing. It is also HIGHLY hypocritical. I am stepping down my attacks that do not come as factual. You are stepping up. And I quote: "You have no idea of that which you speak, so you're attacking me to make it look like you do." If this is a human phenomena you are aware of, then you should be quite careful not to resemble it, especially when blaming others of it.



Quote:
Originally Posted by BAAWA
"And one was provided for you. Did you not go to your local library and look for the book? If not, then don't cry to me for your lack of initiative.

Why are you being such a child?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"Dude, chill."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Take your own advice."

I am quite calm. I could not write if I was angry, and I get angry only very rarely, usually at blatant injustices. Not one of my vices. Also, I addressed the issue at hand; your lack of useable research is blatant. I do not expect you to read an entire book in the course of a fast-paced debate. I assume that you have other obligations. By the way, where did you get your academic standards, which place the vast bulk of the burden on the ones not making the point. If you wish to make a point, please back yourself up, without requiring your audience to do the research on their own. And yes, reading an entire book qualifies as the research when no page number is listed.

QUOTE (BAAWA) "I expect you to read the entire book, period."

Do you go out and read the entire book when people cite you a book? Obviously, nobody reads every book (this is not the Matrix, and we don't have that kind of time), and that is precisely why science has standards for research (see APA or MLA guidelines).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"You telling me[ not to be frantic.... I already said I did not catch your source."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "No, you did not."

QUOTE: (Random Junk) "Did you show this source here beyond saying that you had one? You might, and I simply missed it. It'd have been pretty far back, though. In this case, could you relink it? If you haven't posted them, could you do so, that I can look into them?"

Obviously, I did. Another blatant lie on your part. Yes, this is Ad Hominem, but I'm not making anything up. This is quite factual. You can review the forum for yourself. My latter quote is from a page in the twenties.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"About ontology. It is still a philosophy."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "And a science."

Incorrect. Metaphysics does not conform to the standards set by science. Therefore, for you to call it a science (and not be lying), you must have an alternate definition of "science." I'm not going to assume you do, so I'll wait.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"All you have to do is look at light. Special relativity."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Blatant assertion. Rejected as such."

How so? Perhaps you are asking for a more thorough explanation? Ok. When an object approaches the speed of light, it's movement in time changes as well. This has a large, scientific backing. Do you want me to quote you a book on special relativity? We know that time does not move at the same rate for all things due to the speed they move relative to each other. Now, I could AaI on the implications of this all day and be unable to prove a thing under the current level of science, but that would be silly. You still cannot prove that there is no possibility of defying time, especially when we know that time is not as hard as we once thought it was. It is dependent on speed. Besides, isn't it a little silly to argue the possibility of God in the context of physics? Remember the Tower of Babel? They tried to use their own power to reach God. How silly was that? Basically the same thing to try to understand God/omnipotence in our own, physical contexts.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"And omnipotence is not ad hoc if God is real."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Yes it is."

Please explain yourself. If God is real, he is omnipotent, from a Christian standpoint (and that makes sense when you consider that He created the universe). Your blatant assertion (that I am addressing anyways), that it is ad hoc hinges on evidence that people made up God. If you cannot prove that people made up God, then I don't think you can prove that the concept of omnipotence was merely made up. Anyways, back up your point.

At the same time, stating that something is ad hoc does not disprove it or dismiss it. If you are using ad hoc to say that God is unique and no other is like that, then you are dismissing nothing; omnipotence still stands, and your point was inane.


Please give us your definition of "universe", so that we can work out the definition, so that we can have this discussion properly.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"It will be ignored, out of sheer practicality and scientific convention"

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "No--it will be ignored on account of your cowardice."

Incorrect. I was referring to scientists in general. It is silly to assume that others have the time to read your entire book (or that they already don't have a few dozen other books higher on their priority list). The purpose of research in discussion is to extract proofs from material and present it. You are making "unreasonable demands"; a blatant (obviously intentional) and unacceptable debate tactic (propaganda) used to dodge issues. At the same time, you are "shifting the burden of proof onto your opponent."


Quote:
Originally Posted by Omega the Black
"Evolution has the same odds of occouring and being true as that of a twister going thru an airplane graveyard and putting together a perfectly functional 747!"

QUOTE: "False. Paley's watchmaker has been refuted to death."

Yep. It's like saying against evolution, "Lolz, they think we came from monkeys!" Well, not nearly as extreme, I guess. =P



Quote:
Originally Posted by BAAWA
"And what is an "evolutionist"?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"What's an "xer"?"

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "christer.

One of my favorite things to watch is when the xers get upset about the use of "x" as the stand-in for "christ", when it was the early xers who started the practice!"

Lol. That's kinda funny. I don't see the problem people have with it. It's not like there aren't plenty of people who utterly disrespect Christianity whether or not they call them "xians" or not. Get mad at them. Or maybe don't be so angry. By the way, you have a source on that one I could read?

My trouble was that I'd never heard "xer" or "Christer" before. What's the problem with "Evolutionist"? It's the same concept.


That's all for now. Last forum post says 8:07.

Oh, and why the hate, man? "Have a happy day, enjoy your crummy job"? Seriously, that's crap. :rolleyes: Yeesh.

Nooooo. If the big crunch comes then our universe ceases to exist.
No, the spatiotemporal continuum ceases to exist. The universe still exists; it's just a different form. Assuming for the moment that the BC is possible, the universe would most likely go back to (as best as can be figured) some odd quantum-foam-like state.

i know this is really late, but just saying this in case black forrest comes back and sees it:

news flash, you've been arguing with a 14 year old

That explains a lot in this case.

No, the spatiotemporal continuum ceases to exist. The universe still exists; it's just a different form. Assuming for the moment that the BC is possible, the universe would most likely go back to (as best as can be figured) some odd quantum-foam-like state.

Ok, the universe is everything creaded as a result of the big bang.

If you accept M-Brane theory then there may be something outside our universe and there may be lots of other universes. However, that is not part of our universe.

"Are you saying that god is a mathematical set without a limit? If so,then god exists solely as a concept, and hence couldn't create the universe."
I told you in the following line that that was a straw man for your straw man.
No you didn't. And I have used no strawmen.
Are you saying you cannot define infinity? A straw man attacking a straw man...
Obviously, I did.
Obviously, you didn't.


To define is to limit. To attempt to get around that by making an "unlimited" attribute is purely ad hoc and smacks of exaggeration to the nth.
To define is to limit" is a semantic assertion that says nothing can be unlimited
It's a logical assertion based on what definition is.


(if there is a word for it). Is the available space in the universe unlimited?
No.


Can time be eternal?
IFF you mean "existing for all time that has existed", then yes, since as far as time goes, it has existed as long as it has existed.

Some people do define it that way; it's odd.


What is it that allows time to continue?
Energy decay. 2LoT.


My point is that this does not prove anything.
But it proves everything.


Also, it implies that omnipotence was something invented in response to attacks.
It was, in part. It's also "my dick is bigger than yours".



"You certainly are crying about it"
Um. No?
Um. Yes.

You're attempting to argue from ignorance, bucko. Unless and until you can provide me with the ontology for "apart from the universe", you can't even say that it's possible.
First of all, AaI has nothing to do with me crying about anything.
Never said it did.


Second. ontology is metaphysics and has no hard proofs.
It's also a science, and there's hard proof that existence exists.


To say that my not providing you with an answer to a particular philosophy is preventing my side from being possible is what you call "Petitio Principii";
No, it is not. For without an ontological framework for "apart from the universe", you cannot speak of it in any meaningful sense. That's just basic logic.

We know what it means to exist within the universe. What does it mean to exist apart from the universe? Any ideas? How can you use a term while divorcing it from its referent? How can you steal the concept and not even grasp that you're doing it?


you assume that ontology is the last word without providing proof of it.
It is; there is no assuming.


Additionally, God is "apart" from the universe (he did create it),
What does it mean to create the universe? Why do you run from that question?


but He is not a non-factor. Therefore, He is "a part" of the universe.
Not possible, ontologically.


He does not require the universe to exist,
Then how does he exist? What is the ontological framework for god's existence?

Why do you run from that?


nor does He "not exist" relative to us because he is outside the universe; He plays a huge role in our world. By being able to affect our reality, he must "exist."
Not possible without the necessary ontological framework, which you have yet to provide.


You're in over your head, and you're frantically trying to attack me so that you will not look bad. Not working.
I am certainly not in over my head. I was not being frantic about it.
You are on both accounts. You have no idea of that which you speak, so you're attacking me to make it look like you do. That's just childish.
I know what I am talking about,
If you did, then you'd know that without an ontological framework, you can't speak of something having an "existence". We have one for "within the universe". We do not for "apart from the universe". You're attacking me for pointing that out to you.

Here's a little free advice: look up the argument from noncognitivism. Maybe then you'll get a clue.


as I am addressing the various issues. This is an Ad Hominem attack with no backing.
Except, as I showed, I have backing.


And one was provided for you. Did you not go to your local library and look for the book? If not, then don't cry to me for your lack of initiative.

Why are you being such a child?
Dude, chill.
Take your own advice.
I am quite calm.
If you were, you wouldn't be attacking me for pointing out the fact that you don't know what you're talking about.

Read. The. Book. You need to read the whole thing so that you get all of the information. It's not just on page such-and-such. Read the whole thing.


I expect you to read the entire book, period.
Do you go out and read the entire book when people cite you a book?
Yes. Don't you?


You telling me[ not to be frantic.... I already said I did not catch your source.
No, you did not.
Did you show this source here beyond saying that you had one? You might, and I simply missed it. It'd have been pretty far back, though. In this case, could you relink it? If you haven't posted them, could you do so, that I can look into them?
Obviously, I did.
Obviously, you didn't.

Just giving you some of your own crap and seeing how you like it.


About ontology. It is still a philosophy.
And a science.
Incorrect.
You meant to say "correct".


Metaphysics does not conform to the standards set by science.
Yes, it does.


All you have to do is look at light. Special relativity.
Blatant assertion. Rejected as such.
How so?
Because it was a blatant assertion. It carried no evidence.


Perhaps you are asking for a more thorough explanation? Ok. When an object approaches the speed of light, it's movement in time changes as well.
Yes. So what?


Remember the Tower of Babel?
No. No one does; it never existed.


They tried to use their own power to reach God. How silly was that? Basically the same thing to try to understand God/omnipotence in our own, physical contexts.
Ad hominem fallacy to all humans. It's the same as "We mere puny humans can't understand the super-duper-awesome infinite power of god, because we're just so small and god is so large."

It's attacking the human capacity to understand. And it's a load of crap.


And omnipotence is not ad hoc if God is real.
Yes it is.
Please explain yourself.
Nothing needs to be explained.


If God is real, he is omnipotent, from a Christian standpoint
Because they ad hoc define it so.


and that makes sense when you consider that He created the universe).
Interesting thing about that...

Some xers will say that omnipotence means "the ability to do anything logically possible", and then say that god created the universe. But creating the universe is not logically possible, for it entails existence before existence and existence apart from the metaphysical ground of existence. So, they contradict themselves.

Never let it be said, though, that the members of the death-cult of jesus are consistent.


Your blatant assertion (that I am addressing anyways), that it is ad hoc hinges on evidence that people made up God.
They did. There's quite a lot of evidence for the evolution of the god-concept in humanity, from simple quasi-nature-worship to animism to anthropomorphised polytheism to the super-duper-all-in-wonder supergods of the monotheists, and ones in-between.


At the same time, stating that something is ad hoc does not disprove it or dismiss it.
It means they're just making it up as they go along.



Please give us your definition of "universe",
No. We are having a proper discussion.


It will be ignored, out of sheer practicality and scientific convention
No--it will be ignored on account of your cowardice.
Incorrect.
You meant "correct".


I was referring to scientists in general.
That's not how the sentence read.


It is silly to assume that others have the time to read your entire book (or that they already don't have a few dozen other books higher on their priority list).
No it's not.


The purpose of research in discussion is to extract proofs from material and present it. You are making "unreasonable demands";
No, I'm not.


And what is an "evolutionist"?
What's an "xer"
christer.

One of my favorite things to watch is when the xers get upset about the use of "x" as the stand-in for "christ", when it was the early xers who started the practice!
Lol. That's kinda funny. I don't see the problem people have with it. It's not like there aren't plenty of people who utterly disrespect Christianity whether or not they call them "xians" or not. Get mad at them. Or maybe don't be so angry. By the way, you have a source on that one I could read?
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10488a.htm


My trouble was that I'd never heard "xer" or "Christer" before. What's the problem with "Evolutionist"? It's the same concept.
No, it's not. Evolution, unlike the death-cult of jesus, isn't something you believe in. Are there gravity-ists? Saying "evolutionist" is the same as saying "gravity-ist".



Oh, and why the hate, man? "Have a happy day, enjoy your crummy job"? Seriously, that's crap.
It's neither hate nor crummy. It's a modified old tagline from a radio station around here. The actual tagline was "Have a crappy day, enjoy your crummy job."

Ok, the universe is everything creaded as a result of the big bang.
Again, that's the spatiotemporal continuum.


If you accept M-Brane theory then there may be something outside our universe and there may be lots of other universes. However, that is not part of our universe.
Actually, a reading of Chapter 13 of The Fabric of the Cosmos shows that the branes are part of the same universe.

So if Creationism/ID is allowed in High School, guess the next step?

Brrrroadway!!

*whistles*

This is getting more and more impractical. Getting in the way of work (or other life, my choice).

I'm gonna have to try and reduce lengths. I can't churn these out in a half-hour. =(

QUOTE: (Random Junk) "Are you saying you cannot define infinity? A straw man attacking a straw man..."

The first "straw man" was my retort ("Are you saying you cannot define infinity"). The second was your original line. However, I've already said that "straw man" was the wrong term. To say I didn't say it was is a misreading (understandable, except that I'm sure you knew what I meant after my last post.). No real problem anymore...


Quote:
Originally Posted by BAAWA
"To define is to limit. To attempt to get around that by making an "unlimited" attribute is purely ad hoc and smacks of exaggeration to the nth."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"To define is to limit" is a semantic assertion that says nothing can be unlimited"

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "It's a logical assertion based on what definition is."

Which is still semantic, because it's heavily based on a specific use of the word "define." If something has to be finite in order to be defined, that just means you're saying that nothing can be limitless. Besides, why not limit something at infinity?



Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"Second. ontology is metaphysics and has no hard proofs."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "It's also a science, and there's hard proof that existence exists."

It's not a real science, the kind that "proves" using data and testing. Evidence for existence is not evidence for the various conclusions about existence.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"To say that my not providing you with an answer to a particular philosophy is preventing my side from being possible is what you call "Petitio Principii";"

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "No, it is not. For without an ontological framework for "apart from the universe", you cannot speak of it in any meaningful sense. That's just basic logic.

We know what it means to exist within the universe. What does it mean to exist apart from the universe? Any ideas? How can you use a term while divorcing it from its referent? How can you steal the concept and not even grasp that you're doing it?"

I'm not familiar with these phrases, but I'll see if I can guess. A definition of universe is the physical plane we live in along with everything in it. The referent for "exist" is universe, meaning "is in the universe." However, this concept is for dealing with things that are bound to the universe. If God were real, you would say that He doesn't "exist." When I use the word "exist", I mean "anything that can affect the universe." Therefore, if God were real, yet never modified the universe, he would not exist. However, I believe that He does work in the universe. Therefore, by my definition of "exist", he exists. I believe that is an ontological base, as it deals with the universe as I think you define it. (You refused to define it for me outright. And yes, I know I'm not supposed to give you your definition (then, you can change it for free), but you left me no choice.)


QUOTE: (BAAWA) "What does it mean to create the universe? Why do you run from that question?"

Didn't mean to run from it. There's just too much post, and it got lost. I was working with 6 posts, all of them very long.

To create the universe means to make the universe, placing the necessary rules and matter. At this point is when God exists. Beforehand, He did not exist. He simply was. "I am that I am." "Exists" is relative to a person's viewpoint. If there is no viewpoint, there is no existence.


QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Read. The. Book. You need to read the whole thing so that you get all of the information. It's not just on page such-and-such. Read the whole thing."

Sorry, man, but I can't. I don't have the time. I was asking for the evidence for the specific information you posted. Actually, since you posted general information, you'd need a whole book, I guess. Also, I've never had anyone cite me a whole book, and I wonder if you have (and read the whole thing). You would not appreciate it if Tekania cited you a half-dozen ID books, even if he meant it. If you do read like that, Kudos. I'm no speed-reader.


QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Here's a little free advice: look up the argument from noncognitivism. Maybe then you'll get a clue."

It brought up a site called strongatheism.net (#1). From what it looks like, you could've just cited this and been done with it. :rolleyes: ;) This is much better than having to ask you for information.

Looks like the problem is in defining "God." After reviewing the huge essay, I have come to the conclusion that it is talking about ID as a scientific hypothesis to explain the existence of things. This is an attempt to come to Creationism from the "bottom-up." God made us, then we figured him out. Like the Tower of Babel (which is a parable, don't take it literally). Christian theology does not work this way. It should be abundantly clear that we do not require a definition of God within the context of human experience. If you could prove God, there would be no reason for Faith. "I am that I am" is the basic definition of God. This paragraph also deals with the ad hoc problem. Since, in Christian theology, God reveals himself to men, your "ad hoc" assertions have no place in an argument with a believer.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"They tried to use their own power to reach God. How silly was that? Basically the same thing to try to understand God/omnipotence in our own, physical contexts."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Ad hominem fallacy to all humans. It's the same as "We mere puny humans can't understand the super-duper-awesome infinite power of god, because we're just so small and god is so large."

It's attacking the human capacity to understand. And it's a load of crap."

Science proves the shortcomings of the human brain. Today, it takes a large percentage of a person's life to become educated enough to perform a single job. Information is exploding, and there's simply too much to learn. A nice change from a huge lack, but it does reveal the problem. We can hardly learn our own world, much less the metaphysical. The human capacity to understand is indeed limited.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"You telling me[ not to be frantic.... I already said I did not catch your source."

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAAWA
"No, you did not."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"Did you show this source here beyond saying that you had one? You might, and I simply missed it. It'd have been pretty far back, though. In this case, could you relink it? If you haven't posted them, could you do so, that I can look into them?"

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"Obviously, I did."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Obviously, you didn't.

Just giving you some of your own crap and seeing how you like it."

What? :confused: When have I done this? I don't seem to remember. Perhaps, if you point it out, I will be able to avoid it better next time.


QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Some xers will say that omnipotence means "the ability to do anything logically possible", and then say that god created the universe. But creating the universe is not logically possible, for it entails existence before existence and existence apart from the metaphysical ground of existence. So, they contradict themselves.

Never let it be said, though, that the members of the death-cult of jesus are consistent."

"The ability to do anything possible" would be a poor definition. And what's the "death-cult of jesus"? Based on the lower-case name, I'm guessing it's just another flame for "xers."



Quote:
Originally Posted by BAAWA
"No--it will be ignored on account of your cowardice."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"Incorrect.[...]"

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "You meant "correct"."

No, I am not a coward to information, but I am human, and I do have a life. Not to be trite. Your post is what you call a "blatant assertion."


QUOTE: (BAAWA) "http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10488a.htm"

Ok, but the source didn't say "xer" or "xian" or anything at that level. It was a monogram of a "kind-of-X". Not even a normal x, and not intended to be used in the modern way at all.


QUOTE: (BAAWA) "No, it's not. Evolution, unlike the death-cult of jesus, isn't something you believe in. Are there gravity-ists? Saying "evolutionist" is the same as saying "gravity-ist"."

No, because "gravity-ist" doesn't sound nearly as cool. He didn't say evolutioner (like Christer), he said evolutionist. What's a Christer (or Christist), by the way? The "er" comes from the same place "ist" does. It's just a suffix showing a supporter of something (likely pejorative). This has nothing to do with belief. At least he didn't say "death-clan of science."


QUOTE: (BAAWA) "It's neither hate nor crummy. It's a modified old tagline from a radio station around here. The actual tagline was "Have a crappy day, enjoy your crummy job.""

I was referring to its use. It seemed...derogatory, in context :rolleyes: . And is the recipient familiar with it? Anyways, if you don't mean it in a negative way, there's no problem.


At this kind of length, I must've missed something in there...the behemoth. Longest post I think I've ever seen, responding to the longest post I've written. This is becoming quite impractical. I was hoping I could say the discussion was becoming more amicable, but I can't. I'll do my part (I did on this one, too). I failed to shorten it by much, though. I'll see if I can't filter out the main points for the next one, if necessary. The less writing, the less to respond to later. Proofreading is not happening. =/ It burns.

Tomorrow, I will do my best to not get on this site...much to do that I did not do today. Forums always destroy my social life and grades. I'll respond again later.

To define is to limit. To attempt to get around that by making an "unlimited" attribute is purely ad hoc and smacks of exaggeration to the nth.
To define is to limit" is a semantic assertion that says nothing can be unlimited
It's a logical assertion based on what definition is.
Which is still semantic, because it's heavily based on a specific use of the word "define."
Yeah--the one in the dictionary.


If something has to be finite in order to be defined, that just means you're saying that nothing can be limitless. Besides, why not limit something at infinity?
Because infinity is just a mathematical concept. It relates to mathematical sets that have no limit. And sets don't exist outside of mathematics; they aren't real. They have no "Form", if you understand.

Besides, if you want to limit something at infinity, there're a couple ways of doing it, as there're a couple ways to take it. Either lim (x--> +/-infinity) or something like lim (x-->+/-0) 1/x


Second. ontology is metaphysics and has no hard proofs.
It's also a science, and there's hard proof that existence exists.
It's not a real science, the kind that "proves" using data and testing.
Every time we test anything, we prove that existence exists. QED.

Hint: "existence exists" is a metaphysical statement. It's testable.



To say that my not providing you with an answer to a particular philosophy is preventing my side from being possible is what you call "Petitio Principii";
No, it is not. For without an ontological framework for "apart from the universe", you cannot speak of it in any meaningful sense. That's just basic logic.

We know what it means to exist within the universe. What does it mean to exist apart from the universe? Any ideas? How can you use a term while divorcing it from its referent? How can you steal the concept and not even grasp that you're doing it?
I'm not familiar with these phrases,
There is this wonderful thing called "Google", y'know. Mayhaps you've heard of it.


but I'll see if I can guess. A definition of universe is the physical plane we live in along with everything in it. The referent for "exist" is universe, meaning "is in the universe." However, this concept is for dealing with things that are bound to the universe. If God were real, you would say that He doesn't "exist." When I use the word "exist", I mean "anything that can affect the universe." Therefore, if God were real, yet never modified the universe, he would not exist. However, I believe that He does work in the universe. Therefore, by my definition of "exist", he exists.
But that tells us absolulely nothing. You're just begging your own question and ad hoc Anselming, i.e. defining something into "existence".

Also, what does it mean to "exist" where god "exists"? What referent do you have? We know of things that can affect other things within the universe. But what does "affect the universe" (which seems to mean the universe qua universe) mean? You're just pushing the mystery back a step and telling me utterly nothing.


I believe that is an ontological base, as it deals with the universe as I think you define it. (You refused to define it for me outright. And yes, I know I'm not supposed to give you your definition (then, you can change it for free), but you left me no choice.)
Yes, I did give you a choice, liar.


What does it mean to create the universe? Why do you run from that question?
Didn't mean to run from it. There's just too much post, and it got lost. I was working with 6 posts, all of them very long.

To create the universe means to make the universe, placing the necessary rules and matter.
How can that happen without time? How can that happen without existence? How can "creation" apply to the universe itself?


At this point is when God exists.
aka "It's magic".

See the problem? You're just saying "Here's where you have to take a big leap of faith and just believe". That's not science! That's mysticism!


Beforehand, He did not exist. He simply was.
That's self-contradictory. "Was" is a conjugate of "to be" which is "to exist". So you're saying "before" (a temporal term), "he did not exist, he simply existed". Blatant self-contradiction.


"I am that I am." "Exists" is relative to a person's viewpoint. If there is no viewpoint, there is no existence.
Wrong. Things existed before there were viewpoints. Things existed before life came to be.


Read. The. Book. You need to read the whole thing so that you get all of the information. It's not just on page such-and-such. Read the whole thing.
Sorry, man, but I can't. I don't have the time.
Sounds like a personal problem to me.


I was asking for the evidence for the specific information you posted. Actually, since you posted general information, you'd need a whole book, I guess. Also, I've never had anyone cite me a whole book, and I wonder if you have (and read the whole thing).
I have.


You would not appreciate it if Tekania cited you a half-dozen ID books, even if he meant it.
Only in the sense that ID is absolute rubbish.


Here's a little free advice: look up the argument from noncognitivism. Maybe then you'll get a clue.
It brought up a site called strongatheism.net (#1). From what it looks like, you could've just cited this and been done with it. This is much better than having to ask you for information.
You go into debates without having done any groundwork? You just blindly charge in? What sort of idiot are you?


Looks like the problem is in defining "God." After reviewing the huge essay, I have come to the conclusion that it is talking about ID as a scientific hypothesis to explain the existence of things. This is an attempt to come to Creationism from the "bottom-up."
That's how it's always been, even in xer theology.


God made us, then we figured him out. Like the Tower of Babel (which is a parable, don't take it literally). Christian theology does not work this way.
Yes, it really does.


It should be abundantly clear that we do not require a definition of God within the context of human experience. If you could prove God, there would be no reason for Faith.
Yes. And that's the rub, isn't it?


"I am that I am" is the basic definition of God.
I will be what I will be is the actual translation. Still, that tells us a great big giant goose-egg about god.


This paragraph also deals with the ad hoc problem. Since, in Christian theology, God reveals himself to men,
Revealed knowledge--isn't.


your "ad hoc" assertions have no place in an argument with a believer.
But they do, since "revealed knowledge" is just ad hoc. There's no way to differentiate it from something someone just made up.


They tried to use their own power to reach God. How silly was that? Basically the same thing to try to understand God/omnipotence in our own, physical contexts.
Ad hominem fallacy to all humans. It's the same as "We mere puny humans can't understand the super-duper-awesome infinite power of god, because we're just so small and god is so large."

It's attacking the human capacity to understand. And it's a load of crap
Science proves the shortcomings of the human brain.
No it doesn't.


Today, it takes a large percentage of a person's life to become educated enough to perform a single job. Information is exploding, and there's simply too much to learn. A nice change from a huge lack, but it does reveal the problem. We can hardly learn our own world, much less the metaphysical. The human capacity to understand is indeed limited.
Only from a temporal sense that we have a finite lifespan. But that in no way attacks our ability to understand. It's just a bound on the amount we can learn due to that we are mortal. But it has nothing to do with our ability to learn. Nothing.


Some xers will say that omnipotence means "the ability to do anything logically possible", and then say that god created the universe. But creating the universe is not logically possible, for it entails existence before existence and existence apart from the metaphysical ground of existence. So, they contradict themselves.

Never let it be said, though, that the members of the death-cult of jesus are consistent.
The ability to do anything possible" would be a poor definition.
Tell that to the xers.


And what's the "death-cult of jesus"? Based on the lower-case name, I'm guessing it's just another flame for "xers."
It's not a flame; it's a correct name. They worship the death of jesus, get all flustered about death, but somehow want death so they can be with god again. It's a death-cult.



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/10488a.htm
Ok, but the source didn't say "xer" or "xian" or anything at that level.
So what?


It was a monogram of a "kind-of-X". Not even a normal x, and not intended to be used in the modern way at all.
It was an X as in the Greek "Chi", coupled with P as in "Rho". Along the way, the P was dropped, and the X kept. It's simply tradition.


No, it's not. Evolution, unlike the death-cult of jesus, isn't something you believe in. Are there gravity-ists? Saying "evolutionist" is the same as saying "gravity-ist".
No, because "gravity-ist" doesn't sound nearly as cool. He didn't say evolutioner (like Christer), he said evolutionist. What's a Christer (or Christist), by the way?
Someone who believes in jesus.


The "er" comes from the same place "ist" does. It's just a suffix showing a supporter of something (likely pejorative).
Nope.


This has nothing to do with belief.
It has everything to do with belief.


At least he didn't say "death-clan of science."
That's because "science" doesn't worship the death of some jew, does it?

No, I did not. I used it in the sense of "this qua this".

Therein lies your problem.

Have a happy day, enjoy your crummy job.


"This qua this" is improper construction, so is "causality does not exist qua universe".... It's either going to mean "this", "who", "that", etc... and it does not work no matter the assumption. Constructionally you used it in opposition to "within" (which automatically shows your improper usage or lack of understanding of applicability.... by CONTEXT, you definitely meant to use sine, sans, or abentia/absque; if you were substituting a latin term to mean "without"... wherein the sentence is reconstructed to make sense, based upon context).

"This qua this" is improper construction,
No, it's proper construction. And for the last damned time: I DID NOT USE IT AS CONTRARY TO "WITHIN". I TOLD YOU THAT ALREADY. DO YOU NOT READ?

Example:

According to Sarah Broadie,

Aristotle’s supreme good is the well functioning of the human being qua human; functioning well is nothing other than ‘activity in accordance with virtue. [2]
http://www.nd.edu/~dthunder/Articles/Article4.html

Now, do you see what I mean, rather than what you want to see?

Further discussion on this will be met with even further curt dismissal from me.

No, it's proper construction. And for the last damned time: I DID NOT USE IT AS CONTRARY TO "WITHIN". I TOLD YOU THAT ALREADY. DO YOU NOT READ?

Example:


http://www.nd.edu/~dthunder/Articles/Article4.html

Now, do you see what I mean, rather than what you want to see?

Further discussion on this will be met with even further curt dismissal from me.

Which educational dissability do you have?....

THAT would have been proper construction... "human being qua human" relating human being <-> human in comparison... YOUR sentence construction, however, was placing "qua" in opposiiton (in context) with "within" as placed relation between first and second clauses [that being, that I had to decipher what your sentence meant, via context, replacing "qua" with the only logical possibility due to the construction and direction (and the intent response) of the sentence].... Thus to equate to "without".... However, such in actuality reffers to characterization and capacity.... saying "human being qua human" is a proper construct, saying "President qua head of state" is proper construct, saying "Doctor qua Medical Practitioner" is a proper construct, saying "apply qua universe" is not...

So, since you use "qua" in comparitive sense, this connects "universe" with "causality", meaning the first part lacks a clause.... so there is no connection with the "does | apply" verb pair.. Effectively (removing the inter-relative, being not necessarily needed, the sentence should be able to still be meaningfull), the sentence says "Causality does not apply, but within the universe." Operating normally, given that the first part lacked a clause, I derived the first part's clause from the context of the second part, "within the universe".... So this reads, "Causality does apply within the universe"... Since the first part explains an area of opposition to the what the statement of the second is, the first would read, "Causality does not apply outside/without/apart-from the universe"... There however is no actual textual matching clause as that in the first part of the sentence, however, "universe" is mentioned carrying the comparitive article "qua" (character of) relating to Causality (or misuse relating to the negated verb pair "does|apply") therefore deriving contextual meaning of "qua" to relate to conveying a meaning as "outside","apart" or "without" in context of the final clause (this, however, is not the meaning of "qua"; and therefore is rightly to be reinterpreted by the rest of the sentence's construction, and alse is rightly interpreted by the reader to be a misuse of the word "qua".)

Therefore, despite any argument, it is proven by fact that you misused the word. Meaning that either (A) you did not know the meaning, or (B) you cannot properly construct a sentence [the first part of the sentence, then lacking any definitive clause in connection with the verb-pair]... Since the evidence lays total doubt upon you lacking the capacity to construct a sentence (as the sentence can and still conveys a particular context, and proper clause is finally used in the second part), it is now an established fact, that you do not know how to properly use (or have a demonstratable understanding) of the actual meaning and purpose of the word "qua".

Snip
You guys got to be kidding … all this fucking work arguing over a word usage
For the love of god just let it lie you two and stop hijacking the thread

You guys got to be kidding … all this fucking work arguing over a word usage
For the love of god just let it lie you two and stop hijacking the thread

Amen (to stay on track ;) )

You guys got to be kidding … all this fucking work arguing over a word usage
For the love of god just let it lie you two and stop hijacking the thread

Well, BAWAA wants to argue about religious people have no facts, and discouting everything, acting with such an air of superiority.... So, we now know several things, BAWAA cannot accept correction. BAWAA is always right in his own eyes (despite evidence), BAWAA will always be right (because he has faith in his own truths, despite evidence to the contrary), and BAWAA is no different than creationists he wants to argue with, at the core of it all.

Trust me, my point had a reason PAST just the word he misused...

Well, BAWAA wan'ts to argue about religious people have no facts, and discouting everything, acting with such an air of superiority.... So, we now know several things, BAWAA cannot accept correction. BAWAA is always right in his own eyes (despite evidence), BAWAA will always be right (because he has faith in his own truths, despite evidence to the contrary), and BAWAA is no different than creationists he wants to argue with, at the core of it all.

Trust me, my point had a reason PAST just the word he misused...
Even so it has every appearance right now of being more about machismo on both sides right now
Be the bigger man (or woman) and let it drop

Well, BAWAA wants to argue about religious people have no facts,

Which is true, they have no facts.

and discouting everything, acting with such an air of superiority.... So, we now know several things, BAWAA cannot accept correction. BAWAA is always right in his own eyes (despite evidence), BAWAA will always be right (because he has faith in his own truths, despite evidence to the contrary), and BAWAA is no different than creationists he wants to argue with, at the core of it all.

Trust me, my point had a reason PAST just the word he misused...

Care to come up with some facts to support religion?

Even so it has every appearance right now of being more about machismo on both sides right now
Be the bigger man (or woman) and let it drop

Ok, so then I state officially, for the record, that no one can proove (or disprove) scientifically the existance (or non existance) of "God". And that the argument, in connection with the UC Systems issue, is irrelevant.

Back to the case...

Did the UC Systems BOARS operate properly in the dismissal of curricular credits regarding the private schools textbooks relating to the Biology and Physics science classes, the Literary, History and other SocialScience classes?

I will concede their issue on the biology class as being a proper rulling; but will however require their re-review of all materials given the questionable removal of the Physics and other classes decided during the same meeting (being derived from a position which was hardly anti-discriminitory, based upon further information supplied from the suit being brought). Further requiring that all UC systems BOARS meetings be recorded in the future(applying the same standards as would be applied to any other civil commitee operating in a governing capacity persuant to state powers and actions).

nothing of merit, since it was all refuted
End. You were refuted. Deal. Stop whining. You thought I said something that I didn't, and even after being told that 2x, you keep on with it. That's the mark of a class-A wanker.

Well, BAWAA wants to argue about religious people have no facts, and discouting everything, acting with such an air of superiority.... So, we now know several things, BAWAA cannot accept correction.
You never corrected me. I explained to you that what you thought I said wasn't what I said, but you ignored that. You kept on going in your little box, completely oblivious to reality.

You're no better than a creationist.

Which is true, they have no facts.

Care to come up with some facts to support religion?
Sure. Here's one...

People should love others, because then we can all take a stab at getting along.

if it can't be explained outside of science, then we are reduced to "he said-she said" arguments since there's no way to disprove or prove it. Therefore supernatural things that cannot be proven by science are irrelevant for proving the existence of anything since you can by their very nature use them to explain ANYTHING-- since none of them can have anything known about them, all of them are equally valid or invalid, and thus, useless.

I think I see where you are coming from. But your point would seem to suggest that all of the 'discoveries' that have come to us from something like philosophy are also useless, since philosophy is not the business of 'proving' something. In fact, philosophy is rather similar to theology in that both deal with ideas that cannot be proven scientifically, although both deal with ideas that can be shown to be reasonable and believeable, and even perhaps 'proven' (although, once again, not with the scientific method). What I have in mind is, e.g. a promise that found in the Bible, claimed to be the very words of God, to the effect of 'If you place your trust in me, I will deliver you'. Here is a promise, and it can be proven, according to the claims of many, but not with the scientific method. Obviously, this is one way to 'prove' the supernatural. If the supernatural can be 'proven' in this way, then your argument that the supernatural can 'explain anything and everything and is thus useless' is clearly wrong.

Lets take another example. Science has no way of proving the the material world has a beginning. We cannot say for sure if matter is eternal or not, although most people think that there was a beginning somewhere. From philosophy, we can make reasonable arguments, though, to repeat myself, we have no way of proving this from science. Would you then argue that this sort of philosophical reasoning is useless? In a sense, one could argue that philosophy can be used to explain everything and everything, but no one in his right mind would consider philosophy useless.

Then provide the evidence of the supernatural. Provide the ontology for it.

Without that, any and all claims for the supernatural are simply ad hoc rationalizations. They have no merit. No standing. No claim. No explanatory power. They are the same as "it's magic".

I think there is an important distinction between evidence and proof. Evidence is an observation that can be explained in terms of an idea, hypothesis, or theory. Proof, on the other hand, is an observation that cannot be explained by any alternative idea, hypothesis or theory, except one. Perhaps that's not a technical definition of each term, but it will serve to make my point. And that is that the evidence is all around us which can be directly observed. We 'happen' to find ourselves in a world that has rather nice living conditions. All the laws of nature just 'happen' to be right. This is consistent with a creating supernatural. However, since it can also be explained in terms of naturalistic theory (life is simply a product of the laws of nature which was there before life), then this observation is not proof for the supernatural. Evidence, but not proof.
The same can be applied to 'things' that cannot be directly observed, like love, imagination, faith, hatred, malice, kindness, forgiveness, a conscience, etc. We can observe the effects of all these things, and note that this is consistent with a supernatural. However, things like these have also been explained in terms of natural selection (we simply exhibit characteristics that helps humanity survive). Once again, this (e.g. love, etc.) cannot be taken as proof. However, it is evidence. It can be explained in more than one way.

If you want proof from me, proof of the supernatural, I admit, I cannot give it to you. But it has occurred to me that perhaps the supernatural doesn't want me to give it to you. Perhaps he wants you to come to him through faith. If He was to give you proof, then you wouldn't have to take the path of faith, which, apparently, has been his plan for quite some time now. You are free to make your own choices, but He has promised that you will not be free of the consequences.

Dogs and cats, living together, mass hysteria

Sure. Here's one...

People should love others, because then we can all take a stab at getting along.

In what way is that a support for religion? Most of the time the hatred and violance in the world is caused by religion.

Actually, if creationism is allowed in high school, we get:

Rivers and seas boiling!
40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanos.
The dead rising from the grave!
Human sacrifice, dogs and cats, living together... mass hysteria!

.....What I have in mind is, e.g. a promise that found in the Bible, claimed to be the very words of God, to the effect of 'If you place your trust in me, I will deliver you'. Here is a promise, and it can be proven, according to the claims of many, but not with the scientific method.

Then it is NOT provable.

Obviously, this is one way to 'prove' the supernatural. If the supernatural can be 'proven' in this way, then your argument that the supernatural can 'explain anything and everything and is thus useless' is clearly wrong.

Myth and magic , the subject of fairy stories.

Lets take another example. Science has no way of proving the the material world has a beginning.

Yes it can, and has done so.

We cannot say for sure if matter is eternal or not, although most people think that there was a beginning somewhere.

Matter is not eternal, only energy is.

From philosophy, we can make reasonable arguments, though, to repeat myself, we have no way of proving this from science. Would you then argue that this sort of philosophical reasoning is useless? In a sense, one could argue that philosophy can be used to explain everything and everything, but no one in his right mind would consider philosophy useless.

What most of us are saying is that religion is useless because it is based on god(s) that cannot exist.

Now, before we continue. Just why ARE we discussing genome size? Could you explain why this is of importance to ID?


A previous poster threw out a challenge to provide some sort of evidence that supports ID and not ET. I had to have a go. I got the idea when I was reading a paper about a particular bacterium that appeared to have a shrinking genome. It occurred to me that it would be perfectly logical for both ET and ID to predict that some genomes would be shrinking. An effect of natural selection. Naturally. However, what if every genome that we ever looked at turned out to be shrinking! This would not fit with ET, since the general idea of ET is that a primitive lifeform evolved into every life form observed today. Consider that bacteria have something like 3 000 to 5 000 genes. Humans have something like 30 000. Plants have even more. So there has to be a process, a natural law, that exists in biology and accounts for this increase. We should also be able to detect it, and observe it. There should be at least some organisms that are growing in genome size, and some mechanism observed that would account for this, and an example that would demonstrate it.


Yes, they are selected against. The removal, however, is a stochastic process, as you stop proofreading the DNA sequence.


I was under the impression that all DNA replication involves proofreading. Both introns and extrons. Proofreading, however, is not 100%. Mutations also occur in essential genes, but are not tolerated, and the organism dies, or is weaker than it's competitors. Mutations in introns, however, are thought to be neutral, unless they affect gene regulation regions.


Untrue. Multiplication of genes, recombination... there are many ways to shuffle genomes. Then new genes are created by (point) mutations change genes. Surely you know this with your biology background. Btw this is not particularly an ET point.


I know the theory. But I also know that we don't have a clear and convincing example of where a duplicated gene contributes to an increase in information (i.e. a new gene). The genetic material may be temporarily increased (with the duplication), but will be selected against unless it confers an advantage, since DNA replication is a costly process. This is a rather important part of ET. Without a definite mechanism for increasing genes, the whole theory has a sticky part, a glitch, a hole. Currently, I suggest that the hole is based on ignorance. We cannot know if a mechanism exists but is undetected. Until it is detected, it remains a hole that is filled with an explanation, not an observation or demonstration.


I don't know where you get that ET is predicting increasing size genomes. I really don't. In particular cases you predict indeed increased genome size, because of the relationship between C-value and cell size, but I don't know for the love of God why genomes should generally increase in size in ET.


Like I said before, you have to account for the genome differences between a bacterium and a human. Simple mathematics.


Frankly, I have no clue what your point is.


Why not? I can't see where I can make it any simpler. All the genomes that I have ever read about appear to be shrinking. Notice the little word 'all'. I would be very appreciative if you or anyone else could point out a clear example of an exception. I am on the search......


I'm sorry, but your last statement makes absolutely no sense to me. Please explain to me why we are discussing genome size. I think I can make a guess (genomes are designed to be as afficient as possible etc etc) but I'd like to be sure.


we have an observation (shrinking genomes). It fits with the idea that genomes are designed, originally bigger than they are now. It does not fit with the idea that bacteria evolved into humans (for that they would have to multiply the number of their genes by six). Of course, ET would predict that genomes are capable of shrinking, depending on selection. But not all.

Wow, this really jumped since I left town. I'm afraid I'll have to either leave the discussion or simply jump in at the end, as I haven't the time to go through all these pages and see what happened in between.

Yes it can, and has done so.

Ok, I have to jump in here. Science has never claimed to have proven that the universe has a beginning. It might have, and there is some evidence for that. Of course, some hold that, for instance, the Big Bang was simply the beginning of the universe as we know it and that matter and energy existed before that. Some hold that there is neither beginning nor end to the universe and all that exists within it.

There is an equal amount of physical evidence for either idea. That is, we know that matter exists. We know that energy exists. We know that we cannot destroy them, but can convert between them. We don't know how long either has existed, or how long it will exist.

Matter is not eternal, only energy is.

Matter and energy are interchangeable.

What most of us are saying is that religion is useless because it is based on god(s) that cannot exist.

Either prove that no deity can exist, disprove the idea of every deity ever posited to exist, or cease making such arrogant and baseless statements.

Then it is NOT provable.

Why do you say that? Have you ever tried it?



Myth and magic , the subject of fairy stories.


Depends on your definitions of myth and magic. If 'magic' is holding the laws of nature in place, how would we know? We cannot determine this using science. We just have our personal 'philosophies' to go by, I suppose.



Yes it can, and has done so.


I'm not going to believe you unless you can come up with a more convincing argument than that.


Matter is not eternal, only energy is.


Is that another idea that you came up with? Perhaps matter is energy in another form? How do you like that idea?


What most of us are saying is that religion is useless because it is based on god(s) that cannot exist.


That god(s) cannot exist is one of the most stupid and arrogant claims that I have ever heard. It implies that that you know enough about the universe prove it. The reality is that we really know very little. It's not like we have conquered our universe, you know, or even our brains, for that matter.

In what way is that a support for religion? Most of the time the hatred and violance in the world is caused by religion.

Or perhaps religion was 'invented' as a way of dealing with hatred and violence, but that hatred and violence has persisted in spite of it. And that when religion is removed, hatred and violence still persist (i.e. in communism, or the abuse of communism).

Is that another idea that you came up with? Perhaps matter is energy in another form? How do you like that idea?

It's funny that he would not know that.... Given that the concept has been a fundamental component of established (and accepted) science ever since the postulation of Specific Relativity.... One should ask him when E=mc^2 was overturned.

In what way is that a support for religion? Most of the time the hatred and violance in the world is caused by religion.
It supports religion because religion is about finding ones place in the community and in the universe.

This thread is just too long to read it from the beginning, so I'm very sorry if somebody already said what I want to say.
If I'd live in the USA, I would be a pastafarian. There's no need to be one here, because at least we're not stupid enough to try to get religion teached as science. Religion classes at school included the theories of buddhism, hinduism and many more, even at a private christian school (btw, I'm atheist) which I attended for three years.

http://www.venganza.org/

Anything else I have to say on that subject ist already written on that page.

And please excuse my bad english.

Ok, I have to jump in here. Science has never claimed to have proven that the universe has a beginning. It might have, and there is some evidence for that. Of course, some hold that, for instance, the Big Bang was simply the beginning of the universe as we know it and that matter and energy existed before that. Some hold that there is neither beginning nor end to the universe and all that exists within it.

Since there was no space and no time before the BB then that has to be the start of the universe.

There is an equal amount of physical evidence for either idea. That is, we know that matter exists. We know that energy exists. We know that we cannot destroy them, but can convert between them. We don't know how long either has existed, or how long it will exist.



Matter and energy are interchangeable.

But in the beginning there was only energy, and it looks most likely that at the end there will be only energy.



Either prove that no deity can exist, disprove the idea of every deity ever posited to exist, or cease making such arrogant and baseless statements.

There is no evidence for a god. In fact there is no evidence for the need for a god.

It supports religion because religion is about finding ones place in the community and in the universe.

Neither of those require or benefit from religion.

But in the beginning there was only energy, and it looks most likely that at the end there will be only energy.

Maximized entropy.... effectively, nothing but matter.... The thermodynamic "death" of the closed system (though not really an "end")...

Though all this assumes some differentiation between matter and energy.... Truthfully, there is none.... MATTER is ENERGY.... and they are merely some form taken by some, yet unknown, underlying "element" that we have still to conceptualize and quantify... The only thing we do know, is that there is an effective "start point" of what we call this plane we live in, and that it will have a definitive "end-point" which will come about likely as a thermodynamic "death" ( or not so likely, based on present measurements and understanding, as a large crunch )... Though from our standpoint, it's finite in either direction as to the operations of what we call "the physcial world/universe"

In any case, just being who and what we are; we know far less about "everything" than we do... And any dicussion on this issue is far more philosophical (as a soft-science) than it is dealing with hard-science; and all of us truthfully speak from ignorance.

200,000 years ago, people were born, and then later died, becomming fertilizer for flowers, and dinner for earthworms.... and now, hundreds of thousands of years later, little has changed.

Maximized entropy.... effectively, nothing but matter.... The thermodynamic "death" of the closed system (though not really an "end")...

actually, all matter will decay to energy by some of the latest predictions.

Though all this assumes some differentiation between matter and energy.... Truthfully, there is none.... MATTER is ENERGY.... and they are merely some form taken by some, yet unknown, underlying "element" that we have still to conceptualize and quantify... The only thing we do know, is that there is an effective "start point" of what we call this plane we live in, and that it will have a definitive "end-point" which will come about likely as a thermodynamic "death" ( or not so likely, based on present measurements and understanding, as a large crunch )... Though from our standpoint, it's finite in either direction as to the operations of what we call "the physcial world/universe"

In any case, just being who and what we are; we know far less about "everything" than we do... And any dicussion on this issue is far more philosophical (as a soft-science) than it is dealing with hard-science; and all of us truthfully speak from ignorance.

200,000 years ago, people were born, and then later died, becomming fertilizer for flowers, and dinner for earthworms.... and now, hundreds of thousands of years later, little has changed.

We just use a lot more energy in our lifetime.

actually, all matter will decay to energy by some of the latest predictions.

We just use a lot more energy in our lifetime.

So, we're effectively acting as a tool for entropy, to effectively bring about our own, and eventual, thermodynamic end. Increasing the conversion rate of usable mass/energy into entropy (unusable energy) [in a closed system, entropy always increases, in accordance with the second law]...

Not that it all matters (and neither will we) when such a point is reached (whenever that may be); and all of this still being very speculative (given our extreme finite understanding of anything, really, in particular or general)...

Since there was no space and no time before the BB

That is a matter of great dispute between leading physicists. It is hardly an agreed upon statement.

then that has to be the start of the universe.

So this makes no sense, as you have no support for the first part of the statement.

But in the beginning there was only energy, and it looks most likely that at the end there will be only energy.

Interesting. What theory are you proposing now? The Big Bang theory refers to infinite mass in an infinitely small space.

There is no evidence for a god.

Empiricaly evidence? You are correct. However, that is irrelevant to your baseless statement that the existence of a deity is impossible.

I think there is an important distinction between evidence and proof.
Proof requires evidence.


Evidence is an observation that can be explained in terms of an idea, hypothesis, or theory. Proof, on the other hand, is an observation that cannot be explained by any alternative idea, hypothesis or theory, except one. Perhaps that's not a technical definition of each term, but it will serve to make my point. And that is that the evidence is all around us which can be directly observed. We 'happen' to find ourselves in a world that has rather nice living conditions. All the laws of nature just 'happen' to be right. This is consistent with a creating supernatural.
Only because "creating supernatural" was ad hoc'd into it. But it is just that: an ad hoc rationalization. It has no explanatory power.


However, since it can also be explained in terms of naturalistic theory (life is simply a product of the laws of nature which was there before life), then this observation is not proof for the supernatural. Evidence, but not proof.
No, it's not even evidence for the supernatural.


The same can be applied to 'things' that cannot be directly observed, like love, imagination, faith, hatred, malice, kindness, forgiveness, a conscience, etc.
Those thing are mental constructs. Please don't conflate the physical with the abstract.


We can observe the effects of all these things, and note that this is consistent with a supernatural. However, things like these have also been explained in terms of natural selection (we simply exhibit characteristics that helps humanity survive). Once again, this (e.g. love, etc.) cannot be taken as proof. However, it is evidence. It can be explained in more than one way.
Again, "supernatural" is not an explanation. It is a rationalization. Don't conflate the two.


If you want proof from me, proof of the supernatural, I admit, I cannot give it to you. But it has occurred to me that perhaps the supernatural doesn't want me to give it to you. Perhaps he wants you to come to him through faith. If He was to give you proof, then you wouldn't have to take the path of faith, which, apparently, has been his plan for quite some time now. You are free to make your own choices, but He has promised that you will not be free of the consequences.
Ad hoc and blatant assertion. Rejected.

Neither of those require or benefit from religion.
What I am hearing from you is that you don't know what religion is.

I didn't say community requires or necessarily benefits from religion.

That god(s) cannot exist is one of the most stupid and arrogant claims that I have ever heard. It implies that that you know enough about the universe prove it. The reality is that we really know very little. It's not like we have conquered our universe, you know, or even our brains, for that matter.
Ad hominem fallacy to all humans, and we certainly can say that god(s) cannot exist, just as we can say that square circles cannot exist.

Ad hominem fallacy to all humans, and we certainly can say that god(s) cannot exist, just as we can say that square circles cannot exist.

What an illogical statement.

We can say that square circles cannot exist specifically because we have defined square and circle to describe mutually exclusive shapes.

There is nothing in the definition of "god" that states that such an entity cannot exist.

This analogy would only make sense if the definition of "god" were "Something which does not exist."

Edit: Meanwhile, pointing out that we, as human beings, don't know all there is to know is not any type of fallacy, much less an ad hominem fallacy. It is both true and relevant to the discussion at hand.

There is nothing in the definition of "god" that states that such an entity cannot exist.

This analogy would only make sense if the definition of "god" were "Something which does not exist."

No, it depends on how you define 'god'. Using the common judeo-christian definition, it is possible since there are so many philosophical problems that it is possible to create a reasonable doubt- the same as with a square circle.

No, it depends on how you define 'god'.

No, it doesn't. To make the statement that it is impossible for any gods to exist, only the bare minimum must be considered - that we are discussing some sort of deity. It doesn't matter if that deity is the Judeo-Christian one, a Greek deity, a Wiccan deity, or any other deity. The statement was that god(s) cannot exist, and thus applies to all conceptions of the word.

Using the common judeo-christian definition, it is possible since there are so many philosophical problems that it is possible to create a reasonable doubt- the same as with a square circle.

The idea of a square circle has nothing at all to do with reasonable doubt. The two are COMPLETELY DEFINED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO BE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. It isn't a matter of "reasonable doubt", it is a matter of clear definition. A square cannot possibly be a circle by definition, and vice versa.

However, there is nothing in the definition of the word "god" that precludes such an entity's existence.

A Square Circle....

o^2

There, it exists now....

What an illogical statement.
No, it's a perfectly logical statement.


We can say that square circles cannot exist specifically because we have defined square and circle to describe mutually exclusive shapes.
More specifically, to have a square circle is to have a logical contradiction. Similarly, the various definitions of god (other than anything that is natural, in which case why not just call it by that name and not "god") all involve logical contradictions or fallacies, eliminating their possible existence.

QED.


Edit: Meanwhile, pointing out that we, as human beings, don't know all there is to know is not any type of fallacy, much less an ad hominem fallacy.
It's an ad hominem fallacy because the argument isn't just that we don't know, but that we can't know. And it is utterly irrelevant.

More specifically, to have a square circle is to have a logical contradiction. Similarly, the various definitions of god (other than anything that is natural, in which case why not just call it by that name and not "god") all involve logical contradictions or fallacies, eliminating their possible existence.

QED.
The difference is that a circle square as a logical contradiction is one thing, a single item. The various definitions of god are multiple things contradicting each other. It's okay to have multiple things contradict each other. Now, the one definition of the omni-talented god literally interpreted is self-contradicting, but that's certainly not the only definition of god.

"Lead" is a word that has many varied definitions, but none of them preclude any of them from existence.

The difference is that a circle square as a logical contradiction is one thing, a single item. The various definitions of god are multiple things contradicting each other. It's okay to have multiple things contradict each other.
*sigh*

I didn't say that the various definitions contradicted each other, I said that within each specific definition are logical contradictions and fallacies. Just like "square circle" contains a logical contradiction in its definition.

*sigh*

I didn't say that the various definitions contradicted each other, I said that within each specific definition are logical contradictions and fallacies. Just like "square circle" contains a logical contradiction in its definition.
I added an amendment up above, but there are many definitions of god that do not invoke contradiction.

More specifically, to have a square circle is to have a logical contradiction. Similarly, the various definitions of god (other than anything that is natural, in which case why not just call it by that name and not "god") all involve logical contradictions or fallacies, eliminating their possible existence.

In other words, you are stating that anything supernatural cannot possibly exist - something you have no evidence for - as you cannot possibly measure anything supernatural in order to find out.

The simple idea of being outside of this universe is not a logical contradiction. It is simply an assertion that can be neither proven nor disproven - one for which empirical evidence cannot be found.

It's an ad hominem fallacy because the argument isn't just that we don't know, but that we can't know. And it is utterly irrelevant.

*looks back at the post that started this*

*looks back at this post*

*looks back at the post that started this again*.

He didn't say anywhere in that post that we can't know. He simply pointed out that we don't know everything there is to know, and therefore can't arbitrarily rule things out as being completely impossible.

Meanwhile, it is perfectly relevant. One cannot say that it is "impossible for god(s) to exist," without absolute proof of that statement. Thus far, none has been provided - and cannot be provided - as no human being knows everything there is to know. Thus, a person can say, "I have seen no evidence of the existence of god(s)," or "I only believe that which comes from empirical evidence, so I don't believe in god(s)," or even "Science is the most important form of investigation, and it cannot answer the question of the existence of god(s), so I will say there exists no god(s)." However, all of these are opinions with no more backing than the assertion that there is a god or gods. Thus, in the end, it all comes down to which axiom you choose.

Why do you say that? Have you ever tried it?

If you cannot prove it with science then it is not provable. That is the point I was making.

Depends on your definitions of myth and magic. If 'magic' is holding the laws of nature in place, how would we know? We cannot determine this using science. We just have our personal 'philosophies' to go by, I suppose.

myth
n noun
1 a traditional story concerning the early history of a people or explaining a natural or social phenomenon, and typically involving supernatural beings or events.
2 a widely held but false belief. Øa fictitious person or thing. Øan exaggerated or idealized conception of a person or thing.

magic
n noun
1 the power of apparently influencing events by using mysterious or supernatural forces. Ømysterious tricks performed as entertainment.
2 a mysterious and enchanting quality: the magic of the theatre. Øinformal exceptional skill or talent.
n adjective
1 having or apparently having supernatural powers.
2 British informal very good or enjoyable.

The laws of nature hold themselves together, in general if you cange one the the whole universe would fall apart.

I'm not going to believe you unless you can come up with a more convincing argument than that.

Normal science (relativity and quantum) can take us back to a point in time just 10^-47 seconds after the start of the Big Bang. A time when only energy existed, no matter had formed. Space was small and expanding at many thousands of times the speed of light. So it is possible to know our universe had a beginning and to prove it by looking at the universe we have today.

Is that another idea that you came up with? Perhaps matter is energy in another form? How do you like that idea?

After many trillions of years all matter will have "decayed" or "evaporated" back to energy. And no, that is not my invention.

That god(s) cannot exist is one of the most stupid and arrogant claims that I have ever heard. It implies that that you know enough about the universe prove it. The reality is that we really know very little. It's not like we have conquered our universe, you know, or even our brains, for that matter.

There is no room for the supernatural in science and as science has peeled back the layers one by one it has found neither the evidence for a god nor the evidence that one id needed to explain the universe.

That is a matter of great dispute between leading physicists. It is hardly an agreed upon statement.

We know that time, in the sense of our 4D universe, stqarted at the moment of the BB.

So this makes no sense, as you have no support for the first part of the statement.

But then it does make sense as the first part of my statement is supported.

Interesting. What theory are you proposing now? The Big Bang theory refers to infinite mass in an infinitely small space.

Ok, we know that at a point some 3,000 years after the BB the universe had expanded ot the point where "First Light" occured - the point where photons could move and radiation escaped from the plasma. But if you take things further back, to within seconds of the BB then energy and matter cease to have meaning. There is no need for mass for the BB, in fact there isn't a need for anything - it is even possible to have an empty universe result from a BB.


Empiricaly evidence? You are correct. However, that is irrelevant to your baseless statement that the existence of a deity is impossible.

In our universe it is impossible to have an omnipotant god - he breaks the laws of the universe.

What I am hearing from you is that you don't know what religion is.

Sadly, I know all to well what it is.

I didn't say community requires or necessarily benefits from religion.

your comment was:-

It supports religion because religion is about finding ones place in the community and in the universe.

I replied "Neither of those require or benefit from religion."

Neither "finding ones place in the community" nor "finding ones place in the universe" are helped by religion - in fact the reverse is true as we have found out over the last few thousand years where religion has held man back at nearly every step.

your comment was:-
Originally Posted by Willamena
It supports religion because religion is about finding ones place in the community and in the universe.
I replied "Neither of those require or benefit from religion."

Neither "finding ones place in the community" nor "finding ones place in the universe" are helped by religion - in fact the reverse is true as we have found out over the last few thousand years where religion has held man back at nearly every step.
Nevertheless, the comment I made supports religion because religion is about finding one's place in the community and in the universe.

I added an amendment up above, but there are many definitions of god that do not invoke contradiction.
Unless it's something natural, then all definitions of god involve contradictions or fallacies. And if it's something natural, why call it god?

In other words, you are stating that anything supernatural cannot possibly exist - something you have no evidence for - as you cannot possibly measure anything supernatural in order to find out.
The supernatural is a begged question.


The simple idea of being outside of this universe is not a logical contradiction.
Yes, it is. For you have existence apart from existence--a contradiction



*looks back at the post that started this*

*looks back at this post*

*looks back at the post that started this again*.

He didn't say anywhere in that post that we can't know.
Yes, he did.


He simply pointed out that we don't know everything there is to know, and therefore can't arbitrarily rule things out as being completely impossible.
They aren't arbitrarily being ruled out.


Meanwhile, it is perfectly relevant. One cannot say that it is "impossible for god(s) to exist," without absolute proof of that statement.
Then we can't say that square circles cannot exist.


Thus far, none has been provided - and cannot be provided - as no human being knows everything there is to know.
Do you have to know everything to say that square circles cannot exist?


Thus, a person can say, "I have seen no evidence of the existence of god(s)," or "I only believe that which comes from empirical evidence, so I don't believe in god(s)," or even "Science is the most important form of investigation, and it cannot answer the question of the existence of god(s), so I will say there exists no god(s)."
Or, one can say "the definitions provided of the claimed-to-exist-gods break down into fallacies and contradictions, therefore, they cannot exist."

Hint: it's called "noncognitivism".

Unless it's something natural, then all definitions of god involve contradictions or fallacies. And if it's something natural, why call it god?
A natural god (i.e. Mother Earth type) is one possibility. Another is the conceptual god. But are you suggesting that anything supernatural is inherently self-contradictory?

All gods have one thing in common: something that transcends Man, for Man to put himself in relationship with. They may all be called god for that reason.

A natural god (i.e. Mother Earth type) is one possibility.
That, of course, is mere anthropomorphism.


Another is the conceptual god. But are you suggesting that anything supernatural is inherently self-contradictory?
It's inherently a begged question, i.e. a fallacy.


All gods have one thing in common: something that transcends Man, for Man to put himself in relationship with. They may all be called god for that reason.
Why should man need that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruarong
"If you want proof from me, proof of the supernatural, I admit, I cannot give it to you. But it has occurred to me that perhaps the supernatural doesn't want me to give it to you. Perhaps he wants you to come to him through faith. If He was to give you proof, then you wouldn't have to take the path of faith, which, apparently, has been his plan for quite some time now. You are free to make your own choices, but He has promised that you will not be free of the consequences."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Ad hoc and blatant assertion. Rejected."

You missed the point, like you did when I was the speaker. Hopefully you know that it is, in fact, you doing the rejecting. You make it sound like your side is proven. Dem explained your stance best, though. "'I only believe that which comes from empirical evidence, so I don't believe in god(s)'." This isn't exactly you (you go by philosophy/logic and science), but it hits on the point. Your doctrine says that it can't be true because of rules set by your doctrine.

And most of your arguments do come down to a semantic problem. You have "1984 disease." If you haven't read it, you should. (I assume you have.) A problem with language has no affect on actual reality except in how we perceive it. Whether or not we can define something has no affect on its existence or "existence" (divorced from universe).


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bruarong
"That god(s) cannot exist is one of the most stupid and arrogant claims that I have ever heard. It implies that that you know enough about the universe prove it. The reality is that we really know very little. It's not like we have conquered our universe, you know, or even our brains, for that matter."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Ad hominem fallacy to all humans, and we certainly can say that god(s) cannot exist, just as we can say that square circles cannot exist."

It seems Dems is explaining the fallacy of your statement. I'll take a crack at it, though, and hope to not be redundant: "square circles" is a false analogy (and fits a couple others on the list, like straw man); what evidence can you possibly offer against the existence of a deity (or God, specifically)? Your ontology has failed to provide evidence.

You can demonstrate that existence exists (to a reasonable doubt), but that says nothing for ontology (the study of existence), except that it is sure it has something to study (the argument is a straw man).

I will return to address your (BAAWA's) earlier post (more completely, anyways) when I have more time. Couple of major papers due in the next couple days.

So it is OK for them to discriminate not because of academic standards, but because they disagree with the viewpoint of the publisher?

And the next step if ID is allowed is what, religious tolerance? And that is really really bad? To be more tolerant?

:rolleyes:

The problem is that you can't really teach ID correctly. It will be taught as Christian Creationism. Thus it is a good idea in theory, much like communism, but implementing it will lead to disaster.

"If you want proof from me, proof of the supernatural, I admit, I cannot give it to you. But it has occurred to me that perhaps the supernatural doesn't want me to give it to you. Perhaps he wants you to come to him through faith. If He was to give you proof, then you wouldn't have to take the path of faith, which, apparently, has been his plan for quite some time now. You are free to make your own choices, but He has promised that you will not be free of the consequences."
Ad hoc and blatant assertion. Rejected.
You missed the point,
No, I got the point. I countered the "perhaps....", as it's just an ad hoc rationalization.


like you did when I was the speaker. Hopefully you know that it is, in fact, you doing the rejecting.
And....?


You make it sound like your side is proven. Dem explained your stance best, though. "'I only believe that which comes from empirical evidence, so I don't believe in god(s)'."
Nope, that's not my stance.


This isn't exactly you (you go by philosophy/logic and science), but it hits on the point. Your doctrine says that it can't be true because of rules set by your doctrine.
Nope. That's a nice strawman. Try again.


And most of your arguments do come down to a semantic problem.
No, they don't.


A problem with language has no affect on actual reality except in how we perceive it.
Except it's not a problem with language.


Whether or not we can define something has no affect on its existence or "existence" (divorced from universe).
Certainly helps to know of what you speak.



"That god(s) cannot exist is one of the most stupid and arrogant claims that I have ever heard. It implies that that you know enough about the universe prove it. The reality is that we really know very little. It's not like we have conquered our universe, you know, or even our brains, for that matter."
Ad hominem fallacy to all humans, and we certainly can say that god(s) cannot exist, just as we can say that square circles cannot exist.
It seems Dems is explaining the fallacy of your statement.
No, it doesn't.


I'll take a crack at it, though, and hope to not be redundant: "square circles" is a false analogy
No, it's a proper analogy.


(and fits a couple others on the list, like straw man); what evidence can you possibly offer against the existence of a deity (or God, specifically)?
What evidence is there for the deity? And what is this deity?


Your ontology has failed to provide evidence.
Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof.


You can demonstrate that existence exists (to a reasonable doubt), but that says nothing for ontology (the study of existence),
But it says everything for ontology: existence is. It exists. That is the nature of being: to be.

It's pointless to argue with BAWAA, he is certain of his religion as much as most of the rest of us.

whining and crying
Oh come now--act like an adult.

Nevertheless, the comment I made supports religion because religion is about finding one's place in the community and in the universe.

So fairy stories, half truths and downright lies help people to find their place???

Not the sort of place I would want to find.

So fairy stories, half truths and downright lies help people to find their place???

Not the sort of place I would want to find.

Ignorence. Have you actually examined the history behind the Bible, and its authenticity. I sincerely doubt it. People who call people stupid like this just because they are religious are closed minded and arrogent.

More specifically, to have a square circle is to have a logical contradiction. Similarly, the various definitions of god (other than anything that is natural, in which case why not just call it by that name and not "god") all involve logical contradictions or fallacies, eliminating their possible existence.

QED.


What falacies. If you are talking about omniptence, then thats just a language barrier. Just because we havent developed a word for it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.

Ignorence. Have you actually examined the history behind the Bible, and its authenticity. I sincerely doubt it. People who call people stupid like this just because they are religious are closed minded and arrogent.

Allrighty then, tell us about the authenticity of the Bible, if we're so ignorant.

What cracks me up is that if these ID classes were taught with evolution, it would go something like this:

"Here's the evidence for ID: we say so. Now, here's the evidence for evolution: (Spend the next ten years studying the masses of evidence supporting evolutionary theory)."

What doesn't amuse me is that these yayhoos might actually succeed in stopping all rationality in the USA and MAKE me "get religion".

Ignorence. Have you actually examined the history behind the Bible, and its authenticity. I sincerely doubt it. People who call people stupid like this just because they are religious are closed minded and arrogent.

Yes I have studied the bible, its history, its various versions and editings and the people behind the shaping of what we know as the OT and NT. I love the Old Testiment, it is a bloody good story - but the word of god? No, it is just the word of men - many of who used it as a base for their power.

When we come to the New Testiment then it is even less credible as we know it was altered to placate Rome and large parts of it were written long after the deaths of the people involved.

Oh come now--act like an adult.

Congrats, that's called FRAUD...

I am acting like an adult.... I respect your particular religious beliefs, and will not argue with them, as I understand certain aspects of your necessity for them.

Yes I have studied the bible, its history, its various versions and editings and the people behind the shaping of what we know as the OT and NT. I love the Old Testiment, it is a bloody good story - but the word of god? No, it is just the word of men - many of who used it as a base for their power.

When we come to the New Testiment then it is even less credible as we know it was altered to placate Rome and large parts of it were written long after the deaths of the people involved.

Are you Christian?

Allrighty then, tell us about the authenticity of the Bible, if we're so ignorant.

I'll beat him to it by offering this:-

http://www.historyworld.net/wrldhis/PlainTextHistories.asp?historyid=ab85

As people will see if they read it, the Old Testament has been subjected to a lot of changes over the years - only ending in the 9th century AD.

Are you Christian?

Not anymore. Religion could not answer my questions - science did.

Dunno about him but I'm born and raised Catholic and I find the bible to be a load of croc in terms of historical or scientific truths. There are SOME historical facts in it (IE: Some Jesus dude existed, Israelites were slaves, etc.) but it mainly conveyes RELIGIOUS truths.

Having said that, creationism and ID should be taught, just in a freakin' religion class.

Note to those who care: I'm an atheist.

Not anymore. Religion could not answer my questions - science did.
What were your questions?

So fairy stories, half truths and downright lies help people to find their place???

Not the sort of place I would want to find.
No, but myths do.

A natural god (i.e. Mother Earth type) is one possibility
That, of course, is mere anthropomorphism.
Yes, it is an anthropomorphised god. Anthropomorphism/personification is applying any human characteristics and images (i.e. love, wrath, judgement, vengence, consciousness, etc.) to inanimate things. Most all images of gods are this way (with the sole exception, I think, of Deism) so that we might relate to them. This does not make the gods any more or less real, it only addresses the image.

Are you suggesting that any supernatural thing is inherently self-contradictory?
It's inherently a begged question, i.e. a fallacy.
Begging the question is a statement that holds in its premise an assumption of the truth of its conclusion. What premise or conclusion does the supernatural inherently hold? That it exists? No. Many people proclaim that the supernatural is unreal and hold the two concepts separate; so the only place you might find it fallaciously used as a premise for existence is in attributes of the supernatural as the cause of natural phenomenon. The supernatural can only properly be the cause of unnatural phenomenon. The Creation is one such unnatural event.

All gods have one thing in common: something that transcends Man, for Man to put himself in relationship with. They may all be called god for that reason.
Why should man need that?
Well, I don't know about "man," but I think it's a spiffy idea. It gives me a place in the universe, between all that is and all that should be.

After reading page after page of this I can only make a few points:
1) Too much of Evolution MUST be taken on Faith to make it a true science. Several people in here have pointed out massive gaps in the Theory of Evolution and there are multiple ways of intrepting the data. That all comes down to one thing for you to take the data the way you want it too means that you are taking it on Faith.

2) Accusing the Creationists/ID'ers of being closed minded, unwilling to see the other side, name calling or just spouting platatudes when you are doing just that is circular logic and ultimately self-defeating!

3) Trying to say that you are older and therefore adding weight to your arguements is also self-defeating since ignorance and foolishness knows no age. No that is not to call you ignorant as in hill-billy ignorant but more ignorant of ALL the facts/theories.

4) Assuming that all age old wisdom is wrong because it is older than you is like saying; "This letter is no good since it was typed up on a typewriter."

5) Name dropping only works if the name you are dropping is universally recognized for unquestioned deductions in their field. If I were to name drop Donald Trump in a business debate that would carry weight; however name dropping Darwin in this debate would only carry weight with those on your bench and some on the fence.

6) Claiming that we can see evolution in effect today is to prove that you are willing to see anything you are told you should see, watch out for your local cults!

All in all a lackluster set of arguements; particulairly bringing www.talkorigins.org in to play since this site has been proven to ignore most scientific challenges to T o' E.

5) Name dropping only works if the name you are dropping is universally recognized for unquestioned deductions in their field. If I were to name drop Donald Trump in a business debate that would carry weight; however name dropping Darwin in this debate would only carry weight with those on your bench and some on the fence.


And this shows how little you know of the scientific process NO theory or deduction is un-questioned. That’s the whole point of that little thing called the peer review process.

What falacies.
Like the question-begging of the "supernatural" and existence apart from the universe.


If you are talking about omniptence, then thats just a language barrier. Just because we havent developed a word for it doesnt mean it doesnt exist.
Argument from ignorance fallacy.

If you cannot prove it with science then it is not provable. That is the point I was making.


I get the impression that science has taken the place of 'god' for you. But can science prove to you that, e.g., your mother loves you? Can science define consciousness? Can science tell you what dreams are made of? Can science prevent you from dying (e.g., of old age). Can science prove to you what happens after you die? Can science help you find a person to love and cherish 'till death do you part''?
I love science. I've even made it my career. I respect it's power. I appreciate the difference it has made in this world (well, the good things anyway. I suppose no one appreciates the nuclear warheads except those who lust for power at any price.). But I see science as a very very limited thing that has relatively little authority over matters in which it cannot directly observe, repeat, demonstrate, etc. Heck, it can't even tell us what the force of gravity is. And we don't even know if it ever will. I imagine that science will uncover a lot more 'mysteries' about our world, in the future. But I can also see that for every discovery, for every question answered, a dozen more spring up in it's place. The more we study the world, the more questions we find that we don't have answers for. And I reckon that there are a good deal of questions that will never be answered, simply because science cannot. The more we discover, the more we feel that the known world is a good deal smaller than the unknown world. If you got to work in a real science lab, perhaps attempted to do a PhD, you would see for yourself.

On the other hand, there are plenty of other areas of study, like history, music, art, etc., that do 'prove' things. A good wine will always taste better than the plonk off the street. Mozart will always sound better than that jolly thrash heavy metal that sounds like a bunch of guys loosing their temper in a childish tantrum (obviously that is my opinion, :)), and it will always take real inspiration to paint a picture that can communicate something of depth to others. I consider all of this outside of the realm of science. Science may have a go at explaining things, but is a far cry from repeating, observing, setting up falsifyable hypotheses (at least current scientific method--time may change all of that). Much of the world will go on happily without paying much attention to science, except for where it benefits them. You don't turn to science in order to prove that a capitalistic economy has a far higher potential to turn over money than a communistic one. Neither do you use science to prove that Hitler's childhood was rather related to his behaviour as the leader of right-wing movement.
Thus your statement about ''If you cannot prove it with science then it is not provable'' is, quite frankly, a load of crock. Science is simply not that authoritarian or reliable. Just look at all the mistakes and misinformation that 'science' has delivered to humanity over it's short history. You are putting your 'faith' in something rather fallible.



The laws of nature hold themselves together, in general if you cange one the the whole universe would fall apart.



I'm not convinced of this. Has anyone demonstrated this? Or is this just another idea? Yours, perhaps, or someone elses? Surely, it depends on what a law of nature is, as to whether breaking it will cause all the others to simultaneously break down.



Normal science (relativity and quantum) can take us back to a point in time just 10^-47 seconds after the start of the Big Bang. A time when only energy existed, no matter had formed. Space was small and expanding at many thousands of times the speed of light. So it is possible to know our universe had a beginning and to prove it by looking at the universe we have today.


There you go again, claiming that science can prove something about the Big Bang by 'looking at the universe we have today'.....you could hardly be more mistaken. It may be that some people within science have attempted to explain the observations that they have made in terms of the Big Bang, but this is such a long, long way from proving it.


After many trillions of years all matter will have "decayed" or "evaporated" back to energy. And no, that is not my invention.


Wait a minute. Matter is energy. What sort of energy are you imagining to exist once there is no more matter? Heat? Motion? A great load of vacuum rushing somewhere?


There is no room for the supernatural in science and as science has peeled back the layers one by one it has found neither the evidence for a god nor the evidence that one id needed to explain the universe.


If there is no room for the supernatural in science, that would be because science is just too small for it. Humans define science. And if we decide that science is limited, how can we then say that the supernatural does not exist outside of those limits? And if the supernatural wanted humans to be so limited that the science that they are capable of was not able to detect him/it/her, would that be enough grounds for us to reasonable assume that he/it/she does not exist? If you say that, I question your ability to rationalize.

Congrats, that's called FRAUD...
No, it's not.


I am acting like an adult.... I respect your particular religious beliefs,
I don't have any.

So start acting like an adult. Don't whine and cry about me just because you took something I wrote the wrong way, and after having it explained to you twice, you still kept taking it the wrong way. Admit your mistake. Don't do some childish passive-aggressive nonsense like you did.

A natural god (i.e. Mother Earth type) is one possibility
That, of course, is mere anthropomorphism.
Yes, it is an anthropomorphised god. Anthropomorphism/personification is applying any human characteristics and images (i.e. love, wrath, judgement, vengence, consciousness, etc.) to inanimate things. Most all images of gods are this way (with the sole exception, I think, of Deism) so that we might relate to them. This does not make the gods any more or less real, it only addresses the image.
So I take it that just because we personify "love" as Cupid, that doesn't make Cupid any less real, right?

IOW: you're simply wrong.



Are you suggesting that any supernatural thing is inherently self-contradictory?
]It's inherently a begged question, i.e. a fallacy.
Begging the question is a statement that holds in its premise an assumption of the truth of its conclusion. What premise or conclusion does the supernatural inherently hold? That it exists?
Yes.


No. Many people proclaim that the supernatural is unreal and hold the two concepts separate;
Then they contradict themselves. Either way, they're screwed.


so the only place you might find it fallaciously used as a premise for existence is in attributes of the supernatural as the cause of natural phenomenon. The supernatural can only properly be the cause of unnatural phenomenon. The Creation is one such unnatural event.
Still begs the question that the supernatural exists, and the "creation" is unnatural.

You can't escape the fallacy--unless you drop the stupid notion of "supernatural".


All gods have one thing in common: something that transcends Man, for Man to put himself in relationship with. They may all be called god for that reason.
Why should man need that?
Well, I don't know about "man," but I think it's a spiffy idea. It gives me a place in the universe, between all that is and all that should be.
Why can't you make your own place in the universe, rather than hijacking self-esteem?

After reading page after page of this I can only make a few points:
1) Too much of Evolution MUST be taken on Faith to make it a true science.
Lie.


2) Accusing the Creationists/ID'ers of being closed minded, unwilling to see the other side, name calling or just spouting platatudes when you are doing just that is circular logic and ultimately self-defeating!
You clearly have no idea what circular reasoning is.


6) Claiming that we can see evolution in effect today is to prove that you are willing to see anything you are told you should see, watch out for your local cults!
So all the biologists who've witnessed it are wrong?! Oh noes! Whatever shall they do? They've been duped!


All in all a lackluster set of arguements; particulairly bringing www.talkorigins.org in to play since this site has been proven to ignore most scientific challenges to T o' E.
Another lie.

What's next for you--Hovind's challenge? The Paluxy River tracks?

After reading page after page of this I can only make a few points:
1) Too much of Evolution MUST be taken on Faith to make it a true science. Several people in here have pointed out massive gaps in the Theory of Evolution and there are multiple ways of intrepting the data. That all comes down to one thing for you to take the data the way you want it too means that you are taking it on Faith.


Ahhh so you don't understand the scientific method and probably not evolution I suspect.


2) Accusing the Creationists/ID'ers of being closed minded, unwilling to see the other side, name calling or just spouting platatudes when you are doing just that is circular logic and ultimately self-defeating!


Close minded? Sure many of them are as to the fact they don't know evolution and yet the judge it. You try to explain things to them and they don't want to hear it so that is basically close minded.


3) Trying to say that you are older and therefore adding weight to your arguements is also self-defeating since ignorance and foolishness knows no age. No that is not to call you ignorant as in hill-billy ignorant but more ignorant of ALL the facts/theories.

Whatever. Debate can go any direction. The final factor is what is said not who said it or how old is the person who said it.


4) Assuming that all age old wisdom is wrong because it is older than you is like saying; "This letter is no good since it was typed up on a typewriter."

So somebody who went to college and has a degree in say biology is not wiser about biology then a highschool student who is just parrotting old theologian arguments about biology?


5) Name dropping only works if the name you are dropping is universally recognized for unquestioned deductions in their field.

Since I made the name dropping reference. Just because you don't know them doesn't make them not well known. It just means you don't know anything about their fields.

Let's see if I can make it easier for you.

Dr. Jane Goodall FAMOUS primatologist. One of Louis Leaky's three women that broght the field to prominance. Dr. Goodall has written seveal books and has been on National Geographic a few times.

Dr. Amy Vedder. Another well known primatologist. Primarily studies Gorillas.

Dr. Donald Johanson. Does Lucy ring a bell?


If I were to name drop Donald Trump in a business debate that would carry weight; however name dropping Darwin in this debate would only carry weight with those on your bench and some on the fence.

No this only shows that you don't know much of the subject you are judging. If you have studied evolution at the very least you would have heard about Lucy. If you studied it a great deal then you have heard of Dr. Goodall.


6) Claiming that we can see evolution in effect today is to prove that you are willing to see anything you are told you should see, watch out for your local cults!

Again you don't know the scientific method.


All in all a lackluster set of arguements; particulairly bringing www.talkorigins.org in to play since this site has been proven to ignore most scientific challenges to T o' E.

Actually TO explains things rather well. However, if you tend to be close minded then yes it is easy to say they ignore challenges. A large portion tend not to be scientific challenges.

Even with your statement about TO; you show you don't understand the scientific method. If something was challenged and accepted by peer review then yes they would change things. Guess what? It's that pesky peer review thing that most theologians can't grasp. Just because they spout something in defense of the Bible they expect everybody to fall in line and accept it as fact.

Here is a hint. Science doesn't deal in absolutes.

Originally Posted by Willamena
Yes, it is an anthropomorphised god. Anthropomorphism/personification is applying any human characteristics and images (i.e. love, wrath, judgement, vengence, consciousness, etc.) to inanimate things. Most all images of gods are this way (with the sole exception, I think, of Deism) so that we might relate to them. This does not make the gods any more or less real, it only addresses the image.
So I take it that just because we personify "love" as Cupid, that doesn't make Cupid any less real, right?

IOW: you're simply wrong.
Cupid is a symbol of love. We associate love with Cupid, and then replace love with Cupid to make a symbol. This does not make love any less real, right.

An image of god is a symbol. We associate it with god, and then replace god with the symbol. We address the symbol when we talk about god. This does not make god any less real, right.

Originally Posted by Willamena
so the only place you might find it fallaciously used as a premise for existence is in attributes of the supernatural as the cause of natural phenomenon. The supernatural can only properly be the cause of unnatural phenomenon. The Creation is one such unnatural event.
Still begs the question that the supernatural exists, and the "creation" is unnatural.

You can't escape the fallacy--unless you drop the stupid notion of "supernatural".
You have to break away from the idea that "reality" and "existence" are the same thing; they are not. They are two different words with different meanings. One of them allows for unreal things to exist.

Why can't you make your own place in the universe, rather than hijacking self-esteem?
I do make my own place in the universe. That is what religion is about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Telepathic Banshees
5) Name dropping only works if the name you are dropping is universally recognized for unquestioned deductions in their field. If I were to name drop Donald Trump in a business debate that would carry weight; however name dropping Darwin in this debate would only carry weight with those on your bench and some on the fence.


And this shows how little you know of the scientific process NO theory or deduction is un-questioned. That's the whole point of that little thing called the peer review process.


In Telepathic Banshees defense, he (or she) did not suggest that name dropping provides proof, or that it means that a deduction made by, e.g. Darwin, would not be questioned or criticised simply because Dawin made it. Only that name dropping only supports deductions that are not questioned. Darwin's are, and thus, he says, dropping Darwin's name doesn't work for people who do not go along with Darwin's theories. I suppose you could say that even Darwin's followers questioned Darwin's deductions, and so they should.

I suppose Telepathic Banshees could have made it clearer by defining what he meant by the word 'works'. Did he mean 'proves', or did he mean 'supports'. If he meant 'proves', then your citicism of him (or her) would be fair. If he meant 'supports', then you have 'jumped the gun'. I would have interpreted it as 'supports', since he later used the term 'carry weight'.

I get the impression that BAAWA is upset that some people can find happiness by believing in something that he finds illogical.

What's wrong with people finding comfort and happiness?

I get the impression that BAAWA is upset that some people can find happiness by believing in something that he finds illogical.
How do you get that impression?


What's wrong with people finding comfort and happiness?
Nice strawman, btw.

At any rate, if they want to have comfort and happiness, that's fine. When they start claiming that the cause of it is some god-thing, and present no other evidence for it but their happy-happy joy-joy feelings (for xers, I call it "jesus warmies"), then there's a problem, capice?

At any rate, if they want to have comfort and happiness, that's fine. When they start claiming that the cause of it is some god-thing, and present no other evidence for it but their happy-happy joy-joy feelings (for xers, I call it "jesus warmies"), then there's a problem, capice?
Yes, but that problem is yours, not theirs.

No this only shows that you don't know much of the subject you are judging. If you have studied evolution at the very least you would have heard about Lucy. If you studied it a great deal then you have heard of Dr. Goodall.


Hell, I've done next to no reading reading on evolution and have heard of Jane Goodall.

Yes, it is an anthropomorphised god. Anthropomorphism/personification is applying any human characteristics and images (i.e. love, wrath, judgement, vengence, consciousness, etc.) to inanimate things. Most all images of gods are this way (with the sole exception, I think, of Deism) so that we might relate to them. This does not make the gods any more or less real, it only addresses the image.
So I take it that just because we personify "love" as Cupid, that doesn't make Cupid any less real, right?

IOW: you're simply wrong.
Cupid is a symbol of love. We associate love with Cupid, and then replace love with Cupid to make a symbol. This does not make love any less real, right.
It doesn't make love exist as some tangible thing, does it? Doesn't make it some platonic form. Doesn't give it some existence apart from the mind.

But god is claimed to exist apart from the mind.


An image of god is a symbol. We associate it with god, and then replace god with the symbol.
But how do you know what it is when you say "god"?


We address the symbol when we talk about god. This does not make god any less real, right.
Yes.



so the only place you might find it fallaciously used as a premise for existence is in attributes of the supernatural as the cause of natural phenomenon. The supernatural can only properly be the cause of unnatural phenomenon. The Creation is one such unnatural event.
Still begs the question that the supernatural exists, and the "creation" is unnatural.

You can't escape the fallacy--unless you drop the stupid notion of "supernatural".
You have to break away from the idea that "reality" and "existence" are the same thing;
They are.


They are two different words with different meanings. One of them allows for unreal things to exist.
If it's unreal, it can't exist. QED.



Why can't you make your own place in the universe, rather than hijacking self-esteem?
I do make my own place in the universe. That is what religion is about.
No, it's about hijacking a place and deluding yourself into thinking that you made your own place.

No, it's not.

"Fraud: a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity"

People's Exibit A:
It's pointless to argue with BAWAA, he is certain of his religion as much as most of the rest of us.

People's Exibit B:


whining and crying

Oh come now--act like an adult.


1. Misrepresents original quote..
2. Conceals original fact.
3. Made with knowledge of its falsity



I don't have any.

Yes you do, your religious view point is that there is no God, based upon your philosophically placed faith on the existance of only the material...


So start acting like an adult. Don't whine and cry about me just because you took something I wrote the wrong way, and after having it explained to you twice, you still kept taking it the wrong way. Admit your mistake. Don't do some childish passive-aggressive nonsense like you did.

I am.... You should learn how to act like one next... And I dropped that argument (dropped, not conceeded)... And will not mention it....

As I have said, you are perfectly allowed your particular religious view. None of us, however, are under any necessitant requirement to agree with it... Anymore than you are under any necessitant requirement to agree with ours.

If you cannot prove it with science then it is not provable.

You can't prove anything with science.

Meanwhile, you are evidently saying that if you can't support an idea with science, it is unsupportable. That is your personal opinion, which you are certainly entitled to, but it is far from absolute truth.

The laws of nature hold themselves together, in general if you cange one the the whole universe would fall apart.

Possibly, but this is a bit hard to support, since we don't know with certainty what those laws are, or even if we have any idea about all of them.

Normal science (relativity and quantum) can take us back to a point in time just 10^-47 seconds after the start of the Big Bang. A time when only energy existed, no matter had formed. Space was small and expanding at many thousands of times the speed of light. So it is possible to know our universe had a beginning and to prove it by looking at the universe we have today.

Even if you could prove the Big Bang to have occurred with absolute certainty (something science can't do at all), you can't prove that there was nothing before it. That is an opinion - a speculation on your part.

There is no room for the supernatural in science and as science has peeled back the layers one by one it has found neither the evidence for a god nor the evidence that one id needed to explain the universe.

There is no room for the supernatural in science because, if the supernatural exists, it is outside the realm of science - outside those things which the logic of science can be usefully applied to. Thus, it is outside of science and science can say nothing about it. No scientific theory or hypothesis can rely on the existence of the supernatural - but neither can it rely on the proposition that the supernatural does not exist. Science can have nothing to say about the supernatural whatsoever.

We know that time, in the sense of our 4D universe, stqarted at the moment of the BB.

No, we don't know any such thing. This is a highly disputed claim among top physicists. Some claim that the stream of time was simply slowed by the gravitational pull of the singularity and sped up at the instant of the Big Bang. Some claim that time was begun by the Big Bang. Some claim that time has always been ongoing, and will always be ongoing, with no beginning or end, with the universe expanding and contracting in a cycle.

But then it does make sense as the first part of my statement is supported.

No, you keep claiming you "know" things that are not truly "known." They are theorized, but there are other theories with an equal amount of evidence behind them. When you start getting that far into theoretical physics, you start discussing philosophy more than science.

In our universe it is impossible to have an omnipotant god - he breaks the laws of the universe.

And here is your fallacy. You automatically assume that anything that exists must exist within our universe. How can you know if there is anything outside it? How can you know that there are not other universes, or a larger existence that is not bound by the laws of our universe.

The answer is that you can't. You can assume that there is nothing outside our universe, but you wouldn't have evidence for that assumption, and the assumption is untestable, so it wouldn't be a scientific assumption. You can believe that there is nothing outside our universe, but again, that is a faith-based statement with no empirical evidence to back it up. And you seemed to be claiming above that only that which science can demonstrate can possiblly be true. Thus, you can make no statements about what does or does not exist outside this universe - as they are outside that which science can ever determine.

The supernatural is a begged question.

Hardly.

Yes, it is. For you have existence apart from existence--a contradiction

Only if you personally define existence as "within the universe in which we happen to exist."

Yes, he did.

You apparently have a hard time with English. Try reading it again.

They aren't arbitrarily being ruled out.

Actually, they are. You and Brenchley are essentially saying, "I have no evidence for X, therefore X does not exist." In reality, to make this statement, you would have to be able to say, "I have evidence that X does not exist, therefore I hypothesize that X does not exist." Within science, you would have to say, "I have no evidence for the existence or non-existence of X, therefore I will postulate nothing at all about X."

Then we can't say that square circles cannot exist.

We have absolute proof of that statement. Square and circle are defined in such a way as to make it impossible to have a square circle. Again, you are missing the fact that these are DEFINED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE. There is nothing in the definition of the word god that makes it impossible for god(s) to exist.

Do you have to know everything to say that square circles cannot exist?

Nope, in that case, they are defined in such a way as to be mutually exclusive.

Or, one can say "the definitions provided of the claimed-to-exist-gods break down into fallacies and contradictions, therefore, they cannot exist."

(a) You have spoken to every human that has ever existed and gotten their personal definition of whatever god(s) they believed in and have found fallacies and contradictions in every single one? You've been quite busy, not to mention immortal.

(b) A personal conception of something does not necessarily define that thing. If I think that my mother went to the store on Wednesday, but she didn't, that doesn't mean that my mother doesn't exist. It simply means she didn't go to the store. If I think that she can lift a car above her head, and she can't, that doesn't mean she doesn't exist - it means that she can't lift a car above her head. You are discussing personal conceptions of what god(s) does and can do - not the existence itself.

"Fraud: a misrepresentation or concealment with reference to some fact material to a transaction that is made with knowledge of its falsity or in reckless disregard of its truth or falsity"
And that was not done, except by you, with your infantile whining about "qua", even though I explained to you TWICE that I didn't use it as "outside". You ignored that, and kept telling me that I was using it as "outside".

You're the one who committed fraud, bucko.


Yes you do,
No, I do not have any religious beliefs. You are committing fraud AGAIN.



I am.... You should learn how to act like one next... And I dropped that argument (dropped, not conceeded)
If you dropped it, then why did you act like a child?


As I have said, you are perfectly allowed your particular religious view.
Once again, you commit fraud.

In Telepathic Banshees defense, he (or she) did not suggest that name dropping provides proof, or that it means that a deduction made by, e.g. Darwin, would not be questioned or criticised simply because Dawin made it. Only that name dropping only supports deductions that are not questioned. Darwin's are, and thus, he says, dropping Darwin's name doesn't work for people who do not go along with Darwin's theories. I suppose you could say that even Darwin's followers questioned Darwin's deductions, and so they should.

Ahh but you have to have at least read Darwin before you can dismiss it. All to often we get the "faithful" yelpping evolution is bunk and they haven't even read about it.

Anything is fair game in science. A person can and should always question everything.

If you cannot prove it with science then it is not provable.
You can't prove anything with science.
Science is about observation and categorization.

So, with science, we can prove that something happened if we observe it.

QED.



We know that time, in the sense of our 4D universe, stqarted at the moment of the BB.
No, we don't know any such thing.
Yes, we do.


This is a highly disputed claim among top physicists.
Ever read either of Brian Greene's books?



In our universe it is impossible to have an omnipotant god - he breaks the laws of the universe.
And here is your fallacy. You automatically assume that anything that exists must exist within our universe.
That's not a fallacy.


How can you know if there is anything outside it?
What does "outside the universe" mean? Don't beg the question.



The supernatural is a begged question.
Hardly.
Not hardly.



Yes, it is. For you have existence apart from existence--a contradiction
Only if you personally define existence as "within the universe in which we happen to exist."
Then define existence apart from the universe. G'won--do it.



They aren't arbitrarily being ruled out.
Actually, they are.
Actually, they aren't. You have a very difficult time with English.


You and Brenchley are essentially saying, "I have no evidence for X, therefore X does not exist."
Strawman.



Then we can't say that square circles cannot exist.
We have absolute proof of that statement. Square and circle are defined in such a way as to make it impossible to have a square circle. Again, you are missing the fact that these are DEFINED IN SUCH A WAY AS TO MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE.
AGAIN, YOU ARE MISSING THE FACT THAT GODS ARE DEFINED AS IN SUCH A WAY TO MAKE THEIR EXISTENCE IMPOSSIBLE AS QUA SUPERNATURAL THINGS.


There is nothing in the definition of the word god that makes it impossible for god(s) to exist.
Except for all the fallacies and contradictions, you mean.



Do you have to know everything to say that square circles cannot exist?
Nope, in that case, they are defined in such a way as to be mutually exclusive.
And the attributes of gods are mutually exclusive, as well as being stated fallaciously.



Or, one can say "the definitions provided of the claimed-to-exist-gods break down into fallacies and contradictions, therefore, they cannot exist."(a) You have spoken to every human that has ever existed and gotten their personal definition of whatever god(s) they believed in and have found fallacies and contradictions in every single one?
Don't need to.

Why is it that people like you have this idiotic notion of "well, we don't know much now, so I'll leave the door open for any number of completely stupid ideas to be true"?


(b) A personal conception of something does not necessarily define that thing.
Yes, it does.

It doesn't make love exist as some tangible thing, does it? Doesn't make it some platonic form. Doesn't give it some existence apart from the mind.
That's right, it doesn't make love exist as something tangible apart from the mind. It exists in the mind. Although you could consider the corresponding emotional response in the body to be a tangible part of love.

But god is claimed to exist apart from the mind.
And there is no evidence to indicate otherwise. That things exist in the mind does not indicate that things do not exist elsewhere. That we can make a symbol of god in our mind's heart and put ourselves in relationship with that does not mean that the symbol does not represent something real, only that all we interact with is that symbol.

But how do you know what it is when you say "god"?
You don't have to know. It's not important. It's not an important part of religion. Religion is what YOU do, not what god does.

They are.
No, they are really not. If you limit existence so, then you end up creating these problems of misunderstanding for yourself... by your misunderstanding of existence, you are the one who expects the god talked about to be real. Granted, a lot of people who "believe in god" do, too.

If it's unreal, it can't exist. QED.
If unreal things did not exist, we could not talk about them. The opposite of existence is complete non-existence, i.e. there would be nothing to talk about because it didn't exist.

No, it's about hijacking a place and deluding yourself into thinking that you made your own place.
Hijacking what place? What is this place you talk of --it sounds suspiciously unreal.

1) Too much of Evolution MUST be taken on Faith to make it a true science.

If you are taking anything in science on faith, other than an acceptance of its methods, you are doing it wrong.

5) Name dropping only works if the name you are dropping is universally recognized for unquestioned deductions in their field.

There is no such thing in science as an "unquestioned deduction." Everything in science is questioned - and is open to being disproven.

6) Claiming that we can see evolution in effect today is to prove that you are willing to see anything you are told you should see, watch out for your local cults!

Evolution is a change over time due to mutation and natural selection. This is observed in bacteria, which have a short lifespan, all the time. It is observed in cell culture when a mutation gives a cell with a particular karyotype an advantage and its progeny take over the culture dish. It is seen when pests and parasites we had previously devised a way to control or prevent can no longer be controlled or prevented with the measures that have worked in the past.

This isn't "Seeing anything you are told you should see," it is the phenomenon that defines evolution!

All in all a lackluster set of arguements; particulairly bringing www.talkorigins.org in to play since this site has been proven to ignore most scientific challenges to T o' E.

Got anything to back up this statement?

Hell, I've done next to no reading reading on evolution and have heard of Jane Goodall.

They even made a movie about her!


Science is about observation and categorization.

Science is about the scientific method - a process that includes observation and deduction.

So, with science, we can prove that something happened if we observe it.

With science, we aren't trying to prove that something happened. We make a hypothesis like, "X causes Y." Then, we do X to see if Y happens. If Y does not happen, we have disproved the hypothesis. If Y does happen, we have supported the hypothesis with evidence. However, we cannot say with certainty that X actually caused Y, so we can't say we have proven it. We might try the experiment 1000 times and always have Y happen. But then, on the 1001th try on a Tuesday, Y might not happen. Every 1001th try on a Tuesday, it might not happen. Then, we would know that our hypothesis was actually wrong.

Yes, we do.

You might believe such a thing. Those of us who are actually scientists are aware of the difference between knowing and believing.

Ever read either of Brian Greene's books?

Not sure, but probably not. Of course, I doubt that Brian Greene is the end-all-be-all in physics.

That's not a fallacy.

Yes, it is. It is your opinion of the word existence. There is nothing at all in the standard definition that restricts it as you have.

What does "outside the universe" mean? Don't beg the question.

Outside the universe is that which cannot be measured (not that which cannot be measured now, but that which truly cannot be measured).

Then define existence apart from the universe. G'won--do it.

2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being

Nowhere in that definition is "inside the universe" stipulated. To exist, something must have being.

Actually, they aren't. You have a very difficult time with English.

You have yet to provide any evidence for the positive statement that god(s) cannot and do not exist. You are making a positive statement, therefore you must provide evidence. Otherwise, you must (a) admit that it is only your opinion or (b) admit that you don't actually know.

Strawman.

Not in the least. It is exactly what Brenchley has been saying over and over and over and over again.

AGAIN, YOU ARE MISSING THE FACT THAT GODS ARE DEFINED AS IN SUCH A WAY TO MAKE THEIR EXISTENCE IMPOSSIBLE AS QUA SUPERNATURAL THINGS.

You have yet to demonstrate any such "fact".

Except for all the fallacies and contradictions, you mean.

You have yet to demonstrate any such fallacies and contradictions.

I'm waiting....

And the attributes of gods are mutually exclusive, as well as being stated fallaciously.

You personally know every attribute of any possible version of any god?

Don't need to.

In order to make the positive statement that every possible conception of god(s) meets a particular categorization, you must examine every possible conception of god(s). If what you meant to say was, "Every version of god(s) that I have heard of has been contradictory or mutually exclusive or fallacious," by all means restate it.

Why is it that people like you have this idiotic notion of "well, we don't know much now, so I'll leave the door open for any number of completely stupid ideas to be true"?

Strawman.

Yes, it does.

Really? So what I think of my mother completely defines her?

Oh, but wait, other people think of my mother in different ways.....

So there are multiple "my mother"s???????

Of course not. My mother is a single person, defined by her own attributes. What I think those attributes are is irrelevant. What my father thinks thos attributes are is irrelevant. The attributes are there - she has being - thus she has existence.

Ahh but you have to have at least read Darwin before you can dismiss it. All to often we get the "faithful" yelpping evolution is bunk and they haven't even read about it.

Anything is fair game in science. A person can and should always question everything.
Not to mention they think Darwinism is the current theory of evolution

And that was not done, except by you, with your infantile whining about "qua", even though I explained to you TWICE that I didn't use it as "outside". You ignored that, and kept telling me that I was using it as "outside".

I quoted you verbatim, and then explained my derivation of context, and the improperness of the original use... And how it should have been used, and what it meant (which was derived equally from the further context of subsequent statements from you). That is the backdrop, however, I dropped it (not conceeded it) and pushed to move on...

You provided a quote (with my name attached) which was never uttered by me.

I now have the option of reporting you for flamming, or ignoring you.... I choose the later... Goodbye...

I quoted you verbatim,
And I explained to you how you were wrong, because you took it incorrectly. You ignored that, and continued to tell me that I said something that I didn't say, even when you were told again that I didn't say it. And now you are further demonstrating your cowardice by ignoring me, for the sole reason that your fraud was exposed.

How do you get through your life, ignoring everyone who disagrees with your little worldview?

Science is about observation and categorization.


Science is about the scientific method - a process that includes observation and deduction.
And categorization.



So, with science, we can prove that something happened if we observe it.
With science, we aren't trying to prove that something happened.
But we can.



[QUOTE=Dempublicents1]You might believe such a thing.
No, I know such a thing. And you're not a very good scientist if you don't know that.



Ever read either of Brian Greene's books?
Not sure, but probably not.
Then you'd know that there's no dispute. Unless, of course, you mean "dispute" like the cretinists mean "dispute about evolution" in the sense that the cretinists don't acknowledge the fact of evolution. Do you mean it in that sense?



That's not a fallacy.
Yes, it is.
No, it is not.


It is your opinion of the word existence.
No, it is not.


There is nothing at all in the standard definition that restricts it as you have.
Then tell me what existence means apart from the universe! Why the hell do you say "oh, you're just restricting it" if you haven't got a clue as to what the restrictions are? You're simply playing some neo-msytical card, and I'm not buying it.



What does "outside the universe" mean? Don't beg the question.
Outside the universe is that which cannot be measured (not that which cannot be measured now, but that which truly cannot be measured).
That doesn't tell me anything. What does "outside the universe" mean.

Hint: you're the one claiming that I'm "restricting" existence. So you'd best damned well have some reason to say that. And right now, you don't.



Then define existence apart from the universe. G'won--do it.
2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being
That's existence in the universe. What does it mean to exist apart from the universe, especially given that you say "apart from the universe" can't be measured, so how can you make the leap from inside the universe to outside of it as you're doing?

And what does "being" mean apart from the universe?

Hint: what you're doing is begging the question, dropping the context, and committing the fallacy of the stolen concept.


Actually, they aren't. You have a very difficult time with English.
You have yet to provide any evidence for the positive statement that god(s) cannot and do not exist.
But I have.




Strawman.
Not in the least.
Yes, it is.


It is exactly what Brenchley has been saying over and over and over and over again.
And you applied it to me as well, making it a STRAWMAN.

You're not very good at this, are you?



AGAIN, YOU ARE MISSING THE FACT THAT GODS ARE DEFINED AS IN SUCH A WAY TO MAKE THEIR EXISTENCE IMPOSSIBLE AS QUA SUPERNATURAL THINGS.
You have yet to demonstrate any such "fact".
Except for the fact that I have demonstrated it, you mean.



Except for all the fallacies and contradictions, you mean.
You have yet to demonstrate any such fallacies and contradictions.
I have.

I'm waiting for you to either read them or stop lying. Which will it be?



And the attributes of gods are mutually exclusive, as well as being stated fallaciously.
You personally know every attribute of any possible version of any god?
All the claimed gods.

Also, it's been several THOUSAND years that the god-idea has been kicked around. It's time for a decision to be made. There's such a thing as saying "Well, I'm not really sure if cyanide kills" in the face of all the evidence that says it is, and that's just stupid. And that's precisely what you're doing with your wishy-washy bull.



Don't need to.
In order to make the positive statement that every possible conception of god(s) meets a particular categorization, you must examine every possible conception of god(s).
No, I do not.



Why is it that people like you have this idiotic notion of "well, we don't know much now, so I'll leave the door open for any number of completely stupid ideas to be true"?
Strawman.
Not in the least. That is your entire damned argument. Anything that you think might exist, you leave open, even when it's utterly stupid to do so.



Yes, it does.
Really? So what I think of my mother completely defines her?

Oh, but wait, other people think of my mother in different ways.....

So there are multiple "my mother"s???????
Yes?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

But god is claimed to exist apart from the mind.
[QUOTE=Willamena]And there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.
Except for the fact that the definitions preclude them from existing apart from the mind.


That things exist in the mind does not indicate that things do not exist elsewhere. That we can make a symbol of god in our mind's heart and put ourselves in relationship with that does not mean that the symbol does not represent something real, only that all we interact with is that symbol.
Great. So I can dream up an invisible pink unicorn, interact with the symbol, and therefore it must be real. Hellllooooo, Anselm was refuted.



But how do you know what it is when you say "god"?
You don't have to know. It's not important.
It's not important to know what it is that you talk to, worship, and derive your feeling of self-worth from? What planet are you from?



They are.
No, they are really not.[/qute]
Yes, they really are. If you choose to believe your wishes that reality isn't the way it actually is--that reality includes the super-fantastic, pixies, fairies, etc--then such is your problem.


[Quote=BAAWA]
If it's unreal, it can't exist. QED.
If unreal things did not exist, we could not talk about them.
Unicorns are unreal.
Unicorns do not exist.
We talk about unicorns.

You are thus refuted by counterexample.

Hint: we can speak of the unreal in the context of FICTION.



No, it's about hijacking a place and deluding yourself into thinking that you made your own place.
Hijacking what place?
The place that you claim you make for yourself.


What is this place you talk of --it sounds suspiciously unreal.
Then you admit that the place you "made for yourself" is unreal. Congrats!

And categorization.

Categorization is a part of the deduction.

But we can.

Not using the scientific method. The scientific method, as a logical process, cannot be used to prove anything. It can only be used to disprove or support a given idea.

No, I know such a thing. And you're not a very good scientist if you don't know that.

The fact that I actually read about these things and also recognize the logical limits of the scientific method makes me a bad scientist? So a good scientist, in your estimation, is one who is ignorant of debate in the field and of the workings of the scientific method they claim to use?

What an interesting definition.

Then you'd know that there's no dispute. Unless, of course, you mean "dispute" like the cretinists mean "dispute about evolution" in the sense that the cretinists don't acknowledge the fact of evolution. Do you mean it in that sense?

No, I mean "dispute" as in "dispute among the top minds of the field." There is all sorts of question about the nature of matter, energy, time, and gravity. Some think that time and matter both exist in reference to Plank's constant - not continuous but discrete. Others think that they are continuous. Some think that time was always in existence - even before the big bang, but was pulled in such a way by the incredible gravity created by the singularity as to seem to stop time by slowing it's flow as to almost stop it. Others think that time actually began at the Big Bang. Others think that neither time nor matter have any beginning at all.

Then tell me what existence means apart from the universe! Why the hell do you say "oh, you're just restricting it" if you haven't got a clue as to what the restrictions are? You're simply playing some neo-msytical card, and I'm not buying it.

My dear, I have stated what the restrictions are. You are restricting existence to that which can be empirically measured. It is a possible restriction, but we can hardly make a positive statement that nothing outside that which we can measure has being.

That doesn't tell me anything. What does "outside the universe" mean.

I answered that question. Outside the universe is outside nature - outside that which can be measured.

That's existence in the universe. What does it mean to exist apart from the universe, especially given that you say "apart from the universe" can't be measured, so how can you make the leap from inside the universe to outside of it as you're doing?

I'm not making any leap, as I have claimed neither that the supernatural exists nor that it doesn't in this conversation. You are making a huge leap by stating that something cannot exist apart from the universe. You are the only one here making a speculation about what does and does not exist in realms we cannot measure. I am simply pointing out that a positive statement either way cannot be backed up empirically.

And what does "being" mean apart from the universe?

What does "being" mean in any context?

But I have.

Where have you demonstrated that the connotation you are strapping onto the word existence is a necessity?

Except for the fact that I have demonstrated it, you mean.

Where?

I have.

Where?

I'm waiting for you to either read them or stop lying. Which will it be?

I have read everything you have written to me and have refuted every single point. You have yet to provide evidence. All you do is go, "YES IT IS YES IT IS YES IT IS!!" That is hardly evidence any more than a child screaming that the candy he just stole is "MINE MINE MINE!" is evidence that he owns it.

All the claimed gods.

Again, you claim that you have personally heard and examined every god ever posited by any human being. You are aware, I would assume, that no two people really have the same view of what god(s) may be (unless one has simply borrowed it from the other)?

Also, it's been several THOUSAND years that the god-idea has been kicked around. It's time for a decision to be made.

Point to the method of choosing a side in the decision.

There's such a thing as saying "Well, I'm not really sure if cyanide kills" in the face of all the evidence that says it is, and that's just stupid. And that's precisely what you're doing with your wishy-washy bull.

Again with the improper analogy and strawmen. I'm pretty sure that cyanide does kill, precisely because of all the evidence that says it does. Of course, we have actual, empirical evidence in that case. We have taken measurements and done experiments. Whether or not cyanide kills something is a question that can be examined using the scientific method.

The question of whether or not the supernatural exists cannot be answered in the same way precisely because empirical evidence cannot be gathered to support or deny the claim - precisely because it cannot be tested. Thus, it is up to the individual to examine their own life experiences, their own philosophy, and whatever emphasis they personally place upon the empirical in choosing which axiom they will believe. The axiom itself can be neither proven nor disproven, whether they claim the existence or the non-existence of god(s). In the end, the question of whether or not any given supernatural being exists comes down to the subjective matter of faith - not the objective measurements of science.

No, I do not.

I don't think you understand how this works, my dear. You are making a positive statement. You are saying, with absolute certainty, that something does not and cannot exist. Therefore, you have to back up that statement.

Not in the least. That is your entire damned argument. Anything that you think might exist, you leave open, even when it's utterly stupid to do so.

Well, I suppose you are anti-science then, considering that anything that has not been disproven with science is left open. And since we are actually outside the realm of science in this discussion, I may point out that logic does the same thing. Without a logical reason to posit either the existence or non-existence of any given entity, you can do neither and still claim to remain logical.

Yes?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????
???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

Really? And here I was thinking I only have one mother. Pray tell, how many different women carried me in their wombs?

Great. So I can dream up an invisible pink unicorn, interact with the symbol, and therefore it must be real.

I highly doubt that English is as hard for you as you make out.

She didn't say this at all. She said that the fact that you conceive of an invisible pink unicorn and interact with the symbol does not mean that it is not real. This is not the same as saying that it is real.

Yes, they really are. If you choose to believe your wishes that reality isn't the way it actually is--that reality includes the super-fantastic, pixies, fairies, etc--then such is your problem.

Pixies, fairies, etc., unless claimed to be outside of the universe and thus not bound by its rules (something no pixie or fairie myth I have ever seen claims - as they are constantly getting caught and always have rules they must follow), would not be supernatural - they would be natural, and within the realm of that which can be measured. If they exist, we will one day measure them. Considering that we haven't yet, I don't really think they exist.

But god is claimed to exist apart from the mind.
And there is no evidence to indicate otherwise.
Except for the fact that the definitions preclude them from existing apart from the mind.
Definitions of unreal things, like imagined symbols and personal images of god, preclude them from existing apart from the mind. Correct. But they do not preclude the thing being symbolized from existence.

That things exist in the mind does not indicate that things do not exist elsewhere. That we can make a symbol of god in our mind's heart and put ourselves in relationship with that does not mean that the symbol does not represent something real, only that all we interact with is that symbol.
Great. So I can dream up an invisible pink unicorn, interact with the symbol, and therefore it must be real. Hellllooooo, Anselm was refuted.
*Waves her straw arms in the breeze.* There is no direct connection between the thing imagined and the real thing. I never said that things imagined must be real. I just said there that because they are imagined is not evidence that the thing they symbolize is not real.

It's not important to know what it is that you talk to, worship, and derive your feeling of self-worth from?
Of course not. Feelings, like self-worth, do not come from things apart from us, but from inside.

No, they are really not.
Yes, they really are. If you choose to believe your wishes that reality isn't the way it actually is--that reality includes the super-fantastic, pixies, fairies, etc--then such is your problem.
I have no issue with reality being the way it is, nor with existence being the thing it is. I just do not equate them.

Reality does not include unreal things.

If unreal things did not exist, we could not talk about them.
Unicorns are unreal.
Unicorns do not exist.
We talk about unicorns.

You are thus refuted by counterexample.

Hint: we can speak of the unreal in the context of FICTION.
And this is why we distinguish between actual things and conceptual things.

I do make my own place in the universe. That is what religion is about.
*snip*
The place that you claim you make for yourself.

Then you admit that the place you "made for yourself" is unreal. Congrats!
Well, I don't know where you are going with the hijack thing, that makes no sense to me.

As to the place I make for myself, it is me.

Categorization is a part of the deduction.

Is it? Not in any dictionary I own.

Not using the scientific method. The scientific method, as a logical process, cannot be used to prove anything. It can only be used to disprove or support a given idea.

What total rubbish. Science sets out to prove things through experimentation.

The fact that I actually read about these things and also recognize the logical limits of the scientific method makes me a bad scientist? So a good scientist, in your estimation, is one who is ignorant of debate in the field and of the workings of the scientific method they claim to use?

What an interesting definition.

A good scientist sets out to understand the universe (or one small part of it) by buildin gon the knowledge we already have. And yes, that does include PROVING things.

[snip - cos I just can't be bothered.

Can anyone point me out to an essay or article discussing Intelligent Design which A) Is more than one page long; B) Doesn't repeat itself; C) It's main intent is purely on the Hypothesis itself and not on debunking Evolutionary Theory.

Then you'd know that there's no dispute. Unless, of course, you mean "dispute" like the cretinists mean "dispute about evolution" in the sense that the cretinists don't acknowledge the fact of evolution. Do you mean it in that sense?
And you wonder why they ignore you? :)

Then tell me what existence means apart from the universe! Why the hell do you say "oh, you're just restricting it" if you haven't got a clue as to what the restrictions are?
The universe is everything.

Existence is everything that is "something". The concept of not existing is "nothingness". Nothing is not a thing, it is "no thing". An imagined pink unicorn is not real, but it is a thing, it is something, so it exists. Imaginary unicorns exist in the imagination.

Actualization is making imagined things become real. We actualize ideas by speaking or writing them as words. We actualize images by drawing them. We actualize concepts by utilizing them as if they were real.

Reality is everything that actually is. It is a "true" property of actual existence, as opposed to conceptual existence. It includes everything that is material, as well as energy and forces (the physical world). It does not include things that are unreal, such as ideas in our head.

Can anyone point me out to an essay or article discussing Intelligent Design which A) Is more than one page long; B) Doesn't repeat itself; C) It's main intent is purely on the Hypothesis itself and not on debunking Evolutionary Theory.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design

http://www.intelligentdesignnetwork.org/

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

They make interesting reading - until you start to disect them and look at the real science on the subject.

Is it? Not in any dictionary I own.

It is in the scientific process. We deduce a relationship between things, and categorize them based upon that.

What total rubbish. Science sets out to prove things through experimentation.

And here you demonstrate complete ignorance of the scientific method. Even a grade school textbook would be enough to tell you otherwise. Any scientist who "sets out to prove things..." has already broken the scientific method.

A good scientist sets out to understand the universe (or one small part of it) by buildin gon the knowledge we already have.

Yup. And where does it say that the scientist can't use methods other than the scientific method in her personal life? Where does it say that the scientist can, in her capacity as a scientist, make unfounded claims for which she has no evidence?

And yes, that does include PROVING things.

No, it doesn't. It involves supporting things to the point that, to a layman, they may seem to be proven. The logic of the scientific method cannot be used to prove things, because it works only by disproving things. Now, if you try to disprove something enough times, and you never do, you can be fairly certain that it is true. You cannot, however, be 100% certain - thus, it is not proven. Everything in science is always open to being disproven. That is the way the process works.

[snip - cos I just can't be bothered.

Considering the ignorance of the scientific process you have demonstrated, perhaps you would be able to better spend the time learning about science.

Is it? Not in any dictionary I own.



What total rubbish. Science sets out to prove things through experimentation.



A good scientist sets out to understand the universe (or one small part of it) by buildin gon the knowledge we already have. And yes, that does include PROVING things.

[snip - cos I just can't be bothered.

The Scientific Method...

Step 1: Observation, description and categorization of phenomena...

Step 2: Formulation of an hypothesis to explain the phenomena...

Step 3: Use of the hypothesis to predict the existance of other phenomena, or predict quantatively the results of new observations...

Step 4: Performance of tests to predict the phenomena by several different (and independent) experimenters...

...

Appearantly you have found it fit to skip step 1 of the scientific method, and jump straight to constructing an hypothesis...

The universe is everything.

Existence is everything that is "something". The concept of not existing is "nothingness". Nothing is not a thing, it is "no thing". An imagined pink unicorn is not real, but it is a thing, it is something, so it exists. Imaginary unicorns exist in the imagination.
Yes, they do.

Yet they are "unreal".


Actualization is making imagined things become real. We actualize ideas by speaking or writing them as words.
Only insofar as they become written. Otherwise, there is no "actual" unicorn.


Reality is everything that actually is. It is a "true" property of actual existence, as opposed to conceptual existence. It includes everything that is material, as well as energy and forces (the physical world). It does not include things that are unreal, such as ideas in our head.
No, it includes them as well, since they are ultimately tied to the physical stratum called "the brain". But it also means they only exist in the mind, and nowhere else.

Great. So I can dream up an invisible pink unicorn, interact with the symbol, and therefore it must be real.
She didn't say this at all.
Yes, she did.


Yes, they really are. If you choose to believe your wishes that reality isn't the way it actually is--that reality includes the super-fantastic, pixies, fairies, etc--then such is your problem.
Pixies, fairies, etc., unless claimed to be outside of the universe and thus not bound by its rules
...which is pure ad hoc.


(something no pixie or fairie myth I have ever seen claims - as they are constantly getting caught and always have rules they must follow), would not be supernatural - they would be natural, and within the realm of that which can be measured. If they exist, we will one day measure them. Considering that we haven't yet, I don't really think they exist.
Oh, but you can't even think that, for that is arrogance. There's always some possibility, right? You can't have any opinion one way or the other, even if it is "I don't really think they exist". You have to be utterly open-minded about it.

Just giving you some of your own medicine.

Yes, she did.
No, I really didn't.

No, it includes them as well, since they are ultimately tied to the physical stratum called "the brain". But it also means they only exist in the mind, and nowhere else.
And what does "tied to" mean? You haven't explained this one yet.

The mind is unreal, as it is composed of all the unreal things in it. We can open your skull and find your brain. We cannot open your skull and find your mind.

Not using the scientific method. The scientific method, as a logical process, cannot be used to prove anything. It can only be used to disprove or support a given idea.
So you can't observe that I have a watch on my wrist, and use the scientific method to prove that I have a watch on my wrist? You're utterly daft!



The fact that I actually read about these things and also recognize the logical limits of the scientific method makes me a bad scientist?
No, the fact that you think that you can't "prove" anything with science (when we've proven a host of things) makes you a bad scientist. Observation of something makes for confirmation, and thus "proof". It's like evolution has been proven as a fact--the change in gene frequencies has been observed. Speciation has been observed. Therefore, it has been "proven".

But, according to you then, evolution is "not proven" or "not proved".

See what happens when you make basic errors, like not grasping that facts constitute proof?



No, I mean "dispute" as in "dispute among the top minds of the field."
But the top minds of the field *don't* dispute it.



My dear, I have stated what the restrictions are.
No, you have not, since you feel there are no restrictions.


You are restricting existence to that which can be empirically measured.
No, I am not.


I answered that question. Outside the universe is outside nature - outside that which can be measured.
And how can you even make any claims about "outside the universe"? Isn't saying that something exists "outside the universe" merely trying to insulate the claim from being examined? Isn't it just a cop-out?


I'm not making any leap,
Oh, yes you are. You're making some silly leap to say "Well, we don't really know what reality is, so I'll just shut my eyes to it".



What does "being" mean in any context?
What does "being" mean apart from the universe? I shall ask that until you define it for me.



Where have you demonstrated that the connotation you are strapping onto the word existence is a necessity?
I'm not strapping anything on to it; it is there because we exist in the universe!

Unless, of course, you want to define for me existence apart from the universe. Unless and until you do, all of your silly whining is for naught.



I have read everything you have written to me and have refuted every single point.
No, you have not. You have yet to provide one shred of evidence for your claims. All you do is scream at me like a 2 year old, saying "YOU'RE WRONG WRONG WRONG WRONG", but you never bother to back up your claims.

That's no more evidence than someone caught stealing a TV claims that it's really his.



Again, you claim that you have personally heard and examined every god ever posited by any human being.
Again, I don't need to.



Again with the improper analogy and strawmen.
It was a proper analogy, and not a strawman.


I'm pretty sure that cyanide does kill, precisely because of all the evidence that says it does.
Oh, but that can change. Why are you strapping on ideas? Why are you making a decision? Don't you know that we don't know much, so you can't make any decisions whatsoever?

Just giving you some of your own medicine.


The question of whether or not the supernatural exists cannot be answered in the same way precisely because empirical evidence cannot be gathered to support or deny the claim
Thus, we junk the claim as "utterly arbitrary".



I don't think you understand how this works, my dear.
I do, my dear. I am making no positive claims whatsoever.


Well, I suppose you are anti-science then, considering that anything that has not been disproven with science is left open.
No--that's precisely what you're doing.

No, I really didn't.
Yes, you really did.

And what does "tied to" mean?
Without the brain, the thoughts cannot exist.


The mind is unreal,
No, it is quite real.


as it is composed of all the unreal things in it. We can open your skull and find your brain. We cannot open your skull and find your mind.
So what? That doesn't make it unreal.

Unreal means "not real". But the mind is real, because we have 1st person ontology of it for ourselves!

So--care to find a different word to use?

And what does "tied to" mean? You haven't explained this one yet.

The mind is unreal, as it is composed of all the unreal things in it. We can open your skull and find your brain. We cannot open your skull and find your mind.


And I would have thought that the mind was immaterial but real. How interesting to read discussions where definitions of words are so different, depending on the poster.

BAAWA: "Some people do define it that way; it's odd."

So you DO realize that there can be multiple definitions, or that


BAAWA: "You go into debates without having done any groundwork? You just blindly charge in? What sort of idiot are you?"

Ummm, I think we are having a problem with the point of debates. You are comparing a debate to a war, a battle for winning. The entire concept of discussion is to pass on gained knowledge and wisdom (or create it originally). If you debate for self-gratification, you have a problem. Read Montaigne's essay "Of the art of discussion." It's very good, classical philosophy, and it uses a specific strategy for getting its point across (I don't want to ruin it for you).

Also, I have done groundwork throughout my life. I consider myself well into my education and feel competent and confident that I can enter into a debate I find interesting without having to worry about open-minded people calling me a fool or generally attacking me for my views (or lack thereof, which is the best way to discuss) or for not having already been in forty copies of the same debate. So far, this hasn't happened. I admit having not seen all of the prominent internet sites outlining all of the arguments for one side so that any idiot can copy-paste their way into a debate (I have seen some of both extremes on the internet and experienced both moderate sides in real life). Also, I have had little experience with such blatant use of propaganda techniques as I have seen used on this thread. Your spouting fallacy after fallacy is propaganda in itself (and so blatant I can't stress it enough).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"You would not appreciate it if Tekania cited you a half-dozen ID books, even if he meant it."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Only in the sense that ID is absolute rubbish."

A little quick on the trigger there? Find the assumption(s).


QUOTE: (BAAWA) ""revealed knowledge" is just ad hoc. There's no way to differentiate it from something someone just made up."

That's what I was saying and you kept denying. THERE IS NO WAY TO TELL. You are saying that it is impossible (a positive statement that you have no proof for). I am saying that it is, in fact, possible (You can't rule it out, I can't prove that "xer theology" is right.).



Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"Today, it takes a large percentage of a person's life to become educated enough to perform a single job. Information is exploding, and there's simply too much to learn. A nice change from a huge lack, but it does reveal the problem. We can hardly learn our own world, much less the metaphysical. The human capacity to understand is indeed limited."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Only from a temporal sense that we have a finite lifespan. But that in no way attacks our ability to understand. It's just a bound on the amount we can learn due to that we are mortal. But it has nothing to do with our ability to learn. Nothing."

Kind of a big obstacle, no? It has everything to do with a person's ability to learn. Since we only live so long, the rate at which our mind encodes information becomes extremely important to how much we can learn. In fact, the mind doesn't encode information very fast at all. We're running a 5400 speed hard disk. And think of our RAM and processor! We can't run all of the new-fangled video games at full speed, only very slowly, which complicates the matter even more. How conscious can we be at any moment of time? Why do we become tired from heavy mental activity? How come many are simply not able to keep up with the demands of learning (see Montaigne)? Our mind is quite mortal. If our brains were immortal, perhaps we would be much higher on the understanding scale, but that's a pretty flagrant divorce from its referent/context, isn't it? Don't get me wrong, especially on purpose, the human mind is amazing. It is still quite limited even in some of its necessary functions. For instance, defense mechanisms. I'm sure you are familiar with the problems created by them; they don't even require a specific cultural context.

To reiterate, the speed of a computer defines much of its power. If it is slow, it is not very powerful, unless it is immortal.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"The ability to do anything possible" would be a poor definition."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Tell that to the xers."

I've NEVER heard this definition in real life.


QUOTE: (BAAWA) "It's not a flame; it's a correct name. They worship the death of jesus, get all flustered about death, but somehow want death so they can be with god again. It's a death-cult."

I think you should find it difficult to not find that offensive. Besides, if you knew Christian theology, you would find that the focus in on life, not death. That said, death is an integral part of life on earth. Your description of "[they] somehow want death so they can be with god again" is not an even halfway good description of Christians; while some "want" earthly death, you cannot forget the context, which is in belief of eternal life. "Death" to a Christian is better described as your "birth." In which case, you can only call it a death-cult based on your beliefs. At the same time, it is a gross generalization. Try again.

Oh, and trust me, there are plenty of things you could call people with your philosophy that you would not appreciate. Yes, neo-Darwinism is an over-simplification, but so is "death cult of jesus [sic]." I especially like the intentionally lower-cased proper name. Showing bias even in (bad) grammer, eh?


QUOTE: (BAAWA) "No, the fact that you think that you can't "prove" anything with science (when we've proven a host of things) makes you a bad scientist. Observation of something makes for confirmation, and thus "proof". It's like evolution has been proven as a fact--the change in gene frequencies has been observed. Speciation has been observed. Therefore, it has been "proven".

But, according to you then, evolution is "not proven" or "not proved".

See what happens when you make basic errors, like not grasping that facts constitute proof?"

Your misunderstanding of science is to blame, BAAWA. By DEFINITION, science must be tentative. The possibility for error must always be present (QED was it?). When viewing something like evolution, however, you can't look at it like a watch on your arm. There are ENORMOUS possibilities for error by comparison. One of the arguments for ID not being qualified as science is that popular ID is not tentative. Your considering evolution proven is simply opening yourself to ridicule by any fundamentalist worth his weight in emails.



((Quote:
Originally Posted by Willamena
"No, I really didn't."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Yes, you really did."))

Candidate #40 for most useless post EVER. Now that I think of it, I've seen this post about 39 times prior to this, only usually as part of a larger post. No, I'm not pulling my weight anymore, but this has to stop. By the way, the answer is "No, (s)he didn't." You misinterpret.



Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"You missed the point,"

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "No, I got the point. I countered the "perhaps....", as it's just an ad hoc rationalization."

That wasn't his point at all. The point is that you can't know for sure by scientific means. What you fail to realize is that your position of "that which I cannot see evidence for cannot exist" is not only NOT a fact (it's an assumption), but it is an unscientific view.


QUOTE: (BAAWA) "What evidence is there for the deity? And what is this deity?"

In context, your position is that god/God CANNOT exist. This is a positive statement, therefore you must show proof/evidence. YOU are shifting the burden of proof.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Junk
"Your ontology has failed to provide evidence."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Fallacy of shifting the burden of proof."

Incorrect. You are making the positive statement (see above). I make no claim that God does exist based on evidence. I merely claim that he can exist (though I do believe that he does). There is no way test whether or not he exists, and popular ontology is not evidence. It is a train of logic. A fallacy you seem prone to in ontology is use of language as an actual limit. For instance, you did not grasp the concept of squares vs circles. Mathematics is ENTIRELY based on definitions. Science is not. Philosophy recognizes it as a point of misunderstanding if not explained beforehand; it uses definitions as a means to understand, not a means to restrict understanding (a la 1984).


Back to Montaigne, I can't say that this has been an unsuccessful discussion, as I have learned much about how to debate. (This comment is only properly understandable in context of the essay.)



Quote:
Originally Posted by Dempublicents1
"(something no pixie or fairie myth I have ever seen claims - as they are constantly getting caught and always have rules they must follow), would not be supernatural - they would be natural, and within the realm of that which can be measured. If they exist, we will one day measure them. Considering that we haven't yet, I don't really think they exist."

QUOTE: (BAAWA) "Oh, but you can't even think that, for that is arrogance. There's always some possibility, right? You can't have any opinion one way or the other, even if it is "I don't really think they exist". You have to be utterly open-minded about it.

Just giving you some of your own medicine."

BAAWA, he was referring to the "natural", within-bounds fairies, etc. Also, he doesn't think they exist. Give the straw man a rest (talking about mythical creatures purported to live on Earth). Don't get me wrong, I know your intent there was not with fairies. Your assertions are about the supernatural. It is arrogant (and you can think this way if you want, btw) to claim that the supernatural cannot exist due to lack of scientific evidence or a particular view of the physical universe.

BTW, I'd like to end the everextending thread trend about what we have said. After your reply, I will do my best to simply reiterate my position at that point. I hope you will do the same BEFORE responding directly to my reiteration. This is the challenge. Hopefully, it bumps off most of the whole propaganda issue, which is impeding the actual topic more than is due.

Eek, that was disorganized.

Can anyone point me out to an essay or article discussing Intelligent Design which A) Is more than one page long; B) Doesn't repeat itself; C) It's main intent is purely on the Hypothesis itself and not on debunking Evolutionary Theory.

I've been reading a book about Intelligent Design, called ''Mere Creation''. Actually, the book is written by dozens of scientists and edited by William Dembski. A google on William Dembski and intelligent design brings up lots of articles. One in particular is a bit like his chapter in the book that I have been reading. http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

It's quite a long read, and a bit technical, but rather interesting.

Snip.....

Eek, that was disorganized.


Random Junk, your posts would be easier to read if you ensure that you have something like this [QUOTE=Random Junk (but closed with a square bracket) before the post the you are replying to, and something like this [/QUOTE (also closed with a square bracket) after it. That way we can all see what are your words are what belongs to the post to which you are replying.

Can anyone point me out to an essay or article discussing Intelligent Design which A) Is more than one page long; B) Doesn't repeat itself; C) It's main intent is purely on the Hypothesis itself and not on debunking Evolutionary Theory.

http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

Interesting, and with many links

I'm not in the habit of copying and pasting from websites, but this comment I found may be of interest to some...... Below is the words from William Dembski's website http://www.designinference.com/

by William Dembski

''After my post of April 6, 2005 titled “Evolution: Cloaking Ignorance in Terminology” (go here), in which I quoted Robert Laughlin, someone at Talk.origins got in touch with Prof. Laughlin and posted his response to my citation. I therefore followed up with Prof. Laughlin directly as follows:



April 11, 2005, 10:04AM CST
Dear Prof. Laughlin,
I recently quoted your book A Different Universe at the following blog: http://www.idthefuture.com/index.php?p=220&more=1&c=1&tb=1&pb=1. The actual quote reads:
''Much of present-day biological knowledge is ideological. A key symptom of ideological thinking is the explanation that has no implications and cannot be tested. I call such logical dead ends antitheories because they have exactly the opposite effect of real theories: they stop thinking rather than stimulate it. Evolution by natural selection, for instance, which Charles Darwin originally conceived as a great theory, has lately come to function more as an antitheory, called upon to cover up embarrassing experimental shortcomings and legitimize findings that are at best questionable and at worst not even wrong. Your protein defies the laws of mass action? Evolution did it! Your complicated mess of chemical reactions turns into a chicken? Evolution! The human brain works on logical principles no computer can emulate? Evolution is the cause!''
--Robert B. Laughlin, A Different Universe (New York: Basic Books, 2005), pp. 168-169.

In context, I was indicating that there is widespread skepticism about conventional evolutionary theory -- I was not casting you as an ID advocate.

It appears that you have been contacted about my use of this quote and that your response (posted below) is now circulating on the internet:

''Dear John,
Yes, this out-of-context quote of my work by Dembski was brought
to my attention yesterday by a student. I doubt I can do anything
about it other than respond, when asked, that it's a misquote.
However, for the record, I figured that creationists might
latch on to some part of this argument because their beef with
science is actually a warmed-over version of the conflict between
the stoics and the atomists of ancient Greece. That's why it
doesn't travel well outside Western countries. If they do it
enough, however, they'll shoot themselves in the foot because
these arguments, in fact, de-mystify "intelligent design".
Best,
Bob L. ''

Could you confirm that you wrote this note.
Best wishes,
Bill Dembski



Prof. Laughlin responded as follows (note that this response is official and that it is included here with his permission):
Dear Mr. Dembski,
That note circulating around the internet is a big problem. It's
not an official statement by me, nor does it express my views accurately.
However, I did write the note. I'm telling you this because I
don't believe in lying about what I've said or done. Those people promised
to check with me before circulating any words of mine, and then promptly
broke their promise. I am very steamed about it, but can't undo the
damage. (I'm on book tour at the moment and out of contact with my email
a good deal of the time.)
I responded so extremely to what you wrote because I took it as
suggesting that I doubt evolution, or that lots of scientists do. That
makes it a misquote, because that isn't what I said. What I said was that
it's wrong to use evolution, a theory of origins, to justify monkeying
with nature without understanding what you're doing. I feel very strongly
about this, and really don't like my message about right and wrong in
experimental science hijacked for the purpose of promoting belief, one way
or the other.
I also feel very strongly that the creationism disputes in
our society aren't really between faith and agnosticism but between
respect for nature and hubris. As you no doubt know, these things were
fused by the early Christians, and are thus hopelessly intertwined up in
Western culture. If I remember my First Corinthians correctly, Paul argues
strenuously and consistently that proper behavior flows from faith, not the
other way around. It's my experience that this is actually correct a good
deal of the time. But it isn't true all the time, and therein lies the
difficulty. Where I stand on the conflict is this: when beliefs disagree
with observations, the former must give way. Thus, insofar as creationism
stands for ignorance, which it does a lot of the time, I am its enemy. I
like it when the enemy "shoots himself in the foot."
However, one of the things that drove me to write this book was the
realization that much of modern science isn't objective at all but a
belief system in disguise, one that often DOESN'T respect nature, even
though it alleges to do so. This happens so frequently that I am a lot
closer to your position than it might first appear. What I realized was
that the scientific method actually doesn't work in some cases because
certain kinds of physical phenomena prevent it from doing so. Under the
influence of "dark law" you get a pile of meaningless numbers, which
then a acquire post-facto "meaning" through the political process. This,
of course, causes all the special moral authority of the scientific
method to disappear.
What I said about evolution should be understood in this context.
I don't doubt its validity (although this is a guess), but only its
legitimacy to "explain" important things that you actually haven't
understood. I like evolution as a theory but strongly dislike it as
an anti-theory.
I hope I have answered your question. You have my permission to
circulate this response as "official".
Respectfully yours,
Bob Laughlin


I’ve revised my original posting of April 6th to indicate that Prof. Laughlin does not doubt the validity of evolution.''

Surely this is a rather relevant post according to the topic of the thread. Anyone like to comment??

I've been reading a book about Intelligent Design, called ''Mere Creation''. Actually, the book is written by dozens of scientists and edited by William Dembski. A google on William Dembski and intelligent design brings up lots of articles. One in particular is a bit like his chapter in the book that I have been reading. http://www.arn.org/docs/dembski/wd_idtheory.htm

It's quite a long read, and a bit technical, but rather interesting.

William Dembski, philosopher and mathematician according to his website. Why are these guys never biologists?

William Dembski, philosopher and mathematician according to his website. Why are these guys never biologists?

''Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility.''

Oh, so that's how you do it. I got as far as the However, one of the things that drove me to write this book was the
realization that much of modern science isn't objective at all but a
belief system in disguise, one that often DOESN'T respect nature, even
though it alleges to do so. This happens so frequently that I am a lot
closer to your position than it might first appear. What I realized was
that the scientific method actually doesn't work in some cases because
certain kinds of physical phenomena prevent it from doing so. Under the
influence of "dark law" you get a pile of meaningless numbers, which
then a acquire post-facto "meaning" through the political process. This,
of course, causes all the special moral authority of the scientific
method to disappear.


OOH! BAAWA, I found your quote of the book! It was a link to amazon.com. Lol. It's on page 6 or 7.

''Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility.''

Dembski is the only listed author in the link, and i couldnt find that quote either, where is it?

Dembski is the only listed author in the link, and i couldnt find that quote either, where is it?

Sorry. It's from here http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html, right down near the bottom of the article written by Barbara Forrest.

It is in the scientific process. We deduce a relationship between things, and categorize them based upon that.

Most science has nothing to do with catergorization.

And here you demonstrate complete ignorance of the scientific method. Even a grade school textbook would be enough to tell you otherwise. Any scientist who "sets out to prove things..." has already broken the scientific method.

I've known and worked with hundreds of scientists over the years, mostly in physics and astonomy, and I've not met a single scientist who doesn't work long hours to PROVE things.

Yup. And where does it say that the scientist can't use methods other than the scientific method in her personal life? Where does it say that the scientist can, in her capacity as a scientist, make unfounded claims for which she has no evidence?

They know that is they want to be taken seriously then they have to follow the standards.

No, it doesn't. It involves supporting things to the point that, to a layman, they may seem to be proven. The logic of the scientific method cannot be used to prove things, because it works only by disproving things. Now, if you try to disprove something enough times, and you never do, you can be fairly certain that it is true. You cannot, however, be 100% certain - thus, it is not proven. Everything in science is always open to being disproven. That is the way the process works.

Not good with science are you. And no, there was no question mark there because it was not a question it was a statement of fact.

Scientists do PROVE things in many areas. There are some things that are PROVEN beyond any doubt. Only a total idiot would claim nothing can be known with 100% certainty - if some things are not known with 100% certainty then the whole fabric of science fall apart.

Considering the ignorance of the scientific process you have demonstrated, perhaps you would be able to better spend the time learning about science.

Well, lets see. I was studying Physics at university level at the age of 14. In the last 15 years I've acted as editor or technical proofreader on 12 books (mostly cosmology) and hundreds of magazine articles. I've also lectured on astonomy and cosmology. I've lived and breathed science since I was 9 years old so I'm a lot more qualified to talk on the subject than most.

Most science has nothing to do with catergorization.

Now that is a strange comment to make. Would you say that the science that deals with placing life within species, genus, families, orders, etc. is not about categorization? Perhaps your idea of science is based on the discipline of physics. But science is a little bigger than physics.



I've known and worked with hundreds of scientists over the years, mostly in physics and astonomy, and I've not met a single scientist who doesn't work long hours to PROVE things.


Wow. That is an impressive claim. Hundreds.

As for proof, that degenerates into a debate over semantics. Just what is meant by proof? A conclusion that is most reasonable is not proof, and yet, using reasonable conclusions, we have made much progress in technology and science.

My understanding of proof is that it is possible in something like mathematics, where 'things' being measured have definitions. A circle can be proven to have no corners, for example. A circle does not exist in the material world, but is a human concept. But when dealing with concepts and theories about the material world, proof will always be lacking until we are in a position to define things, e.g., gravity. Currently, we can describe the effect of gravity relatively accurately. However, we don't know what it is. Thus, technically, although we can reasonably conclude that every material thing interacts with the force of gravity, we are not in a position to prove it, even though we have placed people on the moon using reasonable conclusions and estimates.

edit: rereading this post has almost caused me to delete it. I think I'm still confused over the difference between proof and conclusions that are reasonable beyond doubt. Ah well, I suppose that is the point of having a debate--to learn from others. Comments, anyone?

Sorry. It's from here http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html, right down near the bottom of the article written by Barbara Forrest.

To be honest I have no idea what the article was really about. I see how he defined his concept of information, but how does he work out the probabilities? So has it been published in a peer reviewed journal yet?

To be honest I have no idea what the article was really about. I see how he defined his concept of information, but how does he work out the probabilities? So has it been published in a peer reviewed journal yet?

I'm not terribly good at mathematics (terrible, in fact), but I think that deriving the probabilities is not presented in the article. I think he just assumes that everybody knows and understands the process, or that the process is not relevant to his point. I certainly do not know the exact process. But if he says that the probability of getting a royal flush in poker is such and such, I know that it must be somewhere around the figure that he suggests, even though he did not present a method for calculating it. I don't need to understand the process to see that point that he was making.

As for being published in a peer review journal, I don't know. I'm on the journey of investigating ID. Maybe someone else knows.....??
I do know that being published in a peer review journal is not the best test for 'truth', since most journal editors are not open to discussing ID, even without considering its merits. They understand that it isn't science, and will, therefore, not allow it into their science journal. In this way, they are not even considering those claims which would justify it as science (in the eyes of the proponents of ID). So it is catch-22. Don't let it into the journal, because it isn't science. And because it isn't allowed into a journal, it isn't science.

edit: typo

now call me crazy but aren't religion and science essentially opposites. scince is based on fact while religion is based on assumption doesn't that mean that you can't consider religion science. is this actually a law

now call me crazy but aren't religion and science essentially opposites. scince is based on fact while religion is based on assumption doesn't that mean that you can't consider religion science. is this actually a law that this has to be taught cos thats crap

I'm not terribly good at mathematics (terrible, in fact), but I think that deriving the probabilities is not presented in the article. I think he just assumes that everybody knows and understands the process, or that the process is not relevant to his point. I certainly do not know the exact process. But if he says that the probability of getting a royal flush in poker is such and such, I know that it must be somewhere around the figure that he suggests, even though he did not present a method for calculating it. I don't need to understand the process to see that point that he was making.

As for being published in a peer review journal, I don't know. I'm on the journey of investigating ID. Maybe someone else knows.....??
I do know that being published in a peer review journal is not the best test for 'truth', since most journal editors are not open to discussing ID, even without considering its merits. They understand that it isn't science, and will, therefore, not allow it into their science journal. In this way, they are not even considering those claims which would justify it as science (in the eyes of the proponents of ID). So it is catch-22. Don't let it into the journal, because it isn't science. And because it isn't allowed into a journal, it isn't science.

edit: typo

Agreed: Peer-Review =/= Scientific Method..... Peer-Review is merely the attempt to make Science a democratic system, whereby only that which the most people "agree" with, is considered ( which is not very scientific)... TESTING and EXPERIMENTATION by DIFFERING INDEPENDENT sources is what the last step of the method is for.... Restricting hypothesis based upon acceptance through peer-review does not help science in the least bit... And in fact runs contrary to it (turning science more into a philosophical ideology, like religion; than a REAL, and HARD science...)...

I could care less if it was ID, Creationist, or Evolutionary based; if there is not multiple articles from multiple sources, performing the same experiment; I'm not going to treat it as valid.... Peer-Reviewed or no...

I'm not terribly good at mathematics (terrible, in fact), but I think that deriving the probabilities is not presented in the article. I think he just assumes that everybody knows and understands the process, or that the process is not relevant to his point. I certainly do not know the exact process. But if he says that the probability of getting a royal flush in poker is such and such, I know that it must be somewhere around the figure that he suggests, even though he did not present a method for calculating it. I don't need to understand the process to see that point that he was making.


I dont mean that type of calculation, i mean calculating the probabilities of biological systems. With simple systems like a deck of cards its not that hard. Unless we know every possible thing about them I dont see how probabilities can be calculated accurately.

now call me crazy but aren't religion and science essentially opposites. scince is based on fact while religion is based on assumption doesn't that mean that you can't consider religion science. is this actually a law that this has to be taught cos thats crap


That is an interesting claim--science is based on fact, and religion is based on assumption. I wouldn't call you crazy. Just mislead. You have to see that both science and religion are full of assumptions AND facts. One fact in religion is that people are capable of faith, regardless of race or culture. One fact in science is that it depends rather heavily on eyesight. I haven't met too many blind scientists. Another fact in religion is that it depends on faith. A religious person without faith is in a pathetic situation.

As for assumptions, one common idea within science is the assumption that everything that we observe in the material world can be accounted for using laws of nature and randomness. We cannot actually do an experiment to prove this assumption, although we can demonstrate that many (rather than all) things that we observe can be accounted for by natural processes. Perhaps you could provide an example of an assumption that comes from religion? (Not suggesting that there isn't any, but that it will always depend on what version of religion you are referring to.)

I dont mean that type of calculation, i mean calculating the probabilities of biological systems. With simple systems like a deck of cards its not that hard. Unless we know every possible thing about them I dont see how probabilities can be calculated accurately.

Oh, I see, my mistake. Yes, just how does one do those sorts of calculations, given that there is an awful lot about biological systems that we don't understand. My guess is that it is a process whereby you, e.g., count the number of nucleotide bases in a gene (about a thousand, in bacteria), and calculate the number of mutations (which occurs for every one in six millions bases, approximately) needed to convert that gene, base by base (four bases for DNA), into an different gene coding for a protein of a different function. Something like that, anyway.

It is in the scientific process. We deduce a relationship between things, and categorize them based upon that.
Most science has nothing to do with catergorization.
Hairsplitting abounds...
And here you demonstrate complete ignorance of the scientific method. Even a grade school textbook would be enough to tell you otherwise. Any scientist who "sets out to prove things..." has already broken the scientific method.
I've known and worked with hundreds of scientists over the years, mostly in physics and astonomy, and I've not met a single scientist who doesn't work long hours to PROVE things.
So you're more qualified to offer your opinion than most. Good for you. You read the thread, no? Sorry that's a rethorical question. If you had read the thread, you'd know that in this particular forum, clearly stating what science can & cannot do is imperative.

Obviously most scientists set out to prove various things, however, you must admit that the method itself doesn't do that. It simply disproves things or fail to disprove things. Thus the point that science theories aren't proven. Because they are simply throries that haven't been disproven. It in no way emplies they aren't acurate.

Whatever the scientists feelings or personal belief is, isn't relevant to the process.
Yup. And where does it say that the scientist can't use methods other than the scientific method in her personal life? Where does it say that the scientist can, in her capacity as a scientist, make unfounded claims for which she has no evidence?
They know that is they want to be taken seriously then they have to follow the standards.

They know that if they want to be considered scientists by their peers, they'll have to distinguish between their personal opinions and the work they present.

There's no reason an evolutionary biologist can't be a devout Christian. Conflict only occours if s/he brings the religion into the work.
No, it doesn't. It involves supporting things to the point that, to a layman, they may seem to be proven. The logic of the scientific method cannot be used to prove things, because it works only by disproving things. Now, if you try to disprove something enough times, and you never do, you can be fairly certain that it is true. You cannot, however, be 100% certain - thus, it is not proven. Everything in science is always open to being disproven. That is the way the process works.
Not good with science are you. And no, there was no question mark there because it was not a question it was a statement of fact.

Scientists do PROVE things in many areas. There are some things that are PROVEN beyond any doubt. Only a total idiot would claim nothing can be known with 100% certainty - if some things are not known with 100% certainty then the whole fabric of science fall apart.
...Look who's talking. So, for example, gravity. Care to explain to all us ignorant fools exactly what it is? If not, is it alright if I just assume that you can't? Noone else can you know. Did the entire fields of astro physics & high-energy physics just disintegrate around your ears? No? Hmm... Seems that little claim of yours doesn't have that much basis in reality, eh.

Everything in science is always open to being disproven. Everything. Always. Otherwise science wouldn't be science at all. I pitty those hundreds of scientists you've worked with. It must be a bitch being used to back up your outrageous claims.
Considering the ignorance of the scientific process you have demonstrated, perhaps you would be able to better spend the time learning about science.
Well, lets see. I was studying Physics at university level at the age of 14. In the last 15 years I've acted as editor or technical proofreader on 12 books (mostly cosmology) and hundreds of magazine articles. I've also lectured on astonomy and cosmology. I've lived and breathed science since I was 9 years old so I'm a lot more qualified to talk on the subject than most.
You know what leaves me most impressed? Having your credentials, yet being utterly unaware of what the scientific method is.

now call me crazy but aren't religion and science essentially opposites. scince is based on fact while religion is based on assumption doesn't that mean that you can't consider religion science. is this actually a law

Not totally, some aspects of religion are scientific (Theology)... So they are not polar opposites...

The problem is, people don't realize there are different TYPES of science, different "familes" you can say...

Philosophy, Sociology, Political Science, Theology, Psychology, etc... are what is known as "Soft-sciences"... They deal heavily with concepts, ideologies and the immaterial world.

Biology, Physics, Chemistry, Geology, etc.... are what is known as "hard-sciences".... they deal exclusively with the material world.

The general problem arrising here, is a mix of the two... Trying to force Hard-Science into the immaterial ideological framework; or forcing soft-science into the material world....

A concept whereby one uses their hard-science, to make self-limiting language restrictions Philosophically, to define everything in the context of their materialist nut-shell; and then use such self-constricted definitions to impose straw-man limits upon the debate so as to deny everything that does not exist in their invented, confined shell....

IOW: Would be like defining the "universe" as your house, and declaring anything not in your "house" as not existing.... And then make arguments from their own definition, and make futile and continuing attempts to control the language of the debate (and thereby the path and direction of the argument) [very Orwellian]... Their only problem is, there are too many people in this debate who have had some indoctrination into the soft-sciences; and thereby we recognize the rhetorical constructs, and control attemps made by the other.... We're able to catagorize the structure of the debate, and continue on, and point out; not the falicy of the "Evidence" he invents from his self-imposed constriction; but rather the ideological deficiency of the hypothesis where the evidence is purporting to come ffom in the first place.

To top it off, they don't take their method far enough in the context of the scientific method....

They establish an hypothesis ("All that exists" <==> "Universe") [note: this is step 2 of the scientific method.... they did not perform step 1].

They perform experiments on their method, with the intent of prooving the method correct... (A shoe exists, because it is in the universe; a planet exists, because it is in the universe; etc...) [note: This is not actually Step 3... the purpose of step three is to perform tests to PREDICT, not merely to provide evidence in support]

They establish these "findings" as facts, which all must accept [note: this is not step 4.... they skipped it alltogether]...

Necessitatly, the above format can be used to "proove" (I use the term loosely) anything... Which is why it's not accepted as the scientific method...

Step1: Skip to Step2
Step2: God Exists....
Pseudo-Step3: God has declared his existance. Numberous cases cited that He talks with people.
Step(WTF): God is an established fact...

***
Philosphically, in the end, everything comes down to immaterial constructs.... That is, statements such as "Supernatural", "Only the material exists", "Universe", "being", "God", "life", "existance"... are constructs created within the framework of the mind... And even though "immaterial" (much like Gravity); the effects can be observed and "measured", categorized, and in many cases predicted. [An advantage that soft-science has over hard-science in dealing with such complexities, not have a pre-supposed material limit]...

''Jonathan Wells, a biologist, and Michael J. Behe, a biochemist, seem just the CRSC fellows to give intelligent design the ticket to credibility.''
I've never heard of this Wells fellow, but Behe doesn't actually present any real scientific arguments that I've seen. He just states "It's impossible for this to happen on its own" and leaves it at that.

I think you guys are missing the point. Just because they are teaching ID does not mean they are going to withdraw all of the other things that you take for granted as being correct from the science curriculum.

Science is a subject in which the whole point is to have a questioning and enquiring mind. Just accepting things because they have been taught to you may enable you to pass the course but it is not science. You are not supposed to accept the things you are taught as, to use the term "God given truth" but a true scientist wants you to pull what they say to bits and make something new out of it.

I've never heard of this Wells fellow, but Behe doesn't actually present any real scientific arguments that I've seen. He just states "It's impossible for this to happen on its own" and leaves it at that.

I'm curious as to whether you would change your opinion after reading this http://www.actionbioscience.org/evolution/nhmag.html

At least you will find Behe saying more than that. And an article from Wells is there also

I think you guys are missing the point. Just because they are teaching ID does not mean they are going to withdraw all of the other things that you take for granted as being correct from the science curriculum.

Science is a subject in which the whole point is to have a questioning and enquiring mind. Just accepting things because they have been taught to you may enable you to pass the course but it is not science. You are not supposed to accept the things you are taught as, to use the term "God given truth" but a true scientist wants you to pull what they say to bits and make something new out of it.

or perhaps not something entirely new, perhaps the same conclusion, but at least to come to a conclusion based on rational objective thinking, rather than bias.

I've never heard of this Wells fellow, but Behe doesn't actually present any real scientific arguments that I've seen. He just states "It's impossible for this to happen on its own" and leaves it at that.

Thats what I dislike most about the whole irreducible complexity thing. It seems like willful ignorance to me. Why bother figuring out how something happened when you can claim its impossible. Never mind that new techniques in the future may be able to figure it out.

Now that is a strange comment to make. Would you say that the science that deals with placing life within species, genus, families, orders, etc. is not about categorization? Perhaps your idea of science is based on the discipline of physics. But science is a little bigger than physics.

Physics is really the only true science because it seeks to explain everything.

Wow. That is an impressive claim. Hundreds.

I've been around scientists for over 45 years. And when you attend a symposium, with dozens of scientists, at least every other year, the number you meet and talk with soon mounts up.

As for proof, that degenerates into a debate over semantics. Just what is meant by proof? A conclusion that is most reasonable is not proof, and yet, using reasonable conclusions, we have made much progress in technology and science.

My understanding of proof is that it is possible in something like mathematics, where 'things' being measured have definitions.

Mathmatics is the language of science.

A circle can be proven to have no corners, for example. A circle does not exist in the material world, but is a human concept.

Ribbish, circles exist. Humans discovered maths we did not create it.

But when dealing with concepts and theories about the material world, proof will always be lacking until we are in a position to define things, e.g., gravity. Currently, we can describe the effect of gravity relatively accurately. However, we don't know what it is. Thus, technically, although we can reasonably conclude that every material thing interacts with the force of gravity, we are not in a position to prove it, even though we have placed people on the moon using reasonable conclusions and estimates.

Again, rubbish. We know what gravity IS, we just cannot fit it into a unified theory at the moment because we cannot detect the graviton force particle.

edit: rereading this post has almost caused me to delete it. I think I'm still confused over the difference between proof and conclusions that are reasonable beyond doubt. Ah well, I suppose that is the point of having a debate--to learn from others. Comments, anyone?

Physics is really the only true science because it seeks to explain everything.

The only true science!!!! Are you trying to start a religion? Physicanity? Please, if you really are as old as your post suggested, don't say such things.

I suppose physics has a satisfactory explanation of something like the blood-clotting pathway, or eyesight, or something like variation in finch beak size. That would be why biology is a separate discipline to physics, rather than a sub-division of physics.



I've been around scientists for over 45 years. And when you attend a symposium, with dozens of scientists, at least every other year, the number you meet and talk with soon mounts up.


That would make you older than my dad. I suppose I would have expected you to be more......careful with some of your posts, given the level of experience you should have had.


Mathmatics is the language of science.


hmmmm, may be, I'll have to think that one over some more......you could be right....


Ribbish, circles exist. Humans discovered maths we did not create it.


I said that circles do not exist in the material world, not that they do not exist. A circle exists as a concept within mathematics. When we see something in nature that looks round, we immediately think of a circle. Thus we do find round-ish objects. If you would care to demonstrate a perfect circle that exists in the material world, have a go.

I agree that humans have discovered math rather than created it, although, of course it all depends on your definitions of 'discover' and 'create'.


Again, rubbish. We know what gravity IS, we just cannot fit it into a unified theory at the moment because we cannot detect the graviton force particle.

Nope, we don't know what gravity really is. We can describe it's effects. But what is that attractive force? Why would matter be attracted to itself? Why is the attraction virtually instant, so fast that we cannot even detect its speed? How do we know it is a particle? And how would such particles keep me 'glued' to earth.