NationStates Jolt Archive

So? Show how Evolution proves that God wasn't involved...

Now if you think that God's involvement is only a Monty Pythonesque hand reaching down from the clouds... then you're proving to be as silly as bible literalist... infact, you would be proving yourselves as bible literallist who take "the Hand of God" literally.

I SUPPORT THAT ONE!

Too many people are too literal about the concept of divinity,... in fact most of them borders on either mundane or downright idiotic. OH, and this is ON BOTH SIDE OF THE FENCE!

Well, then, to all that oppose this kind of concept,... prove to me that there is NOTHING that can paradoxically control chaos and fine tunes it to it's designs... and reasons,... why the hell does one being that can do that need any reason to do this? As far as I can guess, maybe we're just a byproduct of a really bored "god".

... meh, I guess, that comes down too strong,... look,... as far as data can show,... how do you disprove something's that too far out of our logic and understanding.

This is just like reverse Catholic proscribing in the dark ages,... as long as science can't ascertain it existence, then it doesn't exists.

JuNii, you know that ID, beyond the few that say "God is involved but life still evolves", is just creationism repackaged.
And the leaders of the ID movement admit it.

-William Dembski (considered by many to be the main intellectual force behind the ID movement) in his book Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science and Theology: “The aim of this chapter then is to present a general account of creation that is faithful to the Christian tradition, that resolutely rejects naturalism…” (1999, 273).

-Of Pandas And People, a textbook written by IDers, reveals the repackaging of Creationism as "Intelligent design." A comparison of an early draft of Of Pandas and People to a later copy shows literally [i]hundreds of cases where the word "creationism" has been replaced by "intelligent design," with no other change to the text.

-The infamous Discovery Institute Wedge Memo lays out the plan for using ID as a means of toppling science in favor of (Christian) theocracy. In it, among many other things, the DI advocates reinstating "The proposition that human beings are created in the image of God." Remember, the DI is the hub of "Intelligent Design" in the USA. Though the DI sometimes publicly insists that ID is not Creationism, the Wedge Memo's cover was the classic image of the Christian God creating Adam. Gee whiz, imagine that.

-Philip Johnson, a leader of the ID movement, has given us such choice quotes as:
"Our strategy has been to change the subject a bit so that we can get the issue of intelligent design, which really means the reality of God, before the academic world and into the schools."
"This isn't really, and never has been a debate about science. Its about religion and philosophy."
"The objective (of the wedge strategy) is to convince people that Darwinism is inherently atheistic, thus shifting the debate from creationism vs. evolution to the existence of God vs. the non-existence of God. From there people are introduced to 'the truth' of the Bible and then 'the question of sin' and finally 'introduced to Jesus.'"


And, as a last little something to chew on:

"Let's make no mistake. The people pushing intelligent design believe in the biblical version of creation. Intelligent design is a way, I think, to sneak it into the curriculum and make it less offensive to the liberals." -Rush Limbaugh

and they don't show that Evolution proves/disproves God's involvement.

They don't assert that. So it makes sense that they don't show it.

What is your point?


actually, there is a big difference. Look at the op on how the creationist views are defined.

No, there is no difference. The ID movement was specifically started to put a patina of secularism on religious Creationism, as a means of inserting religious dogma into secular education. The founders of the ID movement have admitted as much.

Seriously, don't let them dupe you. They're jackasses.


two, I've never claimed Creationism nor ID as SCIENCE in any of these threads. I challange you to fine one instance where I claimed ID or Creationism as anything near science.

I was supporting Kec's assertion.


Three, you still have to prove how Evolution disproves the Idea (note, IDEA, not theory, hypthosis nor scientific fact) of a greater being being involved in the beginning and evolution of life.
No, I don't. Because I've never asserted that. I am not under any obligation to defend positions that I don't hold, nor am I obligated to waste my time arguing for views I don't assert.

Seriously, read more carefully. You don't seem to be responding to what I actually say, but rather to what you assume somebody must be saying.

You don't seem to be responding to what I actually say, but rather to what you assume somebody must be saying.
If only the intarnets would learn...

I SUPPORT THAT ONE!

Too many people are too literal about the concept of divinity,... in fact most of them borders on either mundane or downright idiotic. OH, and this is ON BOTH SIDE OF THE FENCE!

Well the amusing thing about it is that one wonders how a transcendental, eternal deity existing outside the bounds of our space and time can be definitively Male.

Is anyone else puzzled and amused by this assertion?

Well the amusing thing about it is that one wonders how a transcendental, eternal deity existing outside the bounds of our space and time can be definitively Male.

Is anyone else puzzled and amused by this assertion?
God created man in his own image mate, don't you know scripture is truth?

¬_¬

Well the amusing thing about it is that one wonders how a transcendental, eternal deity existing outside the bounds of our space and time can be definitively Male.

Is anyone else puzzled and amused by this assertion?
Not puzzled, but certainly amused. Phallus-worship is cute.

Not puzzled, but certainly amused. Phallus-worship is cute.

I guess I just don't have the cultural background to understand it. I mean, in Hinduism, it makes "sense" that the gods have maleness and femaleness, because they are immanent deities who exist within the bounds of the universe and have physical forms. But for something that exists outside the universe, has no physical form that we know of, and transcends our very concept of reality, how does it make any sense that he's...you know...hung?

God created man in his own image mate, don't you know scripture is truth?

¬_¬

I know you're kidding. I only wish the people who take this view weren't -_-

I guess I just don't have the cultural background to understand it. I mean, in Hinduism, it makes "sense" that the gods have maleness and femaleness, because they are immanent deities who exist within the bounds of the universe and have physical forms. But for something that exists outside the universe, has no physical form that we know of, and transcends our very concept of reality, how does it make any sense that he's...you know...hung?

If having a big car makes your wang big, imagine what being omnipotent and omniscient would do for it.

I guess I just don't have the cultural background to understand it. I mean, in Hinduism, it makes "sense" that the gods have maleness and femaleness, because they are immanent deities who exist within the bounds of the universe and have physical forms. But for something that exists outside the universe, has no physical form that we know of, and transcends our very concept of reality, how does it make any sense that he's...you know...hung?
Well, the "cultural background" that allows me to understand it is pretty much "Boys Rule, Girls Drool!"

All you need to understand is the translations for relevant terms.

Male/masculine = good, strong, powerful, leader
Female/feminine = bad, weak, dependent, follower

Once you've got that down, it makes perfect sense that God must be male. God is the best, the strongest, the most powerful, the Leader of all.

In simple terms, God must--by definition--be hung like a celestial stallion.

I've only read a couple of pages of this thread, but I have read a couple of other threads on the same topics. First for my rants:

1) To the people who believe in evolution: Evolution is an excellent theory. If I had never read the Bible and had never heard a valid case for ID, I would take evolution at face value. It answers many question and heralds logic over faith (well, for the most part). However, I don't think that it's the best answer.

2) For all the creationists/ID fans/Christians that I've ever read on one of these threads: you guys need to get your facts straight. I really hope nobody has looked at the peanut butter thing and thought, "Well, that makes sense; it must be true!" I have not watched the video, but from what I hear, it is idiotic. Now, that doesn't mean that ID is wrong or that evolutionists are right. I'm just asking that you provide valid evidence to support your claims, or provide no evidence at all and be comfortable in your faith. I've read published books that use pseudo-evidence, for crying out loud!

I also wanted to clarify some things. I'm a young earth creationist, a biblical scholar (kind of), and a Christian Apologist. From what I've heard, some people believe that none of us "YECs" (I'll use that to speed up this process) believe that microevolution is possible, that we all believe that the earth was formed in 4004 BC, and that we all believe that the Bible has been proven without a shred of doubt. However... that's not me! Do I believe that the Bible is infallible? Yes, but I don't that we will ever prove it. Do I believe that God created the universe? Yes, but I believe He did it with some sort of a... Big Bang! Did you know that the Big Bang was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest?

I believe that God can use natural means to to extraordianry things, and I believe that God did create the world in seven days. I do believe that humans chilled with pachycephalosaurus, and I do believe that a guy named Noah once looked up at that big ol' sky and asked, "Why me and what the hell's a cubit?" I'm tired now, and I think I'll go make a peanut butter sammich.
Later.

So? Show how Evolution proves that God wasn't involved...

Now if you think that God's involvement is only a Monty Pythonesque hand reaching down from the clouds... then you're proving to be as silly as bible literalist... infact, you would be proving yourselves as bible literallist who take "the Hand of God" literally.

Since I never said that nor does the TOE even take it into account, I'm still trying to figure out where you're coming from.

Mainstream ID and "creationism" (by that it is generally assumed to be NEC) just lump down to basically the Monty Pythonesque hand or the "God of the Gaps".

Braurong is comparing philisophical/theological beliefs to actual science and claiming "creationism" is superior yet still trying to name it science.

You sound more like an OEC than an ID'er.

Well, the "cultural background" that allows me to understand it is pretty much "Boys Rule, Girls Drool!"

All you need to understand is the translations for relevant terms.

Male/masculine = good, strong, powerful, leader
Female/feminine = bad, weak, dependent, follower

Once you've got that down, it makes perfect sense that God must be male. God is the best, the strongest, the most powerful, the Leader of all.

In simple terms, God must--by definition--be hung like a celestial stallion.

So there's no real "reason" behind it, it's just another method of furthering institutionalized sexism?

Do I believe that the Bible is infallible? Yes, but I don't that we will ever prove it. Do I believe that God created the universe? Yes, but I believe He did it with some sort of a... Big Bang! Did you know that the Big Bang was proposed by a Roman Catholic priest?

I believe that God can use natural means to to extraordianry things, and I believe that God did create the world in seven days. I do believe that humans chilled with pachycephalosaurus, and I do believe that a guy named Noah once looked up at that big ol' sky and asked, "Why me and what the hell's a cubit?" I'm tired now, and I think I'll go make a peanut butter sammich.
Later.
OK, you sound at least placid, which is less than can be said for almost all YECs we've had here. I've got to ask though - why do you believe it? Why do you think the bible is infallible? It might just be me, I have trouble with ideas lacking proof, but I can never get my head around blind faith.

God created man in his own image mate, don't you know scripture is truth?you surely rather mean that man created god in his own image.
mate, don't you know scripture in truth?

OK, you sound at least placid, which is less than can be said for almost all YECs we've had here. I've got to ask though - why do you believe it? Why do you think the bible is infallible? It might just be me, I have trouble with ideas lacking proof, but I can never get my head around blind faith.

I think it's through some sort of divine experience.

No, I don't. Because I've never asserted that. I am not under any obligation to defend positions that I don't hold, nor am I obligated to waste my time arguing for views I don't assert.

Seriously, read more carefully. You don't seem to be responding to what I actually say, but rather to what you assume somebody must be saying.

It's actually really hard to find anyone who asserts that science or any of its theories has proven that the divine doesn't exist or that the divine played no part in Creation, etc. Those who do are just as wacky as the people who will try and tell you that the banana proves God's existence.

Evolution doesn't disprove God, but it negates the need for God in explaning anything to do with life, in theory.

It's actually really hard to find anyone who asserts that science or any of its theories has proven that the divine doesn't exist or that the divine played no part in Creation, etc. Those who do are just as wacky as the people who will try and tell you that the banana proves God's existence.although there can be no proof that the divine does not exists, there can be a lot of proof that certain forms of the divine, such as the biblical god, are completely fabricated nonsense and thus do not exist.

although there can be no proof that the divine does not exists, there can be a lot of proof that certain forms of the divine, such as the biblical god, are completely fabricated nonsense and thus do not exist.

Maybe. But this only comes from unsolved logical mysteries, such as the problem of evil. Just because there is no official sollution to the problem, doesn't mean he cannot exist.

They don't assert that. So it makes sense that they don't show it.

What is your point?all these cries of the Evidence of ToE proves that the bible is false, thus God didn't have a hand in creation. go back and read through this thread. you'll find those claims.

No, there is no difference. The ID movement was specifically started to put a patina of secularism on religious Creationism, as a means of inserting religious dogma into secular education. The founders of the ID movement have admitted as much.

Seriously, don't let them dupe you. They're jackasses. yep... that's why ID is being fought so hard to be taught as science... oh wait, that's creationism.

ID shouldn't be taught in Science classes because it doesn't touch science. same as creationism. however, all those cries of "ignoring evidence that supports ToE" are arguments against Creationists and bible Literalists. ID'ers tend to support ToE as well as science. (a position i've argued and held on these boards.)

I was supporting Kec's assertion. and I never agrued against the assertaion that creationism or ID is any where near science. it's just that in this type of topic it's easy for people who believe in ID to get lumped in with Creationist... as it has been done already.

instead of focusing on Creationists and Bible Literallists, those arguing against them are starting to attack those who support ToE and science as well as holding their faith and beliefs. inother words, some ToE supporters here are being blinded by their arguments and now lashing out at anything that isn't "Pure Science"


No, I don't. Because I've never asserted that. I am not under any obligation to defend positions that I don't hold, nor am I obligated to waste my time arguing for views I don't assert.

Seriously, read more carefully. You don't seem to be responding to what I actually say, but rather to what you assume somebody must be saying.
then keep the focus on creationists and not ID'ers.

and follow your own advice since my post against Kec was his comments on Design Theorists and ID'ers. and not just Creationists and Bible Literalists that the OP and this thread is about.

Since I never said that nor does the TOE even take it into account, I'm still trying to figure out where you're coming from.

Mainstream ID and "creationism" (by that it is generally assumed to be NEC) just lump down to basically the Monty Pythonesque hand or the "God of the Gaps".

Braurong is comparing philisophical/theological beliefs to actual science and claiming "creationism" is superior yet still trying to name it science.

You sound more like an OEC than an ID'er.

and I am not supporting Braurong's position. just cautioning you that ID'ers who are not "bible literallists" will see an attack where you probably didn't mean it.

hence the "don't make me look like I'm supporting Braurong or creationists..." statement.

OEC, or ID... people tend not to make those distictions, but rather ID and Creationists.

you surely rather mean that man created god in his own image.
mate, don't you know scripture in truth?
:D I like you, so I'll let it slide.

Braurong is comparing philisophical/theological beliefs to actual science and claiming "creationism" is superior yet still trying to name it science.

That's because Bruarong is noting that the scientific method was developed out a certain philosophy, and then assuming that the method can thus be used with any philosophy.

Problem is, this is incorrect. The scientific method can only be used within a deterministic system. Without the axiomatic assumption of determinism - without the philosophical position that there are set "rules" by which the universe works that are not broken, the scientific method ceases to be logical. Thus, science cannot account for the supernatural. Only that which is within this universe can be accounted for.

Bruarong apparently wants science to encompass all possible methods of examination, but it doesn't. We call that philosophy. Science is a subset of philosophy. Many of us believe that science is one of the most useful subsets of philosophy, but it is a subset all the same.


although there can be no proof that the divine does not exists, there can be a lot of proof that certain forms of the divine, such as the biblical god, are completely fabricated nonsense and thus do not exist.

Can there now? Do show me the tests you have done that have have proven this.

It's actually really hard to find anyone who asserts that science or any of its theories has proven that the divine doesn't exist or that the divine played no part in Creation, etc. Those who do are just as wacky as the people who will try and tell you that the banana proves God's existence.which is why I use that. it can't be done. you cannot prove his existance nor non-existance scientifically. that's what Faith is... and this belongs in another thread, so I'll end the treadjack. :p

Evolution doesn't disprove God, but it negates the need for God in explaning anything to do with life, in theory.no it doesn't.

it just shows the Wonder of Life. How Life overcomes and adapts. It doesn't negate anything. those that don't believe in God can still find the wonder in evolution. those that belive in God (but not to the fanatical sense of bible literalists and creationists) will see the wonder of God's work.

of course, those literalists and creationists out there will only see the devil's work, but eh... two outta three isn't bad. ;)

Bruarong apparently wants science to encompass all possible methods of examination, but it doesn't. We call that philosophy. Science is a subset of philosophy. Many of us believe that science is one of the most useful subsets of philosophy, but it is a subset all the same.

That parts going a bit far. I'd say logic, especially formal logic, is the most important subset of philosophy, with science coming in at a close second.

no it doesn't.

it just shows the Wonder of Life. How Life overcomes and adapts. It doesn't negate anything. those that don't believe in God can still find the wonder in evolution. those that belive in God (but not to the fanatical sense of bible literalists and creationists) will see the wonder of God's work.

of course, those literalists and creationists out there will only see the devil's work, but eh... two outta three isn't bad. ;)

If evolution is shown to be fully natural, then it removes any teleological basis for believing in God. (i'm not saying that has been shown though)

That parts going a bit far. I'd say logic, especially formal logic, is the most important subset of philosophy, with science coming in at a close second.

Is this gonna turn into a math v physical science debate?

Is this gonna turn into a math v physical science debate?

Given that we've driven off the YECs, I see no reason why it shouldn't.

If evolution is shown to be fully natural, then it removes any teleological basis for believing in God. (i'm not saying that has been shown though)

Interesting.

so let's say that Evolution is shown to be fully natural. How does that remove any (assuming you mean) theological basis for believing in God when it's believed that God created nature?

Maybe. But this only comes from unsolved logical mysteries, such as the problem of evil. Just because there is no official sollution to the problem, doesn't mean he cannot exist.What does the invention of the abrahamic god have to do with logical mysteries? Since when does a fraud deal with any mysteries (that wouldn't even be considered mysteries without the fraud) ?

Interesting.

so let's say that Evolution is shown to be fully natural. How does that remove any (assuming you mean) theological basis for believing in God when it's believed that God created nature?

I don't mean theological (although it does discredit the infalliblity of the Bible, if there is such a thing), I meant the word teleological (i.e. the complexities of life show that there needs to be a creator), at least biologically speaking. If it can be shown that life can form completely naturally, with each aspect of how each part developed solved and explained without mentioning god, then it removes that basis for believing in God.

What does the invention of the abrahamic god have to do with logical mysteries?

You know: things like "how can a all loving God allow evil, can God create a rock so heavy he himself can't lift it [if so he is not all powerful]" and other paradoxes which are usually used to show that the Biblical idea of a loving God cannot exist.


Since when does a fraud deal with any mysteries (that wouldn't even be considered mysteries without the fraud) ?

You have to show it's a fraud first. There is no way to emperically prove this, so people use logic instead.

That parts going a bit far. I'd say logic, especially formal logic, is the most important subset of philosophy, with science coming in at a close second.

And this contradicts what I said how? I didn't say science is the most important. I said I think it is one of the most useful.

Ask 100 different people what the most important subset of philosophy is, and you'll probably get a lot of blank stares and at least 30 different answers.

And this contradicts what I said how? I didn't say science is the most important. I said I think it is one of the most useful.

Ask 100 different people what the most important subset of philosophy is, and you'll probably get a lot of blank stares and at least 30 different answers.

Sorry. I had misread what you said. I also would say that logic is the most useful, as it forms the basis of a lot of math, which forms the basis of a lot of science (at least physics and chemistry). But that's a discussion for another day.

I don't mean theological (although it does discredit the infalliblity of the Bible, if there is such a thing), I meant the word teleological (i.e. the complexities of life show that there needs to be a creator), at least biologically speaking. If it can be shown that life can form completely naturally, with each aspect of how each part developed solved and explained without mentioning god, then it removes that basis for believing in God.

why?

If we, mankind, create a machine that can create and improve other machines, does that discount the idea of a Maker, thousands of generations of machines from now?

If the lifeforms on Earth were designed to evolve from single cell organisims into a myrad of forms with different abilities and shapes in response to environmental influences, sure it would be natural, but being that it was designed to react that way, would not prove/discount an ultimate designer.

hmmm... perhaps this might be better off in another thread...

why?

If we, mankind, create a machine that can create and improve other machines, does that discount the idea of a Maker, thousands of generations of machines from now?

If the lifeforms on Earth were designed to evolve from single cell organisims into a myrad of forms with different abilities and shapes in response to environmental influences, sure it would be natural, but being that it was designed to react that way, would not prove/discount an ultimate designer.

hmmm... perhaps this might be better off in another thread...

No I think it's on topic with this thread.

When I say evolution I mean even the very earliest evolution, where proteins and other atoms in a lake or whatever floated together naturally to form DNA and so on. If it was proven to be possible, then it would remove any evidence of a God that designed life.

Well the amusing thing about it is that one wonders how a transcendental, eternal deity existing outside the bounds of our space and time can be definitively Male.

Is anyone else puzzled and amused by this assertion?

It was a HE? News to me... *enter some sort of The Crying Game joke here*

No I think it's on topic with this thread.

When I say evolution I mean even the very earliest evolution, where proteins and other atoms in a lake floated together naturally to form DNA and so on. If it was proven to be possible, then it would remove any evidence of a God that designed life.

How do you know that IT doesn't have "hand" on those proteins and atoms coming together? How do you know that IT doesn't designed the whole universe to act like this?

Well,... how? Questions of epic transcendental l proportions that exceeds the boundaries of this local universe.

No I think it's on topic with this thread.

When I say evolution I mean even the very earliest evolution, where proteins and other atoms in a lake floated together naturally to form DNA and so on. If it was proven to be possible, then it would remove any evidence of a God that designed life.
Again, no it wouldn't.

How do you know God (or any higher being) made the conditions such to allow those protiens and other elements to combine and start the whole process of life.

That's what makes discounting God impossible. God doesn't easily reveal 'how' He does His work.

Of course, that also makes it impossible to prove God exists. ;)

That's where Faith comes in. It's not Unscientific to have faith and believe in God while researching things.

Well the amusing thing about it is that one wonders how a transcendental, eternal deity existing outside the bounds of our space and time can be definitively Male.

Is anyone else puzzled and amused by this assertion?
I use "HE" because that's how it was written. now does that close my mind to a "She" or "It" (being sexless)? no.

How do you know that IT doesn't have "hand" on those proteins and atoms coming together? How do you know that IT doesn't designed the whole universe to act like this?

Well,... how? Questions of epic transcendental l proportions that exceeds the boundaries of this local universe.

I'm not saying that I know, i'm just saying that there would be no proof.

I use "HE" because that's how it was written. now does that close my mind to a "She" or "It" (being sexless)? no.

The problem with English that it doesn't have a genderless singular subject.

On the other hand, it's a lifesaver to have a gender oriented singular subject in places like Thailand.

Again, no it wouldn't.

How do you know God (or any higher being) made the conditions such to allow those protiens and other elements to combine and start the whole process of life.

That's what makes discounting God impossible. God doesn't easily reveal 'how' He does His work.

Of course, that also makes it impossible to prove God exists. ;)

That's where Faith comes in. It's not Unscientific to have faith and believe in God while researching things.

Yes it would, I said "it would remove any evidence" and you havn't shown how any evidence could exist. We've stepped away from the teleological argument to the cosmological argument which is what you're discussing now. I'm saying that evolution, if proven to be true in all areas, removes the any teleological evidence.

I'm not saying that I know, i'm just saying that there would be no proof.

Yes, there would be no proof to claim for both side,... ingenious isn't it? :)

By the by, do most people believe in coincidences or not?

Uhm, this reminds me of one time I got into one silly debate during college. It's about somebody claims that he's the ultimate observer, and we are merely constructs to support his existence... suffice to say it ended in a deadlock, because it became a philosophical matter rather than a scientific one.

Yes it would, I said "it would remove any evidence" and you havn't shown how any evidence could exist. We've stepped away from the teleological argument to the cosmological argument which is what you're discussing now. I'm saying that evolution, if proven to be true in all areas, removes the any teleological evidence.

Theological as in the modern religions theologies? Well, I must admit, that is true.

But in most cases I see this revered holy books as ... well ... poems that humanizes how things happened.

Yes it would, I said "it would remove any evidence" and you havn't shown how any evidence could exist. We've stepped away from the teleological argument to the cosmological argument which is what you're discussing now. I'm saying that evolution, if proven to be true in all areas, removes the any teleological evidence.

If evolution is shown to be fully natural, then it removes any teleological basis for believing in God. (i'm not saying that has been shown though)

actually you said basis in believing in god. which is more than just evidence. ;)

actually you said basis in believing in god. which is more than just evidence. ;)

I said teleological basis (maybe it was a bad choice of words) i.e. not from any biological basis.

I said teleological basis (maybe it was a bad choice of words) i.e. not from any biological basis.
anywhoo... the only 'evidence' it would remove are those who insist that creation happened as it was written in the Bible.


tho it would be fun to see their reaction. ;)

anywhoo... the only 'evidence' it would remove are those who insist that creation happened as it was written in the Bible.


Or any evidence from intelligent design. Or anyone who uses the teleological argument.

Or any evidence from intelligent design. Or anyone who uses the teleological argument.

Can somebody explain in a nutshell,... what is this Intelligent Design and how does it support the claims of theological creationism?

Can somebody explain in a nutshell,... what is this Intelligent Design and how does it support the claims of theological creationism?

Intelligent design is a theory that God must exist due to the fact that certain aspects of life are too complex to exist naturally. It usually focuses on the complexities of the cell, micro organisms and other complex aspects. It doesn't have anything to do with theological creationism, but people sometimes try and use it to promote it.

Intelligent design is a theory that God must exist due to the fact that certain aspects of life are too complex to exist naturally. It usually focuses on the complexities of the cell, micro organisms and other complex aspects. It doesn't have anything to do with theological creationism, but people sometimes try and use it to promote it.

Ah, kinda like "... because there are infinite number of stars and planet in the universe, there must be a chance that life could also propagate elsewhere than earth..." and some cult uses that like this "...YAAAAAH! CTHULU FTAGHN!"

This is why creationism should be discussed in a theological/philosophical rather than be taught at schools.

About how often do mutations occur?

Extremely often. There's about 50 or so every time your cells undergo meiosis.

Extremely often. There's about 50 or so every time your cells undergo meiosis.

Yet I still don't have laser beams coming out of my eyes. :(

;)

Intelligent design is a theory that God must exist due to the fact that certain aspects of life are too complex to exist naturally. It usually focuses on the complexities of the cell, micro organisms and other complex aspects. It doesn't have anything to do with theological creationism, but people sometimes try and use it to promote it.

Conjecture. It most definately is not a theory, and not even a hypothesis as it makes no prediction.

As such, it is untested conjecture.

Yet I still don't have laser beams coming out of my eyes. :(

;)
See, that's proof of God and His love for humanity right there. You're dangerous enough as is! ;)

It's not necessary to lose a perspective, but to acquire one, to see this bigger picture.


True. This is why, as I said, by my understanding ego is not abandoned or denied, only put in perspective.


No less real, exactly, and no more. The significant realization is not so much a matter of making spirit real as making the "sum zero" real. :)



Okay. I'm not a Christian, so I'll take your word for it.So far, what i'm getting from your angle seems to be similar to Baba Ram Dass and certain Nirvana traits, but i could be wrong.

Intelligent design is a theory that God must exist due to the fact that certain aspects of life are too complex to exist naturally. It usually focuses on the complexities of the cell, micro organisms and other complex aspects. It doesn't have anything to do with theological creationism, but people sometimes try and use it to promote it.

Actually people have argued it is theological creationism repackaged to slip under the radar of the Constitution.

Of the 4 major players of the movement; three are hard core Bible thumpers and the other is a Moonie(go figure).

all these cries of the Evidence of ToE proves that the bible is false, thus God didn't have a hand in creation. go back and read through this thread. you'll find those claims.

I never did. I believe in God and I support Evolution- I view it, like the rest of science, as showing how God did His work. I did make the argument that the scientific method is atheistic, because the scientific method must, by its very nature, reject any supernatural explanation but that doesn't mean science *has* to be atheist- there's nothing preventing anyone from saying that God created all the natural processes and it's up to us to figure it all out; and since science's goal is to explain the natural world, there's no reason for it to venture into the supernatural world.

Neither of the quotes you provided assert that "evolution proves the Bible false."


They're one and the same.

Actually, they are not necessarily. They might both have faith in God, but there are a variety of approaches to search for truth in the material world.


Creationists and ID believers have a range of specific beliefs regarding exactly who or what the Creator/Designer is, and the specific process by which the Creation/Design was implemented. But it's the same concept. The same "theory" that is not remotely worthy to be compared to scientific theory.


You are still using the false dicotomy. It isn't creationism or ID versus the scientific method. They aren't opposed to science, only the fundamental belief that explanations of the origins are not allowed to postulate a god. Such creationist explanations are not necessarily 'scientific', in the sense that no one has a way to test for a god, but it can generate a hypothesis that can be tested. I've already suggested quite a few on this thread.
Note that many of the naturalistic explanations also cannot be directely tested, making them just as non-scientific as any 'goddidit' explanation. Abiogenesis, for example.


And Kec was 100% correct: not a single shred of evidence has been presented to support Creationism or ID. People present lots of beefs about evolutionary biology, but none of these remotely constitute evidence FOR their own alternate idea.

There's the conundrum. Evidence against the adequacy of natural causes is called 'beefs against evolution', and thus 'not a single shred of evidence in support of creationism or ID.' One wonders, then, just what sort of evidence it would take before you would consider the natural causes to be inadequate? A miracle? Your demands are unreasonable. You seemed to have committed yourself to naturalism. Anything you find will always be explained one way or another, but never as evidence against your belief. Thus, you can honestly say, I suppose, that there isn't a single shred of evidence supporting Creationism or ID. I would say you sound like a staunch believer. A fundamentalist, no less.


If you have evidence that supports Creationism/ID, PLEASE PRESENT IT! If you can provide a list of testable hypotheses generated by Creationism/ID, PLEASE PRESENT THEM! I have been begging for such information for a long time now.

Go back and read my posts, if you wish. But I'm not optimistic. I doubt even the appearance of Jesus would convince you. You would probably stop believing your eyes before you stopped having your faith in naturalism.

But how's this for a scenario? Consider the possibility that God created an original pair of elephants. (It is probably a great stretch of the imagination for you, I know, but just humour me with the mental exercise.) Consider also the possibility that macroevolution does not occur. That would mean that no new processes have arisen since creation. I.e., the original elephants would contain more genetic information than the modern elephants, since the only evolutionary processes that have occurred would tend to remove genes. Some gene duplication may have occurred. Chromosomes may have broken and fused, etc. But overall, the level of complexity in the genomes has either decreased or remained stationary, but not increased. (remember, this is all just hypothetically) One way of testing this would be to sequence the genome of both the modern elephant, and an ancient elephant, say, a frozen mammoth. Given that there has been something like 30,000 years since the mammoth was frozen, a comparison of the genome with that of a modern elephant could be quite interesting. Consistent with the creation idea, there should be no evidence of an increase in complexity in the modern elephant genome.

Or this could be extended to dinosaur fossils. Some researchers have found red blood cells in dinosaur fossils, supposedly at least 30 million years old. It would be a matter of finding more fossils from various dates, extracting DNA, and making comparisions. Some creationists would predict that there hasn't been any macroevolution. The naturalists (and perhaps some creationists) would predict that there has. A comparison of the DNA would falsify one of the predictions.

Now, given this scenario, could you imagine an outcome that would support the hypothesis?

Only if you ignore all the thousands of peices of evidence supporting TOE, then you're correct.

Fine. Give an example of your best piece of evidence supporting naturalism (the idea that the only explanation allowed *must* be evolution and long ages), and reasons why you believe it. In fact, I'll make it easier. Give me three of your best examples. And I will go through them and see if they can really be said to support a naturalistic conclusion.



Thank you for proving my point again. Even if there is no definite "natural" explanation at the time, relegating it to a mythical being that, by it's definition can't be disproven, isn't the answer.

Why not? If a 'mythical being' put us here, it would only be allowing for the truth.

If there is no natural explanation for a particular observation, we have to turn to philosophy and speculations. The choice is either a 'mythical being', or a ridiculous improbability. Take your pick. Neither of them can be disproven by the scientific method. Thus, neither of them are in the realm of science.


NOr one that also has no evidence to support it. At least aliens and "alternate universes" can be disproven.

Perhaps you can propose a way to disprove 'alternate universes' or aliens. If not, perhaps you can admit that you believe they can be disproven, but that you don't know how. Or perhaps you don't know what you are talking about .


"Design Theorist" is a contradiction. They have no evidence to support themselves beyond "we don't like the TOE explanation so "goddidit".


How much ID literature have you read, just out of interest? Because when you say things like that, it looks like you haven't read any. Perhaps the only thing that you know about ID is what the critics are saying about it, and not the well-informed critics at that.



Yes it is a "bad thing". There is evidence for evolution. None for "goddidit".

Two things. Firstly, creationism does not rule out evolution, just naturalism.

Secondly, I repeat my challenge. Pick your best evidences for the ToE, and the reasons why you believe it to be evidence for the ToE. Post them here on this thread in a condensed form, and I will review it.

*snip*

What is your base argument here Bruarong?

Are you saying God created all animals as is, that they may have adapted by losing some hair, i.e. woolly mammoth to elephant, but essentially everything was basically pre-created?
Are you saying that evolution is fine, but God initially started the process?
Is it that nothing can be 'proved' so everything has to be considered?

What is your actual position?

Intelligent design is a theory that God must exist due to the fact that certain aspects of life are too complex to exist naturally. It usually focuses on the complexities of the cell, micro organisms and other complex aspects. It doesn't have anything to do with theological creationism, but people sometimes try and use it to promote it.

Not strictly true.

If you hald that everything that has been 'created', was done so with 'design', then you are arguing for a pre-Creation Creator.

That doesn't absolutely equate to a theological creationism argument - but it's close enough to make no difference.

If there is no natural explanation for a particular observation, we have to turn to philosophy and speculations.

Fortunately, there are natural explanations for things like cosmology and evolution, so we can leave the philosophy and speculations alone, right?

You are still using the false dicotomy. It isn't creationism or ID versus the scientific method. They aren't opposed to science, only the fundamental belief that explanations of the origins are not allowed to postulate a god.


This sentence is a masterpiece. You contradict your own assertions.

Your objection is that explanations can't postulate god is the way it is because, you cannot introduce an unfalsifiable quantity into a scientific theory.

That's just how the scientific method 'works'.

If that honestly IS your objection, then you ARE saying that it is 'creationism or ID versus the scientific method'.


There's the conundrum. Evidence against the adequacy of natural causes is called 'beefs against evolution', and thus 'not a single shred of evidence in support of creationism or ID.'

There is no evidence 'against the adequacy of natural causes'. Saying 'you don't know this, yet' is neither evidence, nor comment on adequacy.

On the other hand - there is not a shred of material evidence in support of Creationism. It hinges entirely on on hearsay.

ID is even worse - it hinges on things looking 'designed' to us - which is a ridiculous concept. How the hell would WE know what 'design' looks like?

*snip all the resto fo the nonsense*




Why not? If a 'mythical being' put us here, it would only be allowing for the truth.



And right here, you lose. Thank you. Have a nice day.

What is your base argument here Bruarong?

Are you saying God created all animals as is, that they may have adapted by losing some hair, i.e. woolly mammoth to elephant, but essentially everything was basically pre-created?
Are you saying that evolution is fine, but God initially started the process?
Is it that nothing can be 'proved' so everything has to be considered?

What is your actual position?


I have stated my position as clearly as I can several times already on this thread. But I will have another go at it.

Firstly, the universe is a rational place. By that, I mean that it conducive to a rational investigation. That means we can be sure that every effect has a cause.
Creationism is the philosophy that God is the First Cause. Broadly speaking, creationism holds that God is responsible for the universe, this rational place. Within creationism, there is a good deal of variation. There are those who take a non-science approach, preferring rather to work with the Bible. There are others who prefer to not to let any particular interpretation of the Bible persuade their interpretation of the data that science generates. In other words, within creationism, there are the scientists and the non-scientists.

My own position is that of a scientific one. Although I consider God to be the First Cause, I don't know how he did it. Thus, I'm really not sure if he used evolution, or if he created things suddenly, or some combination of both. That means that when I come to investigation the natural world, I don't assume God did things simply because I want to, or because the naturalistic explanations are lacking. Nor does it mean that I *must* find a naturalistic explanation for everything. It does mean that I question all explanations, particularly by looking to the governing assumptions upon which such explanations rest.

That means, for example, when I hear about how scientists have found red blood cells in dinosaur 'fossils', I don't necessarily conclude that those red blood cells are necessarily 30 million years old. Rather, I also hold the possibility that they are much younger. This isn't, however, what most in the science community have done. The majority believe that dinosaurs became extinct at least 30 million years ago, and thus there must be some natural explanation for the 'wonderfully preserved' dinosaur tissue. Most people aren't wondering (at least not out aloud) whether the tissue really is that old. For me, creationism allows this greater degree of skepticism.

And right here, you lose. Thank you. Have a nice day.

Oh, I see. You aren't interested in the truth??

Ah, remember my post a page or two ago? That logic somehow fails to impress my science teacher.

Who is a Catholic.:upyours:

And loves to teach biology.:confused:

Did I mention we're talking about the second-highest-performing secondary school in New York State?:confused:

:headbang::headbang::headbang:

My Physics teacher is in Opus Dei. He's got us all listening to podcasts about hell and HATES Galileo. He managed to use ionisation to somehow demonstrate transubstanciation (bread=Jesus). And we're one of the best in N.I. supposedly...:confused:

Fortunately, there are natural explanations for things like cosmology and evolution, so we can leave the philosophy and speculations alone, right?

What I mean is situations where the evolutionary story breaks down. If you like, you can of course turn to cosmology. But that would be about as scientific as religion. Most people turn to speculations.

Oh, I see. You aren't interested in the truth??

Show me some evidence for your version of the "truth". There's been tons supporting TOE posted in this thread alone. As an alledged scientist, you should know this but keep denying it in favor of an unsupported belief system that you consider "better".

I asked earlier for evidence, you didn't provide it.

My Physics teacher is in Opus Dei. He's got us all listening to podcasts about hell and HATES Galileo. He managed to use ionisation to somehow demonstrate transubstanciation (bread=Jesus). And we're one of the best in N.I. supposedly...:confused:

Which school is that?

Show me some evidence for your version of the "truth". There's been tons supporting TOE posted in this thread alone. As an alledged scientist, you should know this but keep denying it in favor of an unsupported belief system that you consider "better".

I asked earlier for evidence, you didn't provide it.
I was going to respond to Bru's latest...contribution...but then I realized there's absolutely no point.

Put up or shut up, Bru. If you've got evidence to support your claims, let's hear it.

I was going to respond to Bru's latest...contribution...but then I realized there's absolutely no point.

Put up or shut up, Bru. If you've got evidence to support your claims, let's hear it.

Is it just me or is he using the "God of the Gaps" fallacy?

Is it just me or is he using the "God of the Gaps" fallacy?
And how.

Originally Posted by KennedyJenkins

Did I mention we're talking about the second-highest-performing secondary school in New York State?

Which is? I know Townsend Harris is #1. I guess they don't count the specialized schools.

I'm all for the total and complete eradication of religion. its a plague-no wait it's worse than one.

It's a plague that causes idiocy and makes the human race appear dumber than we are, because we cant get this religion crap out of the way in order to actually do some good!


stem cells and cloning...
will lead to incredible breakthroughs, some of which will change the way we understand the human body. we could cure diseases we thought to be incurable

but, of course, because the religious ass hats get in the way, we cant do anything with these medical breakthroughs.

if religion was eradicated once and for all, the world would become a better place! no more killing people for their faith, people would be more intelligent, and there wouldn't be idiots like W in the office........

besides, religion has killed more people on earth than anything else!

so, liek, no wai, rite? for fuck's sake, GET RID OF DAMN RELIGION


and besides, evolution has evidence, creationism doesnt.

so STFU

if religion was eradicated once and for all, the world would become a better place! no more killing people for their faith, people would be more intelligent, and there wouldn't be idiots like W in the office........

While tempting, I do somewhat fear that the quote "humans need fantasies to be human" (Pratchett) has a grain of truth in it. It is possible humans need stories to be able to create.

While tempting, I do somewhat fear that the quote "humans need fantasies to be human" (Pratchett) has a grain of truth in it. It is possible humans need stories to be able to create.

They need to understand that they are in fact fantasies however

This sentence is a masterpiece. You contradict your own assertions.

Your objection is that explanations can't postulate god is the way it is because, you cannot introduce an unfalsifiable quantity into a scientific theory.

You cannot introduce non-testible ideas into the scientific method But you can introduce them into the scientific theory, if the theory can be taken as the broader philosophical assumptions upon which science rests.

Much of the speculations over things like the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolutionary theory have to be recognised as non-scientific, since cannot directly test them. We can only construct scenarios, make predictions based on those scenarios, and then test them. And that is precisely how science works. And in this way, it is possible to test a whole range of predictions that are based on non-testible concepts, like naturalism or creation.



There is no evidence 'against the adequacy of natural causes'. Saying 'you don't know this, yet' is neither evidence, nor comment on adequacy.

I agree with ignorance being an inadequate evidence for the inadequacy of natural causes. Saying 'we don't know yet' does not equal 'God must have done it'. But that was never my position.

On the other hand, the position of 'we don't know yet, but one day we will' is also an unsatisfactory reason to rule out God.

Thus, with so much ignorance floating around, the scientific conclusion is 'we don't know'. Since most people are not satisfied with that, philosophical speculations and scenarios have arisen. Such scenarios allow for predictions that can be tested. Falsifying a prediction doesn't falsify the philosophical position necessarily. Hence there cannot be any direct evidence against the adequacy of natural causes, or as God as the cause. Only arguments.




On the other hand - there is not a shred of material evidence in support of Creationism. It hinges entirely on on hearsay.


But what would you consider evidence supporting Creationism? What data could you imagine that the scientific procedure could generate that would support this philosophical position?


ID is even worse - it hinges on things looking 'designed' to us - which is a ridiculous concept. How the hell would WE know what 'design' looks like?

That's been answered many times before. We recognise design by distinguishing it from non-design. There are several ways to do this. Such tactics are employed by the army, SETI, criminal investigators, etc.

You cannot introduce non-testible ideas into the scientific method But you can introduce them into the scientific theory, if the theory can be taken as the broader philosophical assumptions upon which science rests.

So basically you're saying you just want to make shit up and claim it as "science". Gotcha.

Much of the speculations over things like the big bang, abiogenesis, and evolutionary theory have to be recognised as non-scientific, since cannot directly test them. We can only construct scenarios, make predictions based on those scenarios, and then test them. And that is precisely how science works. And in this way, it is possible to test a whole range of predictions that are based on non-testible concepts, like naturalism or creation.

BS. Most of the "speculations" are based on the evidence available. Try again.




I agree with ignorance being an inadequate evidence for the inadequacy of natural causes. Saying 'we don't know yet' does not equal 'God must have done it'. But that was never my position.

On the other hand, the position of 'we don't know yet, but one day we will' is also an unsatisfactory reason to rule out God.

So once again you're admitting you want to add in completely untestable beliefs and call it "science".

Thus, with so much ignorance floating around, the scientific conclusion is 'we don't know'. Since most people are not satisfied with that, philosophical speculations and scenarios have arisen. Such scenarios allow for predictions that can be tested. Falsifying a prediction doesn't falsify the philosophical position necessarily. Hence there cannot be any direct evidence against the adequacy of natural causes, or as God as the cause. Only arguments.

Yet those "philisophical speculations" have no evidence to support them. Until then, it's not "science".






But what would you consider evidence supporting Creationism? What data could you imagine that the scientific procedure could generate that would support this philosophical position?

Translation: There is no evidence but I'm going to beleive it anyway.



That's been answered many times before. We recognise design by distinguishing it from non-design. There are several ways to do this. Such tactics are employed by the army, SETI, criminal investigators, etc.

All of which have evidence of designers. Organics, which have been observed changing w/o a "designer" have no such evidence to support your claims.

So basically you're saying you just want to make shit up and claim it as "science". Gotcha.


BS. Most of the "speculations" are based on the evidence available. Try again.


So once again you're admitting you want to add in completely untestable beliefs and call it "science".


Yet those "philisophical speculations" have no evidence to support them. Until then, it's not "science".


Translation: There is no evidence but I'm going to beleive it anyway.


All of which have evidence of designers. Organics, which have been observed changing w/o a "designer" have no such evidence to support your claims.
Spot on.

Really, all I hear from him is, "I don't want to actually have to do the hard work a scientist does, but I want to get equal credit and equal respect."

Sure, and I want a toilet made of solid gold. But it's just not in the cards.

But what would you consider evidence supporting Creationism? What data could you imagine that the scientific procedure could generate that would support this philosophical position?

The involvement of supernatural entities is not testable through the scientific method. So (as said countless times already) it may be true, but it is not science.

If you however wish to state that a specific non-scientific creation story is correct you will have to devise a way to show it is superior to the other non-scientific stories. What you would consider evidence is up to you - and I would love to see it in fact.

That's been answered many times before. We recognise design by distinguishing it from non-design. There are several ways to do this. Such tactics are employed by the army, SETI, criminal investigators, etc.

And you KNOW why these methods are invalid for biological organisms.
So why do you put it forward ?

Spot on.

Really, all I hear from him is, "I don't want to actually have to do the hard work a scientist does, but I want to get equal credit and equal respect."

Sure, and I want a toilet made of solid gold. But it's just not in the cards.

My debt to you is repaid. I've got to clean pepsi off the my monitor...

I was going to respond to Bru's latest...contribution...but then I realized there's absolutely no point.

Put up or shut up, Bru. If you've got evidence to support your claims, let's hear it.


Here is an interesting snip.

''Coding of multiple proteins by overlapping reading frames is not a feature one would associate with eukaryotic genes. Indeed, codependency between codons of overlapping protein-coding regions imposes a unique set of evolutionary constraints, making it a costly arrangement.

Yet in cases of tightly coexpressed interacting proteins, dual coding may be advantageous. Here we show that although dual coding is nearly impossible by chance, a number of human transcripts contain overlapping coding regions.

Using newly developed statistical techniques, we identified 40 candidate genes with evolutionarily conserved overlapping coding regions. Because our approach is conservative, we expect mammals to possess more dual-coding genes.

Our results emphasize that the skepticism surrounding eukaryotic dual coding is unwarranted: rather than being artifacts, overlapping reading frames are often hallmarks of fascinating biology. ''

(Wen-Yu Chung, Samir Wadhawan, Radek Szklarczyk, Sergei Kosakovsky Pond, Anton Nekrutenko, "A First Look at ARFome: Dual-Coding Genes in Mammalian Genomes," PLOS Computational Biology, Vol. 3(5) (May, 2007), emphasis added.)

Did you get that? Their conclusion is that these dual-coding genes is nearly impossible. Given that we know quite a lot about mutation and natural selection, should we be waiting for a new natural cause that would explain these dual-coding genes? They even mention the 'skepticism surrounding eukaryotic dual coding.' Why? Because it doesn't fit in with the Darwinistic ideal that lots of tiny undirected changes can account for everything if given enough time. Hence the skepticism over the existence of such genes. Turns out that they are real enough.

But I suppose you don't consider that even a shred of evidence of design. My guess is that you are going to wait for another natural cause to turn up.

But I suppose you don't consider that even a shred of evidence of design.

Indeed not. It is clear evidence of divine farting.

Unless you can explain why intelligent design is a better explanation ?

*Snip*

But I suppose you don't consider that even a shred of evidence of design. My guess is that you are going to wait for another natural cause to turn up.

No, it's not evidence for "creationism" or "design". It's a "we're not quite sure yet".

Evidence against TOE /= evidence for creationism. As a scientist, you should know that.

No, it's not evidence for "creationism" or "design". It's a "we're not quite sure yet".

Evidence against TOE /= evidence for creationism. As a scientist, you should know that.

Anybody know what kind of scientist he is? Because he sure as hell isn't one I've ever come across before, you know, saying that something can be a theory while forgoing the scientific method and all. Basically, completely ignoring the process of how theories are formed.

It confuses me so.

I'm all for the total and complete eradication of religion. its a plague-no wait it's worse than one.

It's a plague that causes idiocy and makes the human race appear dumber than we are, because we cant get this religion crap out of the way in order to actually do some good!


stem cells and cloning...
will lead to incredible breakthroughs, some of which will change the way we understand the human body. we could cure diseases we thought to be incurable

but, of course, because the religious ass hats get in the way, we cant do anything with these medical breakthroughs.

if religion was eradicated once and for all, the world would become a better place! no more killing people for their faith, people would be more intelligent, and there wouldn't be idiots like W in the office........

besides, religion has killed more people on earth than anything else!

so, liek, no wai, rite? for fuck's sake, GET RID OF DAMN RELIGION


and besides, evolution has evidence, creationism doesnt.

so STFU

That's a pretty broad brush you're painting with there. Do you really believe that all religions are the same as Christian Fundamentalism? I've never seen a Buddhist arguing for Intelligent Design. In fact many religious people do believe in evolution.
As for religion causing murders through out history, humans beings kill for many reasons, not just religion. We kill people on the basis of skin color, family name, what language they speak, social class, resourses they possess and yes, beliefs (or lack thereof). You take away religion, we would just find something else to kill each other over. Read The Lathe of Heaven by Ursula K. Le Guin sometime.
And as for W, ignorant people will still vote in idiots with or without religion. Religious fanaticism is not the disease but the symptom. Ignorance is the disease.

Here is an interesting snip.


Dear, dear. If you're going to cut and paste your arguments from www.evolutionnews.org, you should either leave their bolded text in place, or remove the bit that says 'emphasis added'.

Also, while it does mention the 'skepticism surrounding eukaryotic dual coding', it also describes that skepticism as 'unwarranted'.

Dear, dear. If you're going to cut and paste your arguments from www.evolutionnews.org, you should either leave their bolded text in place, or remove the bit that says 'emphasis added'.

Also, while it does mention the 'skepticism surrounding eukaryotic dual coding', it also describes that skepticism as 'unwarranted'.

Ah, that explains it. A group that consideres Behe to be a legitimate scientist. No wonder Braurong quoted from them, he also beleives fantasy should be added to science.

He has a BS in BS. :D

Another thread win for the Goof.

EDIT: It's just a jump to the left...

Anybody know what kind of scientist he is?

He has a BS in BS. :D

I never did. I believe in God and I support Evolution- I view it, like the rest of science, as showing how God did His work. I did make the argument that the scientific method is atheistic, because the scientific method must, by its very nature, reject any supernatural explanation but that doesn't mean science *has* to be atheist- there's nothing preventing anyone from saying that God created all the natural processes and it's up to us to figure it all out; and since science's goal is to explain the natural world, there's no reason for it to venture into the supernatural world.

Actually, the scientific method is agnostic. It cannot answer questions about the existence or non-existence of the divine. Thus, it relies on no assumptions about said existence/non-existence. Science doesn't have to reject supernatural explanations (nor does it accept them) - it does nothing with them at all, as science cannot be used in the supernatural realm. The supernatural is irrelevant in scientific examination.

You want to pretend that macroevolution does not happen Bru..
ok that is a hypothetical. But are you going to use the scientific term for
microevolution or the (fake) one used by creationist to fill gaps in their logic?

So the theory is that two elephants(mammoths) blessed by the holy father
started running around one day and -oops- there went some of our dna... now we lost our hair and have to migrate south (hypothetically) of course.
So what about deinotheres and other Elephant(like) species that are extinct now, some of which that had drastically different bone structure and a DNA strand a little more far removed that a mammoth. What about Mastadons who are about as close to an elephant as a mammoth is for your argument anyway. Or will you say that Mastadons are just the Mexican hairless variety of Mammoth. No Macroevolution is a way of saying since you cannot argue evolution then to just pretend it does not exist and insert a false terminology for Microevolution to try and force people through the misuse of terms to believe something obviously false. If I (pretend) there is no such thing as gasoline and then refuse to pump anything other than holy water into my engine(theoretically) bad things are gonna happen( in theory).. bad things.

As for dual coding somehow proving ID the paper if anything is simply verifies there is random variation and selection. No one argues against dual coding being rare but most of those same people don't support ID or creationism.

Has there ever actually been a scientist on NSG, whats with all the wannabe scientists?

Has there ever actually been a scientist on NSG, whats with all the wannabe scientists?

*shifts uncomfortably* No. No scientists.

*plays in mud*

If by scientist you mean someone who engages in scientific research - no doubt. Plenty of college students after all, and some of those do tend to grow up to be scientists.
Of course, unless they are willing to share their identity you can never be certain ;)

But even so, some of the people here are acting as if they have been in science for over 20 years.

*shifts uncomfortably* No. No scientists.

*plays in mud*

Oh yeah, arn't you a physicist?! :eek:

Has there ever actually been a scientist on NSG

If by scientist you mean someone who engages in scientific research - no doubt. Plenty of college students after all, and some of those do tend to grow up to be scientists.
Of course, unless they are willing to share their identity you can never be certain ;)

You cannot introduce non-testible ideas into the scientific method But you can introduce them into the scientific theory, if the theory can be taken as the broader philosophical assumptions upon which science rests.

(a) A scientific theory is drawn from the scientific method. One cannot introduce untestable ideas into a scientific theory without introducing them into the scientific method.

(b) The "broader philosophical assumptions upon which science rests" are not scientific theories. Theories are derived from science - not the other way around. There certainly are philosophical axioms in which the scientific method is based. Adding to those axioms, however, creates a new philosophical construct that is no longer science.

But what would you consider evidence supporting Creationism? What data could you imagine that the scientific procedure could generate that would support this philosophical position?

That's just it. It is impossible to collect empirical evidence of a supernatural Creator. Thus, Creationism, in any of its many forms, can never be scientific. A person who follows the scientific method in scientific examinations can certainly personally believe that there is a Creator, but that assumption can never be a basis on which their science rests.

That's been answered many times before. We recognise design by distinguishing it from non-design. There are several ways to do this. Such tactics are employed by the army, SETI, criminal investigators, etc.

And they are all based on what Human Beings design. That gives us absolutely nothing to go on in looking for design by a supernatural being. And, in the case of SETI, it gives us very little to go on in the search for other intelligent life. If that other life is not very similar to us, their designs could be staring us in the face and we wouldn't have the first clue.

Oh yeah, arn't you a physicist?! :eek:

I have a bachelor's degree, I do my best to keep current and I mess around with theories and calculations, but I discovered long ago that I have little patience for the industries that employ physicists. So I specialize in physical comedy. :)

Uh oh, Bru's gettin desperate, slippin up, makin mistakes. Next thing you know he'll reveal his creator to be Felix the Cat.


Fuck Felix. Eek! The Cat could kick his ass anyday. Hear that, Bru!? Fuck Felix! *shakes a fist*

I have a bachelor's degree, I do my best to keep current and I mess around with theories and calculations, but I discovered long ago that I have little patience for the industries that employ physicists. So I specialize in physical comedy. :)

You're clearly an Awesome Pirate Science Ninja Clown.

You're clearly an Awesome Pirate Science Ninja Clown.

One of my best friends called me a 'modern Renaissance Man'. I corrected him by saying that I just have a short attention span. :)

One of my best friends called me a 'modern Renaissance Man'. I corrected him by saying that I just have a short attention span. :)

Undergraduate research is fun. I'm hoping that post-doc research is equally fun, and not the severe pain in the ass it seems to be for my boss frequently.

I have a bachelor's degree, I do my best to keep current and I mess around with theories and calculations, but I discovered long ago that I have little patience for the industries that employ physicists. So I specialize in physical comedy. :)
a field of endevor that is so hard to master and easy to fail at.

That's just it. It is impossible to collect empirical evidence of a supernatural Creator. Thus, Creationism, in any of its many forms, can never be scientific. A person who follows the scientific method in scientific examinations can certainly personally believe that there is a Creator, but that assumption can never be a basis on which their science rests.


I always get suspicious whenever I hear the words "it is impossible." It may not be possible YET or we may not have figure out how, or perhaps the speaker has merely rejected evidence to the contrary. In my experience, there's never been a less reliable statement than "It is impossible."

Examples:

"It is impossible for man to fly."
"It is impossible to travel faster than sound."
"It is impossible for a human to survive speeds faster than 25mph." - (Referencing the reported speeds of early locomotives.)

I always get suspicious whenever I hear the words "it is impossible." It may not be possible YET or we may not have figure out how, or perhaps the speaker has merely rejected evidence to the contrary. In my experience, there's never been a less reliable statement than "It is impossible."

The impossibility however is by design in this case. If one wants a system that can include the supernatural - one needs to design a new system.

Has there ever actually been a scientist on NSG, whats with all the wannabe scientists?

LG apparently. And Bottle is some manner of biologist. Neuroscience I think.

The impossibility however is by design in this case. If one wants a system that can include the supernatural - one needs to design a new system.

I don't think that's necessarily so. The system is meant to be completely neurtal and objective, and I don't believe that disqualifies it in a case like this.

LG apparently. And Bottle is some manner of biologist. Neuroscience I think.

Wow, I'm an idiot. I sat here for a good solid minute, thinking "... She studies the brains of plants...?" before I realized "Oh, BIOLOGIST. Fucking botanists."

Wow, I'm an idiot. I sat here for a good solid minute, thinking "... She studies the brains of plants...?" before I realized "Oh, BIOLOGIST. Fucking botanists."

Silly Szanth, plants don't have brains :p

Has there ever actually been a scientist on NSG, whats with all the wannabe scientists?Ask me that question in exactly a year when (hopefully) I'll be waving a BSc in Biochemistry with Honours at you.

I don't think that's necessarily so. The system is meant to be completely neurtal and objective, and I don't believe that disqualifies it in a case like this.

But he's not suggesting neutrality. He's suggesting everything we have with science, but tacking on the backdrop of "Goddidit" behind everything, and making the explanation "goddidit" a valid scientific answer.

Science is doing just fine -without- the "goddidit" subtext that he proposes. There's no reason to use it. At all. Using "goddidit" is the opposite of neutral. Until we have conclusive proof there even IS a supernatural being, an afterlife, a god, anything like that, science shouldn't even consider the possibility - he argues that with a system that ignores the possibility of a supernatural explanation, we will never find a supernatural explanation - but the answer is that we will never find it because it's not there unless we put it there in the first place with our own bias.

God is not something we can study. Therefore, it's ridiculous to suggest we add god into science in any way at all.

Silly Szanth, plants don't have brains :p

I know it.

Well, maybe that one from Little Shop of Horrors. That might've had a brain. At least it might've eaten one at one point.

he argues that with a system that ignores the possibility of a supernatural explanation, we will never find a supernatural explanation

Yet carefully ignores that if one would allow supernatural explanations, one needs to in principle allow all - and then devise a way to determine which ones are more "valid". You believe humans could not have evolved ? Fine - Peter says god farted. Mary says we were created in Gods image. Douglas says we are insignificant parts of a planetary supercomputer built for the sake of mice.

How are you going to determine who is right ? Until you can answer that, there is no place for your pet hypothesis in science.

But he's not suggesting neutrality. He's suggesting everything we have with science, but tacking on the backdrop of "Goddidit" behind everything, and making the explanation "goddidit" a valid scientific answer.

Science is doing just fine -without- the "goddidit" subtext that he proposes. There's no reason to use it. At all. Using "goddidit" is the opposite of neutral. Until we have conclusive proof there even IS a supernatural being, an afterlife, a god, anything like that, science shouldn't even consider the possibility - he argues that with a system that ignores the possibility of a supernatural explanation, we will never find a supernatural explanation - but the answer is that we will never find it because it's not there unless we put it there in the first place with our own bias.

God is not something we can study. Therefore, it's ridiculous to suggest we add god into science in any way at all.

I see the point you're making, but what I'm saying is that the system you're describing is specifically limiting its frame of reference to exclude any conclusion that points to the existence or activity of any supernatural source. To me, that's an inherent mistake. To be truly scientific, one must go wherever the data leads them, and if they hit the "No God, please" wall before achieving a final conclusion, then the frame of reference needs to be expanded.

No offense, but consider your phrase "he argues that with a system that ignores the possibility of a supernatural explanation, we will never find a supernatural explanation - but the answer is that we will never find it because it's not there unless we put it there in the first place with our own bias." as being an inherently biased phrase, only for the opposing argument. You've entered into the thought process with the preconceived notion that there can be no supernatural explanation which, naturally, will color your interpretations and conclusions.

To be truly scientific, one must go wherever the data leads them, and if they hit the "No God, please" wall before achieving a final conclusion, then the frame of reference needs to be expanded

Then by all means, do so. Devise a way to determine which supernatural explanation is the right one. Nice sideeffect would be unifying the worlds religions under the banner of the Truth.

Good luck, future Prophet.

Yet carefully ignores that if one would allow supernatural explanations, one needs to in principle allow all - and then devise a way to determine which ones are more "valid". You believe humans could not have evolved ? Fine - Peter says god farted. Mary says we were created in Gods image. Douglas says we are insignificant parts of a planetary supercomputer built for the sake of mice.

How are you going to determine who is right ? Until you can answer that, there is no place for your pet hypothesis in science.

Obviously, Douglas nailed it.

I see the point you're making, but what I'm saying is that the system you're describing is specifically limiting its frame of reference to exclude any conclusion that points to the existence or activity of any supernatural source. To me, that's an inherent mistake. To be truly scientific, one must go wherever the data leads them, and if they hit the "No God, please" wall before achieving a final conclusion, then the frame of reference needs to be expanded.

No offense, but consider your phrase "he argues that with a system that ignores the possibility of a supernatural explanation, we will never find a supernatural explanation - but the answer is that we will never find it because it's not there unless we put it there in the first place with our own bias." as being an inherently biased phrase, only for the opposing argument. You've entered into the thought process with the preconceived notion that there can be no supernatural explanation which, naturally, will color your interpretations and conclusions.

No, I'm open to the possibility of the supernatural occurring. I do not, however, believe that once that occurance happens, we can measure, predict, experiment, theorize, or find hard evidence of it through science.

Hypothetically speaking, even if we WERE to admit the supernatural into science, we would have to exhaust every single possible form of natural experimentation and possibility before moving onto the supernatural possibility - since our scientific technology is growing at an exponential rate, we are nowhere NEAR coming to our peak of scientific ability. Therefore, we can not, right now, investigate the entirety of the universe and all its natural possibilities yet, which means we would still not be able to assume supernatural possibility because we're still trying to work on the natural (and more likely) possibilities first.

i think that we shoud let evolution take it,s toll on the earth
creationis dum. just let stuff be

My preference for science over gibberish leads me to favour evolutionary biology over creation myths.

The term "evolutionist" is ridiculous, however, as it implies that "evolution" is some kind of ideology, whereas in reality it is a process by which organisms adapt over generations.

If your under the impression that calling religion "gibberish" makes you seem smart, independent, and down to earth your dead wrong. It actually makes seem like a closed minded jackass.

No, I'm open to the possibility of the supernatural occurring. I do not, however, believe that once that occurance happens, we can measure, predict, experiment, theorize, or find hard evidence of it through science.


What do you base that belief on?

Then by all means, do so. Devise a way to determine which supernatural explanation is the right one. Nice sideeffect would be unifying the worlds religions under the banner of the Truth.

Good luck, future Prophet.

You know, as long as people take that attitude, no progress can be made. Are you suggesting that science limits its frame of reference as a matter of convenience?

Has there ever actually been a scientist on NSG, whats with all the wannabe scientists?
I've got half a degree in Geology, if that helps.
And they are all based on what Human Beings design. That gives us absolutely nothing to go on in looking for design by a supernatural being. And, in the case of SETI, it gives us very little to go on in the search for other intelligent life. If that other life is not very similar to us, their designs could be staring us in the face and we wouldn't have the first clue.
See 'What does a Martian Look Like? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolving_the_Alien:_The_Science_of_Extraterrestrial_Life)' for a very good discussion on this subject.
I know it.

Well, maybe that one from Little Shop of Horrors. That might've had a brain. At least it might've eaten one at one point.
Lets not forget our friend the Triffid.

With seventy-five pages of replies this has probably already been mentioned, but I haven't seen it: are evolution and divine creation really separate? My thought has always been, "Organisms evolve, God created the world, so God created evolution". Why would he have to violate His own laws of nature, which evolution apparently is?

Addendum: Seventy-six pages of replies (I really need to get a life).

You know, as long as people take that attitude, no progress can be made.

Sure it can - just within limits. Limits we are currently not even close to approaching.

Are you suggesting that science limits its frame of reference as a matter of convenience?

Necessity rather than convienence - but basicly, yes.
If you can find a way to test the supernatural the frame of reference can be expanded. As long as we cannot, we cannot include it without making the whole method useless. And till that day, "a god farted" remains an equally valid explanation as "God carefully designed us".

Sure it can - just within limits. Limits we are currently not even close to approaching.

I disagree. Any time you limit your frame of reference in science-especially when you can't conclusively say that the frame of reference even SHOULD be limited-you're hobbling yourself.


Necessity rather than convienence - but basicly, yes.
If you can find a way to test the supernatural the frame of reference can be expanded. As long as we cannot, we cannot include it without making the whole method useless. And till that day, "a god farted" remains an equally valid explanation as "God carefully designed us".

If the frame of reference is never expanded to include that possibility, how WOULD you find a way to test for it? For all we know, such tests COULD already be done but because people start off with that limitation, it would never be known.

I disagree. Any time you limit your frame of reference in science-especially when you can't conclusively say that the frame of reference even SHOULD be limited-you're hobbling yourself.

Correct. And yet it works. Better than the alternatives ever did.

If the frame of reference is never expanded to include that possibility, how WOULD you find a way to test for it? For all we know, such tests COULD already be done but because people start off with that limitation, it would never be known.

Which is where people like you come in. People that are willing to attempt to widen the horizons. People that are - as I said - willing to become the future Prophet that will finally settle the question of religion.
Devise a working system and people will use it.

I disagree. Any time you limit your frame of reference in science-especially when you can't conclusively say that the frame of reference even SHOULD be limited-you're hobbling yourself.



If the frame of reference is never expanded to include that possibility, how WOULD you find a way to test for it? For all we know, such tests COULD already be done but because people start off with that limitation, it would never be known.

You've got it backwards. You can't include supernatural explanations without some way of objectively and empirically testing for supernatural explanations, and until that methodology can be developed there is no point in expanding the frame of reference.

If that weren't the case, ALL supernatural explanations would be valid by default, because there's no way to test their accuracy and inaccuracy. So for now, we stick to objective, empirical testing of natural and observable phenomena, and leave the supernatural to philosophy and theology.

Really, until someone builds a god-detector (and I'm not being 100% facetious and sarcastic here) we shouldn't include it into our methods, just like how until we can actually test the predictions of string theory that look "solid" on paper, many respected physicists in the community (my boss included) will not accept it as proper science, no matter how popular it is among the laypeople.

If you can find a way to test the supernatural the frame of reference can be expanded. As long as we cannot, we cannot include it without making the whole method useless. And till that day, "a god farted" remains an equally valid explanation as "God carefully designed us".

If you can test the supernatural then it's not supernatural, surely?

If you can test the supernatural then it's not supernatural, surely?

Well....umm....hmm.........guess you've got a point there.

You've got it backwards. You can't include supernatural explanations without some way of objectively and empirically testing for supernatural explanations, and until that methodology can be developed there is no point in expanding the frame of reference.

If that weren't the case, ALL supernatural explanations would be valid by default, because there's no way to test their accuracy and inaccuracy. So for now, we stick to objective, empirical testing of natural and observable phenomena, and leave the supernatural to philosophy and theology.

Really, until someone builds a god-detector (and I'm not being 100% facetious and sarcastic here) we shouldn't include it into our methods, just like how until we can actually test the predictions of string theory that look "solid" on paper, many respected physicists in the community (my boss included) will not accept it as proper science, no matter how popular it is among the laypeople.

I see your point, but again, limiting one's frame of reference doesn't somehow preserve the purity of the scientific method.

Take a hypothetical scenario: God DOES exist and created the world, etc. How, given the limitations you're imposing, would we discover that? If the underlying assumption is that God had nothing to do with any of it, you'd have already rejected the very answer.

Now, I know that most of you folks do not believe in God in the first place and that's fine, but my point is that you just can't justify putting up a forcefield against a possible solution just because it offends your personal sensibilities. Isn't the scientific method, by definition, supposed to be completely devoid of such personal biases?

If you can test the supernatural then it's not supernatural, surely?

yet we test the supernatural almost every day. :p

i think that we shoud let evolution take it,s toll on the earth
creationis dum. just let stuff beYou created a nation just for the purpose of posting this ? :confused: :rolleyes:

I see your point, but again, limiting one's frame of reference doesn't somehow preserve the purity of the scientific method.

Take a hypothetical scenario: God DOES exist and created the world, etc. How, given the limitations you're imposing, would we discover that? If the underlying assumption is that God had nothing to do with any of it, you'd have already rejected the very answer.

Now, I know that most of you folks do not believe in God in the first place and that's fine, but my point is that you just can't justify putting up a forcefield against a possible solution just because it offends your personal sensibilities. Isn't the scientific method, by definition, supposed to be completely devoid of such personal biases?

You're missing the point. If God DOES exist and created the world, we've need some way to definitely and empirically prove that. Otherwise you'd be inserting conjecture into a theory where it has no place.

You're missing the point. If God DOES exist and created the world, we've need some way to definitely and empirically prove that. Otherwise you'd be inserting conjecture into a theory where it has no place.

I'm not missing your point, although I can see why it looks that way.

What I'm getting at is that such a way to prove it COULD exist, maybe does already, but as long as people impose limits on what they're prepared to accept and what they're pot prepared to, such a way would be irrelevant because it would be dismissed by those who have limited their frame of reference to exclude such things.

If you can test the supernatural then it's not supernatural, surely?

Exactly ;)

I'm not missing your point, although I can see why it looks that way.

What I'm getting at is that such a way to prove it COULD exist, maybe does already, but as long as people impose limits on what they're prepared to accept and what they're pot prepared to, such a way would be irrelevant because it would be dismissed by those who have limited their frame of reference to exclude such things.
There is no way to prove that something COULD exist. You could only prove that the preconditions for that something to exist DO exist.

There is no way to prove that something COULD exist. You could only prove that the preconditions for that something to exist DO exist.

I think you're missing my point :)

If you can test the supernatural then it's not supernatural, surely?Once you can test the supernatural then it's not supernatural any more.

Take a hypothetical scenario: God DOES exist and created the world, etc. How, given the limitations you're imposing, would we discover that?

Nope. But the scientific method does not aim for the best possible answer - merely for the best testable answer.

Now, I know that most of you folks do not believe in God in the first place and that's fine, but my point is that you just can't justify putting up a forcefield against a possible solution just because it offends your personal sensibilities.

You mean like creationists and ID proponents do ;) ?

Seriously, ID proponents (including Bruarong) have a point when they point out that ID and science had some similarities in this area: both limit themselves and draw conclusions based on that reference frame. The difference is that the scientific frame actually produces useable results. That does not make it "right", but it is at least something.

Nope. But the scientific method does not aim for the best possible answer - merely for the best testable answer.That is the best possible answer. Other answers are just speculations.

Once you can test the supernatural then it's not supernatural any more.

Which is saying the same thing in a different tense.

That is the best possible answer. Other answers are just speculations.

Depends on your point of view. Some might believe the best possible answer is the correct one, even if there is no way to test for it.

Depends on your point of view. Some might believe the best possible answer is the correct one, even if there is no way to test for it.Well, possible for whom?

Nope. But the scientific method does not aim for the best possible answer - merely for the best testable answer.


And I think at this point we reach our impasse, because I contend that people deliberately limit what tests will be used in making that determination, and they do it articifially.


You mean like creationists and ID proponents do ;) ?

Seriously, ID proponents (including Bruarong) have a point when they point out that ID and science had some similarities in this area: both limit themselves and draw conclusions based on that reference frame. The difference is that the scientific frame actually produces useable results. That does not make it "right", but it is at least something.

I agree in that both sides do that. It's what makes it so hard to find useful objective data.

My gripe is that those who support ID are routinely expected to consider the possibiliy that there's no God, and yet supporters of Evolution scoff at the mere suggestion of considering the possibility that there is. It's a double standard.

I always get suspicious whenever I hear the words "it is impossible." It may not be possible YET or we may not have figure out how, or perhaps the speaker has merely rejected evidence to the contrary. In my experience, there's never been a less reliable statement than "It is impossible."

Examples:

"It is impossible for man to fly."
"It is impossible to travel faster than sound."
"It is impossible for a human to survive speeds faster than 25mph." - (Referencing the reported speeds of early locomotives.)

In this case, however, it is impossible by definition. If the word travel were defined as "moving slower than sound", then it would be impossible to travel faster than sound.

Empirical evidence is, by definition, limited to this universe, as is the logical process known as the scientific method. As such, it is impossible to investigate the supernatural empirically or with the scientific method, just as it is impossible to form a spherical cube.

LG apparently. And Bottle is some manner of biologist. Neuroscience I think.

And I'm a bioengineer, with my current research centered on stem cells.

I don't think that's necessarily so. The system is meant to be completely neurtal and objective, and I don't believe that disqualifies it in a case like this.

The system is meant to be neutral and objective, but is still limited, as is any system. Science is limited both by the fact that we can only measure that which is within the universe and the fact that the scientific method ceases to be logical outside of a deterministic universe.

What do you base that belief on?

The fact that anything supernatural is, by definition, outside our universe. We are limited by our universe, as is the scientific method. As such, we cannot measure it or test for it.

In this case, however, it is impossible by definition. If the word travel were defined as "moving slower than sound", then it would be impossible to travel faster than sound.

Empirical evidence is, by definition, limited to this universe, as is the logical process known as the scientific method. As such, it is impossible to investigate the supernatural empirically or with the scientific method, just as it is impossible to form a spherical cube.

I disagree.

The reason I disagree is that I think the separation between what we'd consider "natural" and "supernatural" is arbitrary. If supernatural is that which we can't scientifically measure and record then I say the definition works the other way, since there are plenty of things that once were considered supernatural that are now perfectly measurable and understandable using established scientific methods.

Examples: Disease, weather, astronomy

Some say it's possible to measure and record the presence of ghosts. If true, then that starts to bring ghosts from the realm of the supernatural into the natural.

So when someone says "it's impossible to measure/prove God scientifically" I am not convinced.

If you can test the supernatural then it's not supernatural, surely?

Precisely. If we can test it, then it is within and bound by the rules of the same universe that we are within and bound by. As such, it is not supernatural.

The system is meant to be neutral and objective, but is still limited, as is any system. Science is limited both by the fact that we can only measure that which is within the universe and the fact that the scientific method ceases to be logical outside of a deterministic universe.


I disagree. I think the only thing holding us back from measuring tings outside our universe is a lack of knowledge of how it would be done. IMHO it's only a matter of time before we can. That doesn't make it impossible, unless you're specifically restricting your statement to "right now this minute" in which case I won't dispute it.

...assuming we have a complete knowledge of just how far human technology and scientific understanding actually goes... which I don't think we do.


The fact that anything supernatural is, by definition, outside our universe. We are limited by our universe, as is the scientific method. As such, we cannot measure it or test for it.

First let me ask you: Are you responding on your own behalf, or Szanth's?

In any case, my response is that I don't agree with that definition. There are plenty of things that one might consider supernatural that, if they are indeed real, are perfectly within this universe, such as psychic phenomena.

I see your point, but again, limiting one's frame of reference doesn't somehow preserve the purity of the scientific method.

Take a hypothetical scenario: God DOES exist and created the world, etc. How, given the limitations you're imposing, would we discover that? If the underlying assumption is that God had nothing to do with any of it, you'd have already rejected the very answer.

Now, I know that most of you folks do not believe in God in the first place and that's fine, but my point is that you just can't justify putting up a forcefield against a possible solution just because it offends your personal sensibilities. Isn't the scientific method, by definition, supposed to be completely devoid of such personal biases?

There is no such "underlying assumption." One underlying assumption of the scientific method - an axiom in which the method itself is based - is that the universe is deterministic. Nothing whatsoever is assumed about any deity, as any deity not bound by that universe is outside the realm of science, by definition.


yet we test the supernatural almost every day.

Really? Do tell.


What I'm getting at is that such a way to prove it COULD exist, maybe does already, but as long as people impose limits on what they're prepared to accept and what they're pot prepared to, such a way would be irrelevant because it would be dismissed by those who have limited their frame of reference to exclude such things.

It isn't a matter of "what they're prepared to accept." It is a matter of the limits of the method itself. Using science to investigate the supernatural would be like using base 10 numbers in a base 2 system. It simply doesn't work, because the method does not account for it.


Once you can test the supernatural then it's not supernatural any more.

Something cannot be outside the universe and then suddenly be within it. Whether we can currently test for something or not, it is either natural or supernatural.

I agree in that both sides do that. It's what makes it so hard to find useful objective data.

My gripe is that those who support ID are routinely expected to consider the possibiliy that there's no God, and yet supporters of Evolution scoff at the mere suggestion of considering the possibility that there is. It's a double standard.

This isn't true. Supporters of evolution (as a whole, there certainly are some militant atheists) don't scoff at the mere suggestion that God might exist. They simply realize that God's existence or non-existence is irrelevant to evolutionary theory - and any scientific theory, for that matter.

The system is meant to be neutral and objective, but is still limited, as is any system.

I meant to reply to this in my previous post but forgot, and I dind't want to edit in case it had already been read/quoted.

In order for such a system to be TRULY neutral and objective, it MUST allow for ANY possibility, should the data take the observer in that direction.

There is no such "underlying assumption." One underlying assumption of the scientific method - an axiom in which the method itself is based - is that the universe is deterministic. Nothing whatsoever is assumed about any deity, as any deity not bound by that universe is outside the realm of science, by definition.


Of course there's an underlying assumption. Just read a few pages of this thread if you want proof. How many posts have we already seen in just this thread alone that amount to an admission that the poster won't even consider the possibility of a Divine source? Sure, they'll expound until the cows come home on just why it's right to do that, making up excuses and justifications all day long, but at the end of the day that's all that's happening. They're justifying having a set of underlying assumptions which all data will be filtered through.

Really? Do tell. ever see the show "Ghost Hunters" that's one. Another, are people who try to debunk miracles or other "supernatural" events (yes, I count the Church in with that bunch)

When you start mixing your cult worship with science you get Scientology.

Which is basically science terms with false ideas and fake answers to religious questions... you know like ID.

When the big disembodied head from the sky comes down and says hey, here I am.. it's me god. Then we can discuss the mighty one god. Until then if I want to read about supernatural stuff Ill just read the Lord of the Rings trilogy over again... at least it doesn't play itself off as fact.

It's primitive thinking sort of like saying the sun rises because the sky god gets angry during the day.

When you start mixing your cult worship with science you get Scientology.

Which is basically science terms with false ideas and fake answers to religious questions... you know like ID.

When the big disembodied head from the sky comes down and says hey, here I am.. it's me god. Then we can discuss the mighty one god. Until then if I want to read about supernatural stuff Ill just read the Lord of the Rings trilogy over again... at least it doesn't play itself off as fact.

It's primitive thinking sort of like saying the sun rises because the sky god gets angry during the day.

...Case in point, and a marvelous example of what I'm talking about.

It's primitive thinking sort of like saying the sun rises because the sky god gets angry during the day.

Yeah and it is more believable because of visual evidence. We do now have proof as to the reality, but to a person of 'faith', they simply *want* to believe it is divine. If it gets them through the day, fine.

In the final analysis, the questions we have are just not entirely explained...yet. So the 'faith pushers' should stop pretending they have answers, when the truth is they have unanswered questions.

Yeah and it is more believable because of visual evidence. We do now have proof as to the reality, but to a person of 'faith', they simply *want* to believe it is divine. If it gets them through the day, fine.

In the final analysis, the questions we have are just not entirely explained...yet. So the 'faith pushers' should stop pretending they have answers, when the truth is they have unanswered questions.

Now if we can get the Evolutionists to admit that too, it would be a Grand Slam.

In order for such a system to be TRULY neutral and objective, it MUST allow for ANY possibility, should the data take the observer in that direction.

Oh I agree. It could have been done by three purple nerds from Mercury. We need to consider that first since I believe it is more likely than the other explanations. *rolling eyes*

Now if we can get the Evolutionists to admit that too, it would be a Grand Slam.

Ok. creation theorists have to keep theories and speculations to themselves and can only present testable data, and evolutionists have the same rules.

No problem. Guess that means no more religion? Works for me.

What I mean is situations where the evolutionary story breaks down. If you like, you can of course turn to cosmology. But that would be about as scientific as religion. Most people turn to speculations.

The evolutionary story doesn't 'break down'.

There are gaps, but that is not a flaw.

Again, you make your argument a 'god of gaps' argument.

I agree with ignorance being an inadequate evidence for the inadequacy of natural causes. Saying 'we don't know yet' does not equal 'God must have done it'. But that was never my position.

On the other hand, the position of 'we don't know yet, but one day we will' is also an unsatisfactory reason to rule out God.


No - it isn't.

Do you think before you post?

If we WILL know everything, and it can all be explained in those terms, that is the perfect, and ONLY reason to 'rule out god'.

On the other hand - 'we' don't say that. Science is happy to admit where it has lacks, it doesn't pretend they MUST automatically be filled.


Thus, with so much ignorance floating around, the scientific conclusion is 'we don't know'. Since most people are not satisfied with that, philosophical speculations and scenarios have arisen.


This is dishonest.

Most people probably WOULD be satisfied with sceince's big 'we don't know' - if people were not loudly pretending that 'we don't know' was an inferior answer to whichever religious argument THEY are trying to sell.


But what would you consider evidence supporting Creationism? What data could you imagine that the scientific procedure could generate that would support this philosophical position?


There can be no evidence for Creationism, unless God is observable and measurable. What is more - the scientific method doesn't even have the toolkit to PRETEND to analyse such data.


That's been answered many times before. We recognise design by distinguishing it from non-design. There are several ways to do this. Such tactics are employed by the army, SETI, criminal investigators, etc.

SETI assumes human-like design. criminal investigation assumes human design.

Why would we assume that an 'Intelligent Designer' (let's be honest, you mean God) would be recognisable as human or human-like in 'his' designs?

Their conclusion is that these dual-coding genes is nearly impossible.

'..nearly impossible...' =/= 'impossible'.

also:

'...nearly impossible...' + 'effectively infinite iterations' = 'practically inevitable'.

Math don't lie.

Case closed. Thanks for wasting my time making me read that.

I meant to reply to this in my previous post but forgot, and I dind't want to edit in case it had already been read/quoted.

In order for such a system to be TRULY neutral and objective, it MUST allow for ANY possibility, should the data take the observer in that direction.

It does ALLOW for any possibility. However, the method is bound by which possibilities it can actually investigate. Science allows for the possibility that there is a purple, invisible, immeasurable unicorn behind you at all times laughing at you. However, since science would not be able to test for an immeasurable being, that possibility is irrelevant in scientific examinations.

The existence (or non-existence) of the divine is allowed for in science. However, the method cannot be used to investigate the divine. As such, the existence (or non-existence) of the divine is irrelevant in scientific examinations. It may be there and it may not, but no assumptions either way can be empirically justified.

Of course there's an underlying assumption. Just read a few pages of this thread if you want proof. How many posts have we already seen in just this thread alone that amount to an admission that the poster won't even consider the possibility of a Divine source?

Who cares about specific people? Some people won't consider the possibility that the divine exists. Some won't consider the possibility that it does. This has nothing to do with underlying assumptions in science or in any given scientific theory. No matter how you try and twist it, there is nothing in science or in evolutionary theory that assumes the non-existence (or the existence) of the divine. Individuals will take a position on the matter, but no such position is scientific.

When scientists talk about the fact that ID proponents/Creationists won't consider the possibility that God does not exist, it is because both positions base their ideas in the assumption that God does exist. Science, and thus evolutionary theory, on the other hand, is not based in an assumption that God does not exist. There are certainly individuals who see evolutionary theory as a valid scientific explanation and will claim that God absolutely does not exist. There are also (more) individuals who see evolutionary theory as a valid scientific explanation and will claim that God does exist. Neither assumption is necessary for the theory.


ever see the show "Ghost Hunters" that's one.

Yes, I have. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the supernatural. The creators of the show do not believe the occurrences they investigate to be supernatural. They simply think that these occurrences are things we do not yet have an explanation for.

Another, are people who try to debunk miracles or other "supernatural" events (yes, I count the Church in with that bunch)

Trying to debunk miracles is, once again, not a study of the supernatural. In fact, it is very much bound by the natural.

I disagree. Any time you limit your frame of reference in science-especially when you can't conclusively say that the frame of reference even SHOULD be limited-you're hobbling yourself.


The frame of reference should be limited. We can conclusively say that.

The simple reason is because, by limiting the frame of reference we get a model that always deals with falsifiable data and yeilds testable results.

You can choose to not limit yourself to those parameters - but that isn't science. And - why would you WANT to try to shoe-horn it in there?

The frame of reference should be limited. We can conclusively say that.

The simple reason is because, by limiting the frame of reference we get a model that always deals with falsifiable data and yeilds testable results.

You can choose to not limit yourself to those parameters - but that isn't science. And - why would you WANT to try to shoe-horn it in there?


What person of faith would want a falsifiable god, anyway?

folks... this is why you have Science, Theology and Philosophy as seperate courses. like Medication and other drugs... they shouldn't be mixed.

The frame of reference should be limited. We can conclusively say that.

The simple reason is because, by limiting the frame of reference we get a model that always deals with falsifiable data and yeilds testable results.

You can choose to not limit yourself to those parameters - but that isn't science. And - why would you WANT to try to shoe-horn it in there?

This is what I don't get. People seem to need a single process that they think will grant them all possible knowledge. Where does this expectation come from? Is it laziness? Is it overconfidence in a given process?

I don't expect my radio to cook my dinner or heat my bed. Why should I expect science to give me answers about theology?

When one pronouces it is divine, all thinking is supposed to cease according to creation myth.

Science neither proves, disproves, advocates, dispels, or does anything with religion. The religious feel threatened by scientific knowledge, because as knowledge increases, they are forced to realize that what they believe to be divine, in time, is proven to be a natural occurance and is reproducable and repeatable. They do it to themselves and blame science for it.

So they lash out and insist on teaching creation theory despite the fact they know that scientific knowledge cancels most of it out empirically already, but in time it will whittle away at the core of their belief as time progresses.

Fear of knowledge is not new. In the middle ages, the church insisted scientific knowledge was heresy. All the machines, and knowledge attained to that point were forever lost. No one was educated but the elite and the ignorant were taught to believe in the church above all else. Therefore the knowledge lost is incalculable. People stopped bathing because of the bible. Disease was rampant with stagnant water. Religion is the basis of wars, the power of the clergy and such, not in divinity.

That being said, if you are religious, you may refuse to listen to reason, if it interferes with the control a parishoner has over you and your wallet.

Read the bible. Not the select passages someone has interpreted for you. When you read it in it's entirety, you see the lies.

This is what I don't get. People seem to need a single process that they think will grant them all possible knowledge. Where does this expectation come from? Is it laziness? Is it overconfidence in a given process?

I don't expect my radio to cook my dinner or heat my bed. Why should I expect science to give me answers about theology?

To be honest... I think it's a dog in a manger.

Science doesn't deal with the religious answers - it openly admits it can't. And that flies ALL OVER some people who really want their religion to be central to everything for everyone.

And, if science can't analyse the probability of god? Well - by god, we'll change it till it can!

Yes, I have. And it has nothing whatsoever to do with the supernatural. The creators of the show do not believe the occurrences they investigate to be supernatural. They simply think that these occurrences are things we do not yet have an explanation for.

Trying to debunk miracles is, once again, not a study of the supernatural. In fact, it is very much bound by the natural. ah, but I didn't say Study, but Test.

so yes, even tho they don't believe the occurrences to be supernatural, they still test for plausible explinations and causes. they test to see if the occurances are natural with logical explination.

the methods may not be geared for the supernatural, but like early science, it's still evolving and inproving. who knows...

This is what I don't get. People seem to need a single process that they think will grant them all possible knowledge. Where does this expectation come from? Is it laziness? Is it overconfidence in a given process?

I don't expect my radio to cook my dinner or heat my bed. Why should I expect science to give me answers about theology?
Two reasons I suspect. 1 is that we're living in the age of science and often times it's an age that we can't understand. Scientists have become the new Moses, decending from on high bearing the tablets with the latest pronoucements and we're left with something we don't understand, but we're supposed to follow (i.e. Science says eatting eggs is bad, so I won't have my normal plate of scambled. Damned if I know why, but the men in the white coats told me so). This leads to an asumption that science can solve every problem and find everything (We can put a man on the Moon so we should be able to x) and what bigger problem or question is the one of if God(s/esses/FSM) exists and the meaning of life?

2. Because of the authority of the above, those folks who cling to religion but who are not secure in their faith want science to either prove their faith to them (See? See? I was RIGHT! Science says so) or to knock science down to gain their authority for themselves (See? See? I PROVED science wrong! So listen to me!).

Carl Saggen was right, we're living in an age of wonders, but one most of us don't have the foggest clue about how it works or why. That scares me.

ah, but I didn't say Study, but Test.

so yes, even tho they don't believe the occurrences to be supernatural, they still test for plausible explinations and causes. they test to see if the occurances are natural with logical explination.

In other words, they have nothing whatsoever to do with the supernatural. They aren't testing the supernatural. They are testing the natural, which makes sense, as it is all they can possibly test. Even if they find a natural, logical explanation, they have not disproven involvement of the supernatural. Even if they do not find a natural, logical explanation, they have not proven involvement of the supernatural. All they can test is what is here in the natural universe and then either come up with some explanation for how it might have happened or say, "Yeah, we don't know how that happened." None of it tests the supernatural in any way.

the methods may not be geared for the supernatural, but like early science, it's still evolving and inproving. who knows...

There are no methods for testing the supernatural. If we could test it, it wouldn't be supernatural.

Two reasons I suspect. 1 is that we're living in the age of science and often times it's an age that we can't understand. Scientists have become the new Moses, decending from on high bearing the tablets with the latest pronoucements and we're left with something we don't understand, but we're supposed to follow (i.e. Science says eatting eggs is bad, so I won't have my normal plate of scambled. Damned if I know why, but the men in the white coats told me so). This leads to an asumption that science can solve every problem and find everything (We can put a man on the Moon so we should be able to x) and what bigger problem or question is the one of if God(s/esses/FSM) exists and the meaning of life?

Damn, I hate that. It's kind of like the people who expect medicine (and thus doctors and nurses) to be perfect. It's one thing to defer to the professionals on something you don't understand. It's quite another to make that logical leap to, "I don't understand it, so everything you say must be absolutely right and you must answer all my questions!!!"

2. Because of the authority of the above, those folks who cling to religion but who are not secure in their faith want science to either prove their faith to them (See? See? I was RIGHT! Science says so) or to knock science down to gain their authority for themselves (See? See? I PROVED science wrong! So listen to me!).

I agree here. I think that, as a general rule, those who seem to need science to back them up or can't hold their beliefs with science around are simply weak of faith to begin with.

Carl Saggen was right, we're living in an age of wonders, but one most of us don't have the foggest clue about how it works or why. That scares me.

I think most of us don't have the foggiest clue about most of what anyone else does. Even within science, a physicist generally won't have a clue about biology and a biologist won't know diddly about astronomy.

I think most of us don't have the foggiest clue about most of what anyone else does. Even within science, a physicist generally won't have a clue about biology and a biologist won't know diddly about astronomy.

To an extent that even extends within concentrations within a field. An astrophysicist looking at the work of a biophysicist or optical scientist, for instance.

To an extent that even extends within concentrations within a field. An astrophysicist looking at the work of a biophysicist or optical scientist, for instance.

Indeed. I've certainly found myself explaining things about stem cell biology to biologists or bioengineers who work in other areas of biology - and I wouldn't even yet term myself an expert on the subject. The good thing, however, is that people who are at least in the same field usually have a common vocabulary to use, so that I could do a little reading and understand much more about a different area of biology than I could if I read the same amount (or the same level papers) in something like astrophysics.

Ape people, "discussing" their root of origin, are merely creations to serve and sometimes amuse the supreme and ever dominating Xerpillian caste.
One day you five fingered, chest beating hairless underlings will realize that the forever conquering Xerpillian engineers removed 10/12 of our own DNA strands so you'd be impotent of physically converting yourself into the 4D.
Nearly ever organism within the galaxy can do this...except for the struggling Earth based savages who continue to "debate" where they came from.

Ape people, "discussing" their root of origin, are merely creations to serve and sometimes amuse the supreme and ever dominating Xerpillian caste.
One day you five fingered, chest beating hairless underlings will realize that the forever conquering Xerpillian engineers removed 10/12 of our own DNA strands so you'd be impotent of physically converting yourself into the 4D.
Nearly ever organism within the galaxy can do this...except for the struggling Earth based savages who continue to "debate" where they came from.

Don't you just love these little escapes into the surreal the noobs provide for us?

Don't you just love these little escapes into the surreal the noobs provide for us?

I see the forever dominating Xerpillian kept you void of intellect back in your primitive Earth year of 30,000 BC when space humans implanted your kind on this blue sphere.
It was here that the Xerpillians intercepted and engineered you as lesser evolved space apes to serve the overLord's blood rituals to the galatic elders.

Oofff... What a load of hooey. "First there was nothing, then there was matter, therefore Big G exists".

And before Big G existed, Big G did not exist, therefore I claim that the Flying Spagheti Monster exists and that He, with his Noodly appendage, created God.

QED. (riiiight)

Don't you just love these little escapes into the surreal the noobs provide for us?

That's no n00b, that's a space station.

No idea whose space station but a space station for sure

Damn, I hate that. It's kind of like the people who expect medicine (and thus doctors and nurses) to be perfect. It's one thing to defer to the professionals on something you don't understand. It's quite another to make that logical leap to, "I don't understand it, so everything you say must be absolutely right and you must answer all my questions!!!"
I do as well, why else do you think I became a teacher? ;)

I think most of us don't have the foggiest clue about most of what anyone else does. Even within science, a physicist generally won't have a clue about biology and a biologist won't know diddly about astronomy.
True, but the difference being that you at least know the limits of science and how to go about finding out should you ever need or want to. When the serious men in the white coats make their pronouncements, you have at least a good idea if they are blowing smoke or actually are stating something interesting. A lot of folks would readily accept some serious man in a white coat announcing that pixies live in their computers and very quickly write down the words they type on the screen.

Indeed. I've certainly found myself explaining things about stem cell biology to biologists or bioengineers who work in other areas of biology - and I wouldn't even yet term myself an expert on the subject. The good thing, however, is that people who are at least in the same field usually have a common vocabulary to use, so that I could do a little reading and understand much more about a different area of biology than I could if I read the same amount (or the same level papers) in something like astrophysics.
One of the things I like about my graduate program is that our first year lumps together the entire Biomedical Sciences group for classes which provide fundamentals in all the offered subject areas. This means that I (a neuroscience student) got a crash course in molecular oncology, proteomics, genomics, and a host of other fields that have little to nothing to do with my own field of research.

Why is this a good thing? Well, it's like being able to speak a foreign language well enough to get by. I'm not remotely fluent in proteomics, but I know enough to be able to communicate and exchange ideas with folks in that field. That's awesome, because I've noticed that a lot of us are actually taking on the same problems and question, only from different angles. New perspective is extremely helpful to me!

And this is just within the biomedical area of science!

That's part of why I giggle so hard when Creationists whine that science isn't answering every single question that pops into their heads. They don't even bother to develop the vocabulary they need to pose the most interesting questions, and yet they dare to complain that science isn't doing enough of their work for them!

Science will not tell you whether or not you should believe in God. This is not a failure on the part of science, any more than it is a failure when my oven fails to decide what I should eat for dinner tonight. Science isn't supposed to answer every question.

That's awesome, because I've noticed that a lot of us are actually taking on the same problems and question, only from different angles. New perspective is extremely helpful to me!
And this is just within the biomedical area of science!
That's part of why I giggle so hard when Creationists whine that science isn't answering every single question that pops into their heads. They don't even bother to develop the vocabulary they need to pose the most interesting questions, and yet they dare to complain that science isn't doing enough of their work for them!

I'm sorry, but as I read it a chill run down my spine. I read a book (Beggars in Spain?) where society was split into people who are creative and work to sustain the civilization and the majority who don't have enough mental abilities to do something useful (the menial tasks are already automated) and just spend the time playing, raising children and making fun of the working ones. That's where we are headed.

What do you base that belief on?

It's what the definition of supernatural is. It's SUPER - meaning a level above, or being on a higher plane than - natural - meaning nature, earth, what we can see with our eyes and feel with our hands. It's more, outside, above, beyond the natural world, and therefore, being inside the natural world, we cannot touch it or test it. Otherwise, as someone else so succinctly put it, it wouldn't be supernatural.

I think you're missing my point :)

For god's sakes man, we can just BARELY prove that we exist, how the hell would we even go about proving other people exist, much less a god that supposedly created us?

I don't know why some people are so opposed to evolution.

I'm not scientific minded so I don't know the nitty-gritty but I love the nature of the theory, and what is even better is the mystery and the discovery process. I love when new aspects of our whole evolution are discovered, it just makes the world so much more interesting because they we can speculate about that it means and what it will mean in the future.

The mystery is what makes it worth the wait. Having all the answers is fine when you've got to prove something, but the open-ended nature of the theory makes the world and life so much more. Who needs answers to everything. If we had all the answers, there would be no need to research and learn anything.

And I believe that evolution will never have ALL the answers because like its theory, evolution is always evolving. :)

This is why I hate creation - it's boring, plain, black and white and leaves nothing to the imagination. So some random magical asshole in the sky pissed on the earth and made a bunch of shit happen. BORING!

Well it depends on the creation myth/"theory" you ascribe to. The Greek one with Cronos cutting off hid father's nads(or something like that) is pretty fun. It teaches us an important lesson in life: Always guard your meat and two bits.

While, it's good if you don't take it seriously the way some Christians take the creation (read: Genesis). Though, I will agree with you, the Greek Gods are highly amusing. :)

I don't know why some people are so opposed to evolution.

Because they erroneously believe that disagreeing with it makes their own belief right.

I don't know why some people are so opposed to evolution.

I'm not scientific minded so I don't know the nitty-gritty but I love the nature of the theory, and what is even better is the mystery and the discovery process. I love when new aspects of our whole evolution are discovered, it just makes the world so much more interesting because they we can speculate about that it means and what it will mean in the future.

The mystery is what makes it worth the wait. Having all the answers is fine when you've got to prove something, but the open-ended nature of the theory makes the world and life so much more. Who needs answers to everything. If we had all the answers, there would be no need to research and learn anything.

And I believe that evolution will never have ALL the answers because like its theory, evolution is always evolving. :)

This is why I hate creation - it's boring, plain, black and white and leaves nothing to the imagination. So some random magical asshole in the sky pissed on the earth and made a bunch of shit happen. BORING!

Well it depends on the creation myth/"theory" you ascribe to. The Greek one with Cronos cutting off hid father's nads(or something like that) is pretty fun. It teaches us an important lesson in life: Always guard your meat and two bits.

Well it depends on the creation myth/"theory" you ascribe to. The Greek one with Cronos cutting off hid father's nads(or something like that) is pretty fun. It teaches us an important lesson in life: Always guard your meat and two bits.

And then Zeus cut off Cronos' head with a sickle or something to that extent.

Here is one for the proponents of Intellegent Design, if God is good, just and infallibable why aren't animals more perfect? There seems to be a lot of waste and inefficiency in the animal kingdom, the appendix in humans, using the excrement organs for reproduction and the four chambered heart (a two chambered heart would be much more efficient). Also, why don't animals that are prey to other animals, have some type of tranquilizer in their biochemistry so that they are more comfortable when they are being eaten? Why would a good and just "Designer" let an animal feel unnecessary pain?

Evolution has answered all of these questions and without resorting to "God works in mysterious ways". Can ID do the same? The reason I bring this up is that Creationists bash evolution for not having all the answers. Well, guess what, it anwsers a lot more questions than creationism.

I just thought of a good experiment for Creationists to disprove evolution (or at least cast doubt on parts of it). The ichneumon wasp preys on the larva of other insects. When it finds one, it paralyzes it with its sting and lays eggs in the larva. When the larva hatch, they eat the still living larva from the inside out. The question is, does the wasp's venom numb its victim so it wouldn't feel the pain of being eaten? Evolution says no since this would carry no advantage for the wasp. The fact that the caterpillar feels pain has no bearing on the survival of the wasp but an Intellegent Designer could design the wasp's venom so that it spares its victim any unnecessary pain so if it could be proven that ichneumon wasp venom is an anesthetic, it would make the evolutionary biologists scramble for an answer. A win for ID!

Now I'm not an entomologist so I don't know if this experiment has ever been done but a least it's something. I keep hearing Creationists say that there is not enough experimentation with evolution so here is one that should be farily easy to do with a well equipped lab. Of course I'm assuming that ID biologists have research labs around the country to test this type of stuff since biologists use research labs all the time to test hypotheses. If fact, I think that if an evolutionary biologist wanted to show them how confident they were, they would volunteer the use of their facility to do the experiment.

I call on all the people in NSG who believe in evolution the help the believers of ID think of experiments that would disprove evolution and/or prove ID.

Here is one for the proponents of Intellegent Design, if God is good, just and infallibable why aren't animals more perfect? There seems to be a lot of waste and inefficiency in the animal kingdom, the appendix in humans, using the excrement organs for reproduction and the four chambered heart (a two chambered heart would be much more efficient). Also, why don't animals that are prey to other animals, have some type of tranquilizer in their biochemistry so that they are more comfortable when they are being eaten? Why would a good and just "Designer" let an animal feel unnecessary pain?

Evolution has answered all of these questions and without resorting to "God works in mysterious ways". Can ID do the same? The reason I bring this up is that Creationists bash evolution for not having all the answers. Well, guess what, it anwsers a lot more questions than creationism.

I just thought of a good experiment for Creationists to disprove evolution (or at least cast doubt on parts of it). The ichneumon wasp preys on the larva of other insects. When it finds one, it paralyzes it with its sting and lays eggs in the larva. When the larva hatch, they eat the still living larva from the inside out. The question is, does the wasp's venom numb its victem so it wouldn't feel the pain of being eaten? Evolution says no since this would carry no advantage for the wasp. The fact that the caterpillar feels pain has no bearing on the survival of the wasp but an Intellegent Designer could design the wasp's venom so that it spares its victem any unnecessary pain so if it could be proven that ichneumon wasp venom is an anesthetic, it would make the evolutionary biologists scramble for an answer. A win for ID!

Now I'm not an entomologist so I don't know if this experiment has ever been done but a least it's something. I keep hearing Creationists say that there is not enough experimentation with evolution so here is one that should be farily easy to do with a well equipped lab. Of course I'm assuming that ID biologists have research labs around the country to test this type of stuff since biologists use research labs all the time to test hypotheses. If fact, I think that if an evolutionary biologist wanted to show them how confident they were, they would volunteer the use of their facility to do the experiment.

I call on all the people in NSG who believe in evolution the help the believers of ID think of experiments that would disprove evolution and/or prove ID.

If the venom numbs the victim that simply means it's a form of self-defense from predators as well.

EDIT: Self-defense and hunting, yes. It's easier to kill your enemy when he's poisoned and can barely move because he can't feel his body.

You wouldn't need to numb your victm if it was paralyzed.

There is no such thing as overkill. :)

If the venom numbs the victim that simply means it's a form of self-defense from predators as well.

You wouldn't need to numb your victm if it was paralyzed.

There is no such thing as overkill. :)

True enough!:D

About the poll.

It's a bit simplistic, shall i say - leaves no room for agnostics or 'evolutionist Christians' (such as myself, incidentally.)

I'll leave you to consider that.

About the poll.

It's a bit simplistic, shall i say - leaves no room for agnostics or 'evolutionist Christians' (such as myself, incidentally.)

I'll leave you to consider that.
It does make it seem like the two ideas are mutually incompatible, but I think it is really asking whether you believe evolution or not.

Show me some evidence for your version of the "truth". There's been tons supporting TOE posted in this thread alone. As an alledged scientist, you should know this but keep denying it in favor of an unsupported belief system that you consider "better".

I asked earlier for evidence, you didn't provide it.

That might be because I don't have any evidence (at least that would convince you). Before you laugh, the reason why I say that is because what one person considers evidence, another person with lightly brush it aside with another explanation. If I, for example, point to the fact that red blood cells have been found in dinosaur fossils that are supposed to be 30 million years old, will you consider that evidence for an amazing preservation of red blood cells, or will you consider that evidence that dinosaurs have not died out all that long ago? Obviously, I favour a more recent date for the dead dinosaur, because I doubt red blood cells could last that long. I call it evidence for a need to review the old story about dinosaurs going extinct 30 million years ago. But it seems like many people consider it evidence for some undiscovered process that somehow preserves dinosaur tissue.

I can also point to multiple coding genes. Their presence is evidence of something, but what. Is there a unknown mechanism that brings about such things? Perhaps. Or is it evidence of design? Certainly, most people agree that they cannot have arisen by the traditional Darwin style evolution. It certainly looks like design, a very complex and marvelous one. To some people, that is evidence of a designer. To others, that just evidence of some undiscovered mechanism.

My personal position is that I don't know. I can't know. I have my suspicions, but those suspicions are not 'scientific', in the sense that I cannot test them. Neither are your suspicions, unless you can test them. What we can do is to build a scenario. For example, if these things evolved, then they are probabaly likely to have arisen very rarely, given the high improbability of the evolution. That means we would expect to find them highly conserved between closely related species. We should be able to build a genetical tree following their occurance in modern eukaryotes. That is something that science can test.

Or, given a creation scenario, we might be able to look at the occurance of the genes in modern populations from the point of view of creation. The only good matches of homology would be within closely related species decended from the original created organism.

Both these scenarios are something that science could test, even though both the ideas of evolution and creation are not directly testible. Both are stuck in the past, and we cannot test directly unless we figure out a way to time travel. We can only construct scenarios, make predictions, and then test them, and then make inferences about the past based on the results.

I realize that there is a 'ton of evidence' supporting the evolutionary theory. And as I have said many times, it isn't that I 'know' the evolutionary theory to be wrong. But what I have done is personally read up on the best 'evidences' supporting the theory, and found, as I probably should have known, that the evidence is not final. It can be reinterpreted. And there are lots of things that don't seem to fit in with the theory of evolution, in addition. It leaves me with the feeling that either the theory is totally wrong, or it is inadequate to explain everything. Perhaps it isn't totally wrong, just partially wrong. But when I went through school and uni, that certainly wasn't the impression that I was given. Evolution was preached as the final truth, perhaps the only truth. So when I checked out the data for myself, I became very disappointed with the theory. I became skeptical. I'm still skeptical. None of the 'ton of evidence for the theory of evolution' is convincing. I'm not saying that the theory is wrong. But I think much of it could be.

That might be because I don't have any evidence (at least that would convince you). *snip*

Or any honest scientist.

Being that anyone who has ever actually studied evolution, biology, genetics, geology,etc can show you that there is no evidence that dinosaurs "died out just recently", you're just being disingenuous w/ your "I find the evidence wanting" claims.

You keep making statements like "Certainly, most people agree that they cannot have arisen by the traditional Darwin style evolution." which is patently false and you know it.

You state my "suspicions" can't be tested. Guess what? My "suspicions" are being tested regularly. I follow the scientific method w/o introducing fantasy into it, which you have openly claimed you want to do.

When you can actually support your beliefs that all of the evidence for TOE from multiple fields of science is wrong and you have evidence to support your own ideas, then you'll have room to talk.

So basically you're saying you just want to make shit up and claim it as "science". Gotcha.

Not at all.


BS. Most of the "speculations" are based on the evidence available. Try again.


Are you confusing conclusions with speculations?





So once again you're admitting you want to add in completely untestable beliefs and call it "science".


Let me say it again. Creationism is philosophy. It isn't science, in the sense that creation can be tested. None of the ideas about the origins can be tested. Not even anything that happened yesterday can be tested. Science depends on observation and repetition. So you can only observe things today, and then make inferences about yesterday or a billion years ago based on what you have observed.

Just so you get it clear. Science is neutral regarding the origins. It isn't creationist or evolutionist or naturalist. It is just observation. How you interpret that observation will be based on your philosophical assumptions. You apparently choose naturalism. Fine. I choose creationism. Neither philosophy will actually prevent us from doing science.


Yet those "philisophical speculations" have no evidence to support them. Until then, it's not "science".


Untestable assumptions will never be testable. Sure. But that's not stopping us from testing the predictions that arise from them. For example, say someone comes into the lab tomorrow and has an idea that the world was created last Thursday. Fine, I would say. We cannot actually test that concept, because we cannot go back to Thursday and observe it. But what I can do is ask him or her to generate a set of predictions based on the assumption that the world was created last Thursday. So, this person might postulate that every process that we see occurring right now would show evidence of being only in progress since last Thursday. Fine, I would say. Lets test this. So we go around testing a whole host of different processes. Then we come back to the lab and discover that actually, all the processes that we measured show evidence of being much older than last Thursday. This does not look good for the last Thursday idea. Note that we can not really ever rule out a last Thursday creation, since it is possible that everything was created to look old. But if so, then this also would tell us something about such a creator. Why would a creator create cemetries full of dead bodies, for example? Or why would a creator create people who have years worth of painful memories? Or why would a creator create someone who is sick with cancer and died on Friday? That would mean the creator is responsible for a lot of pain and death and so forth.

Now, this is a silly example. Most of us wouldn't even entertain the idea of the world being created yesterday for even a moment. But it does give you an idea of how limited we are with science, and how much we rely on our reasoning and intuition to make good conclusions for the evidence we find. Science itself is very dependent on philosophy, which makes me wonder why science students very rarely get anything on philosophy. Our doctorates are even called 'Doctor of philosophy', probably in recognition of science as a 'daughter' of philosophy. And yet, the only philosophy I ever got is when I read about it in my own free time. It was never a requirement in school or uni.







Translation: There is no evidence but I'm going to beleive it anyway.



Rather, what we humans believe determines what we consider to be evidence. If we believe different things, it isn't any wonder that we have differences over the evidence.



All of which have evidence of designers. Organics, which have been observed changing w/o a "designer" have no such evidence to support your claims.

The point is that design can be detected from non-design. We detect bird nests, for example, by detecting a design in the twigs.

The point is that design can be detected from non-design. We detect bird nests, for example, by detecting a design in the twigs.

We discern design from non-design through comparison. If everything is designed, or if everything is non-designed, we have no frame of reference for comparison to determine designedness or nondesignedness. You fail.

Or any honest scientist.

Being that anyone who has ever actually studied evolution, biology, genetics, geology,etc can show you that there is no evidence that dinosaurs "died out just recently", you're just being disingenuous w/ your "I find the evidence wanting" claims.

But there is evidence of tissues in the dinosaur fossils. How do you explain that?


You keep making statements like "Certainly, most people agree that they cannot have arisen by the traditional Darwin style evolution." which is patently false and you know it..

Actually, I just read the article.


You state my "suspicions" can't be tested. Guess what? My "suspicions" are being tested regularly. I follow the scientific method w/o introducing fantasy into it, which you have openly claimed you want to do.

Actually, what I said was that if your suspicions cannot be tested, then they cannot be science.


When you can actually support your beliefs that all of the evidence for TOE from multiple fields of science is wrong and you have evidence to support your own ideas, then you'll have room to talk.


Never have I said that all of the evidence for TOE is wrong.

We discern design from non-design through comparison. If everything is designed, or if everything is non-designed, we have no frame of reference for comparison to determine designedness or nondesignedness. You fail.


Not at all. Because we have examples of things that are not designed, such as a bunch of twigs, and we have an example of design, such as the bird nest made of twigs.

Or consider another example. I'm on my way to work, and I see a house with a broken window. Was that break an accident (non-design), or was it designed? I obviously cannot tell. But if I pass the same way on my way home from work and see the window repaired, then I can safely conclude that the repair was designed.

But there is evidence of tissues in the dinosaur fossils. How do you explain that?

Evidence of tissues /= evidence of "just recenlty dying" Try again.



Actually, I just read the article.

So then you make claims of "most people beleive" based off of one article. Gotcha.



Actually, what I said was that if your suspicions cannot be tested, then they cannot be science.

ANd what are my "suspicions"?




Never have I said that all of the evidence for TOE is wrong.

Fine play semantics. Show that "much" of it is wrong then.

You have admitted you want to add untestable concepts into the scientific "theory". If you want to be disingenuous enough to try and claim that isn't just making crap up to justify supernatural beleifs, go ahead.

By the way, a birds nest can be observed being built and lived in by a bird. Windows have been observed being made, broken, and repaired. Once again, a designer has been observed.

Dear, dear. If you're going to cut and paste your arguments from www.evolutionnews.org, you should either leave their bolded text in place, or remove the bit that says 'emphasis added'.

Also, while it does mention the 'skepticism surrounding eukaryotic dual coding', it also describes that skepticism as 'unwarranted'.

Yes, I did cut and past from that ID site. I probably would not have found that article except that I came across it there. Even so, the only thing that came from the site was the 'emphasis added'. Everything else actually came from the original article to which they were referring, including the reference to the article. That means I was under no obligation to paste the 'evolutionnews' link. If you want to find which bit was emboldened, you can read the link yourself, since you have so kindly posted it here.

As for your comment about the skepticism being 'unwarranted', I took that as meaning that the authors thought that it was unwarranted because multiple coding genes do exists, not because they have found a way to explain how the multiple coding genes got there.
They appeared to be satisfied with an 'evolutiondidit' explanation, and left it at that.

*snip*
They appeared to be satisfied with an 'evolutiondidit' explanation, and left it at that.

Or maybe they'll act like real scientists and continue investigating. Do you have any evidence they've stopped research or are you just assuming?

But there is evidence of tissues in the dinosaur fossils. How do you explain that?


what shape was the "tissue" in? did someone cut open a rock and blood spill out, or was it *shock* fossilized?

what shape was the "tissue" in? did someone cut open a rock and blood spill out, or was it *shock* fossilized?

Here's a nice little overview of what YEC's claim is "evidence":

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dinosaur/blood.html

It boils down to this:

"No cells have been found in any dinosaurs, but the remnants of red bloodcells have been hypothesized on the basis of Heme, a kind of iron produced biologically. [Crenshaw 2001]"

Notice all the intillectual (dis)honesty that is the highlight of YEC "science".

But there is evidence of tissues in the dinosaur fossils. How do you explain that?

It was fossilized. Jesus Christ it said so right in the damn peer-reviewed article. That was the whole damn point. It was a fossil of something that normally does not fossilize.

I just realized something, what Bruarong is giving us is the Dragon in the Garage.

For those of you who don't know this (Carl Sagan invented it) it runs as thus:

Someone tells you that they have a real live dragon in his garage. Eager to see it, you race over to his house where he proudly points and says, "Behold the dragon!" The problem being that you cannot see this dragon.

"That's because it's an invisible dragon, but it's there," he replies. Well, how about spreading fine particles on the floor to track the dragon's movements?

"The dragon floats."

What about using equipment to detect the heat given off by a fire breathing dragon?

"The dragon gives off no heat."

What about using a laser network to capture movement when the dragon blocks it?

"The dragon is insubstantial."

And so on, with every test you propose, the man calmly states that it wouldn't work due to X reason. A scientist would sadly conclude that even if there WAS a dragon there, since you can't see it or test it, or find any evidence for it, it might as well not be there.

Bruarong is proposing that we have to accept the idea that the dragon is there, even though we have no evidence, tests, or proof at all.

Dont worry all of you will know when all us die that there is a God and a next life 85% of you I am sorry to say you are wrong Creation is us, You will NEVER explain to me how sigmatic works. Its the Gods giving a sign. Jesus on the cross hands feet.

Look on google for sigmata

Dont worry all of you will know when all us die that there is a God and a next life 85% of you I am sorry to say you are wrong Creation is us, You will NEVER explain to me how sigmatic works. Its the Gods giving a sign. Jesus on the cross hands feet.

http://profezie3m.altervista.org/photos/Image24.jpg

...what

For the record, stigmata occurs when people mutilate themselves. The fact that they damage their hands instead of their wrists should give you a clue that it isn't genuine.

...what

For the record, stigmata occurs when people mutilate themselves. The fact that they damage their hands instead of their wrists should give you a clue that it isn't genuine.

Thank you. I couldn't figure out what the fuck he was talking about. Sigmatic??? :confused:

Dont worry all of you will know when all us die that there is a God and a next life 85% of you I am sorry to say you are wrong Creation is us, You will NEVER explain to me how sigmatic works. Its the Gods giving a sign. Jesus on the cross hands feet.


And that's their choice Homieville. however, I would suggest removing the link. it might violate the Graphic Images rule. but that is just a suggestion... ;)

...what

For the record, stigmata occurs when people mutilate themselves. The fact that they damage their hands instead of their wrists should give you a clue that it isn't genuine.

No. You don't understand yet, when your time comes you will know.

And that's their choice Homieville. however, I would suggest removing the link. it might violate the Graphic Images rule. but that is just a suggestion... ;)

He actually posted up a picture of stigmata? I'm so glad I generally don't click links.

No. You don't understand yet, when your time comes you will know.

HAHAHA. This coming from the person who can't even properly spell what he's talking about.

HAHAHA. This coming from the person who can't even properly spell what he's talking about.

You guys are all just American nobodys not paying any attention to religion. I am disappointed, really if we come from those apes what happened to them then...they are still here or am I mistaking? Yeah Homo Sapiens evolved so much they fly space aircrafts on mars. hmmm.,

No. You don't understand yet, when your time comes you will know.

How the hell could it be genuine if the wounds aren't even in the right place?

sigmatic is in Polish by the way.

No. You don't understand yet, when your time comes you will know.

Is that when you feel a laugh coming on when something is just plain absurd?

He actually posted up a picture of stigmata? I'm so glad I generally don't click links.

it's not that bad IMHO, a partially covered bloodied hand and blood soaked sleeves.
but it might still be considered graphic by others.

EDIT: My mistake, it's red sleeves from the material, not blood... oops. :)

Oh and explain to me how a boy that was blind and a girl that was crippled, went to JP2 and the Pope blessed them and they were healed?

Oh and explain to me how a boy that was blind and a girl that was crippled, went to JP2 and the Pope blessed them and they were healed?

The Schwartz?

Its a fact you guys just don't want to believe in religion and creationism.

Oh and explain to me how a boy that was blind and a girl that was crippled, went to JP2 and the Pope blessed them and they were healed?

Because that didn't happen.

Seriously, answer my stigmata question.

You guys are all just American nobodys not paying any attention to religion. I am disappointed, really if we come from those apes what happened to them then...they are still here or am I mistaking? Yeah Homo Sapiens evolved so much they fly space aircrafts on mars. hmmm.,
We share a common ancestor with those apes, we didn't COME from those apes.

It's like asking since you and your cousins share a common ancestor why do your cousins still exist when you're here.

First off is your brain in the right place? okay. I guess not...are your eyes in the same place as your mom or dad, your nose is in a different place. ""Stigmata"" works the same. Hands and Feet. forehead, chest.

Hands and Feet nailed to cross

Forehead the crown

chest a Rome guard stabbing Jesus in the chest.

Its a fact you guys just don't want to believe in religion and creationism.
You missed the whole bit where Christians like myself were saying accepting evolution does not mean an abandonment of faith didn't you?

First off is your brain in the right place? okay. I guess not...are your eyes in the same place as your mom or dad, your nose is in a different place. ""Stigmata"" works the same. Hands and Feet. forehead, chest.

Hands and Feet nailed to cross

Forehead the crown

chest a Rome guard stabbing Jesus in the chest.

Except that he was nailed in his wrists. And you call yourself a Christian.

Catholic by the way. he was nailed to his hands

Seriously, answer my stigmata question.

To be fair CthulhuFhtagn, How did you know that his hands were not nailed to the cross AND his wrists and arms TIED to the cross beam? They never said how he was Crucified, only that he had the marks on his hands (which could include up to mid forearm.)

The nails go through the wrist. If you put them in the hands, the person falls off. Also, the Bible says that the nails went through his wrists.

please indicate which scripture said wrists?

Oh and HOMIEFILLE, same question to you. Which Scripture indicates HANDS?

So how did John Paul the Second help the boy see again? Please explain this one to me then.

First off is your brain in the right place? okay. I guess not...are your eyes in the same place as your mom or dad, your nose is in a different place. ""Stigmata"" works the same. Hands and Feet. forehead, chest.

Hands and Feet nailed to cross

Forehead the crown

chest a Rome guard stabbing Jesus in the chest.

The nails go through the wrist. If you put them in the hands, the person falls off. Also, the Bible says that the nails went through his wrists.

You nonbelievers. PLEASE look at a cross his HANDS are nailed.

So how did John Paul the Second help the boy see again? Please explain this one to me then.

He takes off the blindfold.

You nonbelievers. PLEASE look at a cross his HANDS are nailed.

Yeah, and images of him also make him out to look Anglo-Saxon, which is even funnier.

You nonbelievers. PLEASE look at a cross his HANDS are nailed.

so you take your evidence from an idol? a symbol that was recreated over generations and not from scripture? and you call us Non-Believers?

I call you troll.

also he was peirced in the SIDE not the chest. Side could be chest, but it can include torsol and waist.

Hands in the bible Hands on a Cross. Please its hands nailed to the cross. I know.

please indicate which scripture said wrists?

The wounds one. Technically, it could mean hands, wrists, or part of the forearm, but historically the nails were driven through the wrists, and there's no reason to assume that the Romans would go through all the trouble needed to put the nails through the hands, particularly when none of the measures are mentioned. And considering how much suffering those measures would cause, had they been used they would have been mentioned.

You nonbelievers. PLEASE look at a cross his HANDS are nailed.

Why should I look at a representation made at least 1400 years after the fact when I can read the source?

Media you can thank them, Jesus had the power to take the pain when nailed by hand. Wrist was added on later because its not possible to be nailed by hand.

So you guys didn't answer MY QUESTION. How did JP2 help the boy see again. This you must explain to me.

so you take your evidence from an idol? a symbol that was recreated over generations and not from scripture? and you call us Non-Believers?

I call you troll.

also he was peirced in the SIDE not the chest. Side could be chest, but it can include torsol and waist.

And would most likely be the abdomen. A puncture wound to the chest would kill much faster than was indicated. A puncture wound to abdomen would allow someone to live for several hours, which would fit in with the timespan given.

Media you can thank them, Jesus had the power to take the pain when nailed by hand. Wrist was added on later because its not possible to be nailed by hand.

Riiiiiight. And where can you prove this?

The Romans had crucifiction down to a science. What makes you think they'd nail him in the hands when EVERYONE else was nailed through the wrists?