OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker
Todd Mitchell
"Behind the headlines, however, intelligent design as a field of
inquiry is failing to gain the traction its supporters had hoped for.
It has gained little support among the academics who should have been
its natural allies. And if the intelligent design proponents lose the
case in Dover, there could be serious consequences for the movement's
credibility."
"On college campuses, the movement's theorists are academic pariahs,
publicly denounced by their own colleagues. Design proponents have
published few papers in peer-reviewed scientific journals. The
Templeton Foundation, a major supporter of projects seeking to
reconcile science and religion, says that after providing a few grants
for conferences and courses to debate intelligent design, they asked
proponents to submit proposals for actual research."
"They never came in," said Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president
at the Templeton Foundation, who said that while he was skeptical from
the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and
later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and
intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out
very well in our world of scientific review," he said.
<snicker>
--
Todd Mitchell: Hiding Behind Science Since Forever
Chuck
and Intelligent Design debate. Here is a radical thought in the name of
education. *TEACH BOTH*, including the reason why each is controversial
and why each invites radical militance and intolerance. You are no less
intolerant that the radical right creationist.
Unlike you, I believe in the individual's ability to decipher their own
truth from fiction after being well-informed. You probably think the
government should walk people through their lives from womb to tomb,
because individuals do not know any better. That is not freedom.
Some things we just can't know for sure:
-How does something come from nothing?
-Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
the universe?
-How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
purpose for it's being?
Intelligent design / something beyond our humanity ... deserves a place
in the academic community. As I have mentioned, many of our greatest
scientists (except for Sullivan - whom I would not label great) have at
least pondered the perplexity that is our existence and how there may
be "more than what we see" to life. CB
NP: The Revealing Science of Darwin
Chris Jemmett
Chuck wept:
> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> purpose for it's being?
Just because you need a reason to be doesn't mean all innocent children
should be subjected to your unsubstantiated beliefs.
Chuck
>Chris Jemmett
LOLOL Alrighty then... Putting into words a statement with a
question mark makes my beliefs what? Subjecting children to open minded
questioning that just may help them come to a conclusion that there are
some things we can not know for sure as mortal humans is OK and
actaully healthy IMO - we don't always need an answer. What is the Yes
song?; "Who says there's gotta be a reason.... gotta be an answer...."
-Shoot High Aim Low I believe. I never stated that I *need* anything.
Can you answer my question above? Point made. CB
Chris Jemmett
Chuck wrote:
> >> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> >> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> >> purpose for it's being?
>
> >Just because you need a reason to be doesn't mean all innocent children
> >should be subjected to your unsubstantiated beliefs.
> >Chris Jemmett
> LOLOL Alrighty then... Putting into words a statement with a
> question mark makes my beliefs what?
You're the one who put "teach both" in caps in reponse to an article
about how I.D. was losing support and without merit even among those
who should be supporting it. I don't need to say what that makes your
beliefs.
Subjecting children to open minded
> questioning that just may help them come to a conclusion that there are
> some things we can not know for sure as mortal humans is OK and
> actaully healthy IMO
We certainly don't need to teach I.D. in school for that to happen.
> - we don't always need an answer.
But some are looking, rationally and methodically.
What is the Yes
> song?; "Who says there's gotta be a reason.... gotta be an answer...."
> -Shoot High Aim Low I believe. I never stated that I *need* anything.
Oh, sorry, I thought your random-matter-induced-consciousness was
questioning it's reason for its being. My mistake.
> Can you answer my question above?
Which one?
> Point made.
Which one?
Todd Mitchell
news:1133861117....@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Todd, you and the Sullster are completely obsessed with this Darwinism
> and Intelligent Design debate.
<snicker>
> Here is a radical thought in the name of
> education. *TEACH BOTH*, including the reason why each is controversial
> and why each invites radical militance and intolerance.
Did you *read* the attached link? There is no "both" sides to evolution.
There's evolution and then there's *you* don't agree with it. You wanna
teach I.D. in public schools? Fine, teach it in comparative religion or
mythology, but you *can't* teach it in a science class because it ain't
science.
> You are no less
> intolerant that the radical right creationist.
What did I just say? Teach "the controversy" if you want, just *dont'* teach
it in biology class.
> Unlike you, I believe in the individual's ability to decipher their own
> truth from fiction after being well-informed.
So you're ok with teaching astrology *and* astronomy? Teaching animism *and*
physics? Let the students "decide on their own" which is real and which
isn't? That's what you really think education is really all about?
> You probably think the
> government should walk people through their lives from womb to tomb,
> because individuals do not know any better.
No, I think the government should teach people *science* in a *science*
class, not fantasy or religious dogma.
> Some things we just can't know for sure:
> -How does something come from nothing?
When it does.
> -Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
> the universe?
Yes.
> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> purpose for it's being?
*Evolution*
> Intelligent design / something beyond our humanity ... deserves a place
> in the academic community.
And yet for some reason, *no one* in the I.D. community wants to step up to
the plate and submit something for peer review. Hmmmm...
> As I have mentioned, many of our greatest
> scientists (except for Sullivan - whom I would not label great) have at
> least pondered the perplexity that is our existence and how there may
> be "more than what we see" to life.
Right, I'm sure as a scientist Sullivan has never "pondered the perplexity
that is our existence". He just hates Awaken, which really pisses you off.
--
Todd Mitchell: Hiding Behind the Constitution Since 1789.
Todd Mitchell
news:1133897173.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chuck wrote:
> > Point made.
>
> Which one?
This one:
http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/13337930.htm
*I. D. Kooks*
--
Todd Mitchell: Hiding Behind the Constitution Since 1789.
Stephen Bruun
news:oInlf.4605$cA2...@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> http://www.kansas.com/mld/kansas/13337930.htm
"I did that joke in Alabama, in Fife, and these three rednecks met me after
the show. 'Hey, buddy, we're Christians, and we don't like what you said.'
I said, 'then forgive me.'
Later, when I was hanging from the tree..."
-- Bill Hicks
--
To reply, get rid of THAT THING
Chuck
>> -How does something come from nothing?
>When it does.
LOL, case closed ?
>> -Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
>> the universe?
>Yes.
It was a question and you answered it. I happen to agree that it is
possible, but again, it is still quite a mystery
>> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
>> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
>> purpose for it's being?
>*Evolution*
So something just appears from nothing, has incredible order, and then
evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
existence.? Case closed because Todd Mitchell said it? And you
criticize and ridicule individuals who take leaps of faith. Your's is
as large a leap as any mainstream religion.
Again, you act like you absolutely know. I believe there are things we
cannot know for sure.
I recently read a delicious book; "The Wonder of the World, A Journey
from Modern Science to the Mind of God"... astronomy, physics,
genetics, evolution, philosophy, archeology... I would encourage anyone
interested in the entire subject to read it. He gives both sides of
many issues and provokes open minded-thought. Yes, open-minded. Give it
a try Todd. CB
Zemborato
"Chuck" <ShorT...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133951480.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>> Some things we just can't know for sure:
>>> -How does something come from nothing?
>
>>When it does.
>
> LOL, case closed ?
>
>>> -Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
>>> the universe?
>
>>Yes.
>
> It was a question and you answered it. I happen to agree that it is
> possible, but again, it is still quite a mystery
>
>>> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
>>> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
>>> purpose for it's being?
>
>>*Evolution*
>
> So something just appears from nothing, has incredible order, and then
> evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
> existence.?
Chuck, you are confusing philosophy with science.
Once upon a time scientists pooh-poohed the notion of radio. That same
mentality will be critical of anything not yet in the realm of testability.
Give them that, because that kind of sensibility is what forces science to
be so accurate. There will always be people who pioneer beyond the current
abilities of science, and the scientists will always catch up. But if it
isn't that way, then every kooky idea will be given too much credence in the
interim.
Intelligent Design is the age-old "God in the gaps" theory, but it isn't
science, it is philosophy. In how many instances in the past has the "God
in the gaps" theory proven to be nothing more than superstition? Almost
always, is the answer to that. Science class is *not* for teaching both
science and superstition, or for teaching anything not conclusive or
compelling enough to be considered science or sound scientifically based
theory.
And no, I don't think evolutionary theory will ever fill in every gap in
understanding biology, so don't make the wrong assumptions about where I
ultimately stand on the issue. I am not an atomist. But until science has
the capacity to prove that the material world is a manifestation of
vibratory standing waves and harmonic systems of higher order, I'm perfectly
comfortable with that notion being philosophical more than scientific.
Science evolved out of philosophy, after all, and our understanding of the
universe is going to continue to evolve as well.
So to me, it looks like your discomfort with philosophy not being treated
equally with science is mostly an indication of the fragility of your
belief. So get over it, already.
Zem 2.0
------------------
Now with sig line!
Chris Jemmett
Chuck wrote:
> >> Some things we just can't know for sure:
> >> -How does something come from nothing?
>
> >When it does.
>
> LOL, case closed ?
>
> >> -Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
> >> the universe?
>
> >Yes.
>
> It was a question and you answered it. I happen to agree that it is
> possible, but again, it is still quite a mystery
>
> >> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> >> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> >> purpose for it's being?
>
> >*Evolution*
>
> So something just appears from nothing,
Who said that?
> has incredible order,
Really? The pocket of relative order that allowed for our developement
is indeed remarkable but that doesn't mean that "something appeared
from nothing and has incredible order". You like glossing over the
nearly countless billions of trillions of litle steps along the way
because, why is that again? Is it becase we don't know all about them
yet. Is it because it's very difficult to imagine us with our little
brains actually learning much about it all anyway? Is it because it is
easier and more politically expedient to just say God it?
Back up, Chuck. The first part of your statement was "something just
appeared from nothing". We don't know much about what appeared from
what or if it was nothing or anything. Still working on it, though. Not
ready to adopt your childish oversimplification just yet. You then say
"has incredible order", which completely ignores a fair amount of
disorder and a fair amount of, shall we call it, "we have no idea yet,
order/disorder, we haven't even found it yet".
So from those two questionable statements you then say:
" and then
> evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
> existence.?"
Which leaves us just the above super oversimplification that may well
be absolutely false as a wedge for your I.D. argument.
You want to teach in science class that "God made (designed) it all".
Your actual argument for doing that is that we haven't got it all
figured out yet.
You keep bringing up the idea that we don't know how we got here in the
mental/spiritual state we are in as a reason to teach people that some
big dude just sort of made it so.
> Case closed because Todd Mitchell said it?
God help us! No!
And you
> criticize and ridicule individuals who take leaps of faith.
For taking *certain* leaps of faith.
>Your's is as large a leap as any mainstream religion.
Sorry, recognizing that evolution occurs and learning all we can about
it is not a leap of faith. It is simply a result of and continuation of
scientific method. Your statement makes no sense until scientists stand
up and say they've solved the mystery of existance and know how and why
it all happened.
> Again, you act like you absolutely know.
Again, you really don't get the science thing, do you? Look, learn,
understand. Repeat.
The only people I ever see acting like they absolutely know are true
believers of the religious persuasion.
I believe there are things we
> cannot know for sure.
To jump in and teach that Some Imagined Being just plain did it all in
science class is kind of retarded. That is were the debate here comes
from. Not from various a.m.y. entities being obsessed wth the debate,
nor from Todd or anyone else pretending that science has all the
answers. It dosen't even come from the desire of some to laugh at
fundies. It comes from I.D.ers trying to get their tripe into science
classes.
rob...@aol.com
Chuck wrote:
> >> Some things we just can't know for sure:
> >> -How does something come from nothing?
>
> >When it does.
>
> LOL, case closed ?
I'm still having trouble with this notion of "nothing".
Rob "seems like there's always something" Allen
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk
> I believe there are things we cannot know for sure.
I know there are things we cannot know for sure. Gödel's first
incompleteness theorem proves that in arithmetic, it is possible to
construct a statement that is true but cannot be proved. However, we
should try not to confuse those things that we cannot know for sure
from those things that we would like not to know for sure, from those
things that we don't currently know but which are knowable, and from
those things that are already known by others.
In other words, there are things we cannot know for sure, but the
development of the variety of life on Earth is something we do know an
awful lot about. The basic mechanism that explains the variety of life
on Earth is evolution by natural selection.
--
Henry
Blackpig
Rumsfelt!
Mike Smith
> I really never thought I'd read a post where Henry paraphrased Donald
> Rumsfelt!
Why not? Donald Rumsfeld is no dummy. He needs to learn to express
himself in a more press-friendly manner, and you may not like him from a
political standpoint, but he's a fairly smart cookie.
--
Mike Smith
Mike Smith
> Some things we just can't know for sure:
> -How does something come from nothing?
> -Can something as chaotic as the big bang give birth to such order in
> the universe?
> -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> purpose for it's being?
What makes you think that we *can't* know these things, just because we
don't know them *yet*? There are lots and *lots* of things that, once
upon a time, we didn't know, but that we now *do* know.
--
Mike Smith
Chris Jemmett
Blackpig wrote:
> I really never thought I'd read a post where Henry paraphrased Donald
> Rumsfelt!
LOL
That's not funny.
heh-heh
oh, it would be even more not funny if you quoted the bit that your not
funny reply refered to.
I got it but some people with poor or outdated software might not have
the rest of the thread in context and might not know what you're on
about.
Chuck
>don't know them *yet*? There are lots and *lots* of things that, once
>upon a time, we didn't know, but that we now *do* know.
--
>Mike Smith
That is a very compelling point Mike. I always liked the line "How did
we become master's of limitation"? -JA You are correct in that I
believe that the word "can't" is way over used. Thank you for the
inspiration towards open-minded thought. I recall reading a book by a
brilliant physicist who was stating (pardon the memory lapse) That
"something could originate from nothing and modern physics was proving
it". It was also a compelling read but I still struggled with that
theory.(being "a mortal as me" could be a factor). Regardless of the
debate. I choose hope and wonderment in this life..... CB
rojon
>
> The pocket of relative order that allowed for our developement
> is indeed remarkable but that doesn't mean that "something appeared
> from nothing and has incredible order". You like glossing over the
> nearly countless billions of trillions of litle steps along the way
> because, why is that again? Is it becase we don't know all about them
> yet.
Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps,
you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
the development of life. You believe science will someday discover the
answers. YET today, you have no "facts."
You exist, what you believe about it is based in faith only.
> Is it because it's very difficult to imagine us with our little
> brains actually learning much about it all anyway? Is it because it is
> easier and more politically expedient to just say God it?
>
It seems just as easy to say there are countless steps we don't know
about yet.
> Back up, Chuck. The first part of your statement was "something just
> appeared from nothing". We don't know much about what appeared from
> what or if it was nothing or anything. Still working on it, though. Not
> ready to adopt your childish oversimplification just yet.
The only reason I can see for you to call his view a "childish
oversimplification" is in an attempt to condescend, considering that
faced with "no facts" about how life began, you yourself believe
nothing more that a fairy tale.
> You then say
> "has incredible order", which completely ignores a fair amount of
> disorder
Disorder is the accepted state of the universe, this is business as
usual. That order exists inside this state is the puzzle. A tiny bit of
order in an ocean of chaos might be unexpected, but we are not just
talking about a tiny bit of order, this is order of the highest
magnitude. You see in three dimension, you touch, you feel love, you
argue points online. You breathe and live inside an ecosphere that is
an incredibly delicate balance on the only planet that we know for a
fact is like ours. None of this is the result of chaos, it is the
result of order.
> and a fair amount of, shall we call it, "we have no idea yet,
> order/disorder, we haven't even found it yet".
> So from those two questionable statements you then say:
>
> " and then
> > evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
> > existence.?"
>
> Which leaves us just the above super oversimplification that may well
> be absolutely false as a wedge for your I.D. argument.
>
> You want to teach in science class that "God made (designed) it all".
> Your actual argument for doing that is that we haven't got it all
> figured out yet.
This is not what ID represents. ID teaches that the order that we see
is far too complex to be the result of a random process. It does not
teach God.
>
> you
> > criticize and ridicule individuals who take leaps of faith.
>
> For taking *certain* leaps of faith.
>
>
> >Your's is as large a leap as any mainstream religion.
>
> Sorry, recognizing that evolution occurs and learning all we can about
> it is not a leap of faith.
First of all, you jumped from talking about how life began to
discussing evolution. He said you DO takes leaps of faith and you do.
How did life begin? Life could not evolve unless it began. Did it begin
with God or without? If you can't prove one way or the other, feel free
to condescend while glossing over that with whatever childish
oversimplification you enjoy.
> It is simply a result of and continuation of
> scientific method. Your statement makes no sense until scientists stand
> up and say they've solved the mystery of existance and know how and why
> it all happened.
>
What if they don't. What if God created the world and life and did so
outside the realm of observable evidence? What would science say then?
How would they come to this conclusion?
>
> > Again, you act like you absolutely know.
>
> Again, you really don't get the science thing, do you? Look, learn,
> understand. Repeat.
> The only people I ever see acting like they absolutely know are true
> believers of the religious persuasion.
Seen a mirror?
>
> I believe there are things we
> > cannot know for sure.
>
>
> To jump in and teach that Some Imagined Being just plain did it all in
> science class is kind of retarded.
You can't demonstrate that God is imagined.
> That is were the debate here comes
> from. Not from various a.m.y. entities being obsessed wth the debate,
> nor from Todd or anyone else pretending that science has all the
> answers. It dosen't even come from the desire of some to laugh at
> fundies. It comes from I.D.ers trying to get their tripe into science
> classes.
Fundies and tripe and pretending science has all the answers? You are
conflicted sir.
Teakbois
use...@bondegezou.demon.co.uk wrote:
> Chuck wrote
> > I believe there are things we cannot know for sure.
>
> I know there are things we cannot know for sure. Gödel's first
> incompleteness theorem proves that in arithmetic, it is possible to
> construct a statement that is true but cannot be proved. However, we
> should try not to confuse those things that we cannot know for sure
> from those things that we would like not to know for sure, from those
> things that we don't currently know but which are knowable, and from
> those things that are already known by others.
>
Do you really know that? :-)
Mike Smith
> Chris Jemmett wrote:
>
>>The pocket of relative order that allowed for our developement
>>is indeed remarkable but that doesn't mean that "something appeared
>>from nothing and has incredible order". You like glossing over the
>>nearly countless billions of trillions of litle steps along the way
>>because, why is that again? Is it becase we don't know all about them
>>yet.
>
> Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
> word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps,
> you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
> the development of life.
That's true. Which is no more or less, however, than the creationist
camp knows.
> You believe science will someday discover the
> answers. YET today, you have no "facts."
That "belief" is a reasonable extrapolation, based on the track record
that science has demonstrated thus far in terms of being able to provide
sensible, reality-based explanations for things that were previously
considered to be "mysterious".
> You exist, what you believe about it is based in faith only.
>
>>Is it because it's very difficult to imagine us with our little
>>brains actually learning much about it all anyway? Is it because it is
>>easier and more politically expedient to just say God it?
>
> It seems just as easy to say there are countless steps we don't know
> about yet.
Not if one then proceeds to actually attempt to *discover* those steps,
as scientists do.
> Disorder is the accepted state of the universe, this is business as
> usual. That order exists inside this state is the puzzle. A tiny bit of
> order in an ocean of chaos might be unexpected, but we are not just
> talking about a tiny bit of order, this is order of the highest
> magnitude. You see in three dimension, you touch, you feel love, you
> argue points online. You breathe and live inside an ecosphere that is
> an incredibly delicate balance on the only planet that we know for a
> fact is like ours. None of this is the result of chaos, it is the
> result of order.
I don't know what you mean. There is a *huge* amount of order in the
universe. Planets orbit stars, which orbit galaxies, which proceed
outward from the Big Bang in a directed, orderly fashion. Stars turn
simpler elements into more complex ones, and in so doing create the
building blocks of planets, and in some cases (one we know of so far,
but no reason to believe that it is *only* one) the life that emerges
upon them. Even without the existence of intelligent life on earth, the
universe is a highly ordered place, one which is tending *toward*
disorder as time goes on.
>>Sorry, recognizing that evolution occurs and learning all we can about
>>it is not a leap of faith.
>
> First of all, you jumped from talking about how life began to
> discussing evolution. He said you DO takes leaps of faith and you do.
> How did life begin? Life could not evolve unless it began. Did it begin
> with God or without? If you can't prove one way or the other, feel free
> to condescend while glossing over that with whatever childish
> oversimplification you enjoy.
There you go again. "We don't know how life began" does not constitute
evidence in favor of intelligent design. The fact that science does not
yet have a solid answer about where life on earth came from, does not
earn ID any points in its own favor.
>>It is simply a result of and continuation of
>>scientific method. Your statement makes no sense until scientists stand
>>up and say they've solved the mystery of existance and know how and why
>>it all happened.
>
> What if they don't. What if God created the world and life and did so
> outside the realm of observable evidence?
Then the ID camp will never have any evidence to support *its* position,
and is dead in the water.
> You can't demonstrate that God is imagined.
See Sagan's argument about the dragon in the garage.
--
Mike Smith
Steven Sullivan
> rojon wrote:
> > Chris Jemmett wrote:
> >
> >>The pocket of relative order that allowed for our developement
> >>is indeed remarkable but that doesn't mean that "something appeared
> >>from nothing and has incredible order". You like glossing over the
> >>nearly countless billions of trillions of litle steps along the way
> >>because, why is that again? Is it becase we don't know all about them
> >>yet.
> >
> > Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
> > word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps,
> > you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
> > the development of life.
> That's true. Which is no more or less, however, than the creationist
> camp knows.
> > You believe science will someday discover the
> > answers. YET today, you have no "facts."
> That "belief" is a reasonable extrapolation, based on the track record
> that science has demonstrated thus far in terms of being able to provide
> sensible, reality-based explanations for things that were previously
> considered to be "mysterious".
I love it when religious babblers start demanding *facts*.
The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
on the side of evolution...and no amount of drivel from
blinkered ideologues waiting for the second coming of Jebus is ever
going to change that.
--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
rojon
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> Mike Smith <mikeUNDER...@acm.org> wrote:
> > rojon wrote:
> > > Chris Jemmett wrote:
> > >
> > >>The pocket of relative order that allowed for our developement
> > >>is indeed remarkable but that doesn't mean that "something appeared
> > >>from nothing and has incredible order". You like glossing over the
> > >>nearly countless billions of trillions of litle steps along the way
> > >>because, why is that again? Is it becase we don't know all about them
> > >>yet.
> > >
> > > Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
> > > word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps,
> > > you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
> > > the development of life.
>
> > That's true. Which is no more or less, however, than the creationist
> > camp knows.
>
> > > You believe science will someday discover the
> > > answers. YET today, you have no "facts."
>
> > That "belief" is a reasonable extrapolation, based on the track record
> > that science has demonstrated thus far in terms of being able to provide
> > sensible, reality-based explanations for things that were previously
> > considered to be "mysterious".
>
>
> I love it when religious babblers start demanding *facts*.
I love it when science tries to cover over it's lack of facts by name
calling.
>
> The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
> on the side of evolution...
Hello...McFly! We we're not talking about evolution.
> and no amount of drivel from
> blinkered ideologues waiting for the second coming of Jebus is ever
> going to change that.
>
If you prefer, I will wait until you get back on the track.
Todd Mitchell
news:1133988564.0...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
LOL. Then read the link provided in the story again, Mr. Thod. The only side
not presenting *facts* are the I.D. advocates. And that's because I.D.
*isn't* science. It's nonsense.
> >
> > The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
> > on the side of evolution...
>
>
> Hello...McFly! We we're not talking about evolution.
Sure we are. We're talking about the "other side" of the children's story
known as I.D., remember?
>
> > and no amount of drivel from
> > blinkered ideologues waiting for the second coming of Jebus is ever
> > going to change that.
> >
>
>
> If you prefer, I will wait until you get back on the track.
Or you could just admit I.D. is non-science based palbum and save everyone
the hassle.
Todd Mitchell
>
> Chuck wrote:
> > Case closed because Todd Mitchell said it?
>
> God help us! No!
I'm here, Chris. And when I say the case is closed, it's *closed*. Haven't
you figured it out yet? "Todd" is code for *God*.
Case closed.
--
God: Hiding Behind the Constitution Since 1789.
Todd Mitchell
news:11pe2p3...@news.supernews.com...
<snicker> You've been readin the "poetry of D. H. Rumsfeld" again I see:
http://www.slate.com/id/2081042/
The Unknown
As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
-Feb. 12, 2002, Department of Defense news briefing
Todd Mitchell
> So something just appears from nothing, has incredible order, and then
> evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
> existence.? Case closed because Todd Mitchell said it?
Case closed because evolution *is* science and I.D. isn't science. I don't
have any idea how evolution explains consciousness. But I *do* know it would
*never* say "An intelligent creator created it", which is what I.D.
purports. Read *science*, Chuck, don't listen to me.
> And you
> criticize and ridicule individuals who take leaps of faith. Your's is
> as large a leap as any mainstream religion.
Nonsense. Science doesn't require *faith* or *belief*.
Science *is* what it is...you either accept it or reject it.
> Again, you act like you absolutely know. I believe there are things we
> cannot know for sure.
I pretend no such thing. I understand the "gaps in evolution" stuff Zem
mentioned, and I recognize that evolution can't explain *every* single thing
about existence. But it's the *only* discipline that can explain what *is*
real, observable, verifiable, testable.
Religion, philosophy, metaphysics, et al are more than welcome to "fill in
the gaps" of science all they want. But they aren't science. And what they
say about said gaps can't be taught as such.
> I recently read a delicious book; "The Wonder of the World, A Journey
> from Modern Science to the Mind of God"... astronomy, physics,
> genetics, evolution, philosophy, archeology... I would encourage anyone
> interested in the entire subject to read it. He gives both sides of
> many issues and provokes open minded-thought. Yes, open-minded. Give it
> a try Todd.
Give me a little more information about the author, and I'll consider
putting it on my xmas list (er, *Christmas* list). Really.
--
God: Hiding Behind the Constitution Since 1789.
Steven Sullivan
What lack of facts is FAILING to be ackowledged, rojo? Science has NEVER
claimed to have the complete story. About anything. And which
realm of endeavor -- science or religion -- is constantly working
towards moving more ideas out of the realm of speculationa nd into the
realm of FACT?
> > The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
> > on the side of evolution...
> Hello...McFly! We we're not talking about evolution.
I know, because you will LOSE that debate.
Science doesn't 'know' how the universe came to be, the way Jebus
lovers 'know'. It doesn't 'know' how life arose, the way Jebus lovers
do. That's because divine revelations just doesn't cut
it as science, and never will..though Jebus lovers are
trying their hardest to shoehorn divine revelation into science curriculums.
> > and no amount of drivel from
> > blinkered ideologues waiting for the second coming of Jebus is ever
> > going to change that.
> >
> If you prefer, I will wait until you get back on the track.
Please decide what the track is, Jebus-lovers. Please. If it's really about
overthrowing materialism, then stop blathering on about origin of
life, evolution, i.e, shit you know far less about than science does.
Tell the truth for once.
rojon
Todd Mitchell wrote:
> "rojon" wrote
> >
> > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > >
> > > I love it when religious babblers start demanding *facts*.
> >
> >
> > I love it when science tries to cover over it's lack of facts by name
> > calling.
>
> LOL. Then read the link provided in the story again, Mr. Thod. The only side
> not presenting *facts* are the I.D. advocates. And that's because I.D.
> *isn't* science. It's nonsense.
>
True, you posted a story about ID VS Evolution in classrooms. But
following that, the section I entered was when CJ condescended upon
Chuck upon the mount of spontaneous generation.
> > >
> > > The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
> > > on the side of evolution...
> >
> >
> > Hello...McFly! We we're not talking about evolution.
>
> Sure we are. We're talking about the "other side" of the children's story
> known as I.D., remember?
>
Oddly when I mention evolution in the topic of spontaneous generation,
all evolutioners say it is unrelated. Or am I supposed to pay homage to
the original subject in every post that wanders off center? Is there no
end to the crap you guys nitpick at?
> >
> > > and no amount of drivel from
> > > blinkered ideologues waiting for the second coming of Jebus is ever
> > > going to change that.
> > >
> >
> >
> > If you prefer, I will wait until you get back on the track.
>
> Or you could just admit I.D. is non-science based palbum and save everyone
> the hassle.
>
said the caboose
> Todd Mitchell: Hiding Behind the Coal Car Since 1804.
Steven Sullivan
> "Chuck" <ShorT...@aol.com> writes in message
> news:1133951480.4...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > So something just appears from nothing, has incredible order, and then
> > evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
> > existence.? Case closed because Todd Mitchell said it?
> Case closed because evolution *is* science and I.D. isn't science. I don't
> have any idea how evolution explains consciousness. But I *do* know it would
> *never* say "An intelligent creator created it", which is what I.D.
> purports. Read *science*, Chuck, don't listen to me.
It's not like science isn't interested in teh question.
Here's the refs from just ONE recent short review of consciousness and evolution.
It's not exhaustive of the literature by any means.
References
1 Darwin C. 1872. The Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals. London: John Murray.
2 James W. 1879. Are we automata? Mind 4: 1-22. Links
3 Popper KR. 1978. Natural selection and the emergence of mind. Dialectica 32: 339-355. Links
4 Popper KR, Eccles JC. 1977. The Self and Its Brain: An Argument for Interactionism. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
5 Lindahl BIB. 1997. Consciousness and biological evolution. J Theor Biol 187: 613-629. Links
6 Lindahl BIB. 2001. Consciousness, behavioural patterns and the direction of biological evolution: implications
for the mind-brain problem. In: Pylkkänen P , Vadén T , editors. Dimensions of Conscious Experience. Amsterdam: John
Benjamins Publishing Company. p 73-99.
7 Watkins J. 1995. Popper and Darwinism. In: O'Hear A , editor. Karl Popper: Philosophy and Problems. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press. p 191-206.
8 Lindahl BIB, Århem P. 1994. Mind as a force field: comments on a new interactionistic hypothesis. J Theor Biol
171: 111-122. Links
9 Edelman GM. 1992. Bright Air, Brilliant Fire: On the Matter of the Mind. London: Allen Lane.
10 Pepperberg IM, Lynn SK. 2000. Possible levels of animal consciousness with reference to grey parrots (Psittacus
erithacus). Amer Zool 40: 893-901. Links
11 Crick F. 1994. The Astonishing Hypothesis: The Scientific Search for the Soul. New York: Simon & Schuster.
12 Crick F, Koch C. 1995. Are we aware of neural activity in primary visual cortex? Nature 375: 121-123. Links
13 Rees G, Kreiman G, Koch C. 2002. Neural correlates of consciousness in human. Nature Reviews 3: 261-270. Links
14 Koch C. 2004. The quest for consciousness: A neurobiological approach. Eaglewood: Roberts and Company
Publishers.
15 Edelman GM. 2003. Naturalizing consciousness: A theoretical framework. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100: 5520-5524.
Links
16 Edelman GM, Tononi G. 2000. A Universe of Consciousness. How Matter Becomes Imagination. New York: Basic Books.
17 Tononi G, Edelman GM. 1998. Consciousness and complexity. Science 282: 1846-1851. Links
18 Eccles JC. 1982. Animal consciousness and human self-consciousness. Experientia 38: 1384-1391. Links
19 Eccles JC. 1990. A unitary hypothesis of mind-brain interactions in the cerebral cortex. Proc R Soc Lond B 240:
433-451. Links
20 Eccles JC. 1992. Evolution of consciousness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 89: 7320-7324. Links
21 Beck F, Eccles JC. 1992. Quantum aspects of brain activity and the role of consciousness. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
89: 11357-11361. Links
22 Cotterill RMJ. 2001. Cooperation of the basal ganglia, cerebellum, sensory cerebrum and hippocampus: possible
implications for cognition, consciousness, intelligence and creativity. Prog Neurobiol 64: 1-33. Links
23 John ER. 2001. A field theory of consciousness. Cons Cogn 10: 184-213. Links
24 Parvizi J, Damasio A. 2001. Consciousness and the brainstem. Cognition 79: 135-159. Links
25 Århem P, Liljenström H, Lindahl BIB. 2003. Consciousness and comparative neuroanatomy. Report on the Agora
Workshop in Sigtuna, Sweden, on 21 August, 2002. J Consciousness Studies 10: 85-88. Links
26 Jones EG. 2001. The thalamic matrix and thalamocortical synchrony. Trends Neurosci 24: 595-601. Links
27 Hodos W. Comparative Vertebrate Neuroanatomy: Evolution and Adaptation, 2nd Edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, in
press.
28 Roth G. 2000. The evolution and ontogeny of consciousness. In: Metzinger T , editor; Neural Correlates of
Consciousness. Empirical and Conceptual Questions. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press. p 77-97.
29 Reisz RR. 1997. The origin and early evolutionary history of amniotes. Trends Ecol Evol 12: 218-222. Links
30 Hockett CF, Altmann SA. 1968. A note on design features. In: Sebeok TA , editor; Animal Communication.
Broomington: Indiana University Press.
31 Griffin DR. 2001. Animal Minds: Beyond Cognition to Consciousness. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
32 MacPhail E. 1998. The Evolution of Consciousness. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
33 Jerison H. 1973. The Evolution of the Brain and Intelligence. New York: Academic Press.
> > I recently read a delicious book; "The Wonder of the World, A Journey
> > from Modern Science to the Mind of God"... astronomy, physics,
> > genetics, evolution, philosophy, archeology... I would encourage anyone
> > interested in the entire subject to read it. He gives both sides of
> > many issues and provokes open minded-thought. Yes, open-minded. Give it
> > a try Todd.
> Give me a little more information about the author, and I'll consider
> putting it on my xmas list (er, *Christmas* list). Really.
Better yet, sample these (list and comments courtesy of Dr. P.Z. Myers www.pharyngula.com) --
For the grown-up layman:
Charles Darwin: Voyaging and Charles Darwin : The Power of Place. Janet Browne. This is the best biography of Darwin out
there.
Science As a Way of Knowing: The Foundations of Modern Biology. John A. Moore. This is part history book, part
philosophy of science book; if you know someone who doesn't understand the scientific method, this one will straighten
him out.
The Darwin Wars. Andrew Brown. Much as we aspire to the pure search for knowledge, scientists can be testy and political
and vicious, too—this is a study of the sociology of evolutionary biology.
Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea. Carl Zimmer. If you want a general survey of the history and ideas of evolutionary
biology that isn't written like a textbook, this is the one you want.
At the Water's Edge: Fish With Fingers, Whales With Legs, and How Life Came Ashore but Then Went Back to Sea. Carl
Zimmer. The focus in this one is on macroevolution of tetrapods and cetaceans. Excellently written, with a very thorough
overview of the evidence.
Trilobite: Eyewitness to Evolution. Richard Fortey. Everything you need to know about the basics of trilobytes, with a
chatty and often amusing introduction to the world of paleontologists.
The Beak of the Finch: A Story of Evolution in Our Time. Jonathan Weiner. A Pulitzer-winning account of the work of
Peter and Rosemary Grant in documenting the evolutionary changes occurring in Darwin's finches in the Galapagos right
now.
What Evolution Is. Ernst Mayr. A survey of the theory by an opinionated master.
Evolutionary Biology. Douglas J. Futuyma. If you don't mind reading a textbook, this is one of the best and most popular
texts on the subject.
An Introduction to Biological Evolution. Kenneth Kardong. Another textbook, but less weighty and less expensive then
Futuyma's; a book I'd use in a freshman non-majors course.
For the more advanced/specialized reader:
On Growth and Form. D'Arcy Wentworth Thompson. I'm afraid no developmental biologist can list important books without
mentioning this one.
From DNA to Diversity: Molecular Genetics and the Evolution of Animal Design. Sean B. Carroll, Jennifer K. Grenier,
Scott D. Weatherbee. Like it says…molecular genetics, evolution, developmental biology. A good textbook describing the
new cutting edge of evolutionary biology.
Extinction: Bad Genes or Bad Luck?. David M. Raup. A little statistics, a lot of paleontology, a good introduction to
how we try to puzzle out what the world was like from a sparse data set.
The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Stephen J. Gould. Massive. Indulgently written. But full of interesting ideas.
Developmental Plasticity and Evolution. Mary Jane West-Eberhard. Also massive. If you're already comfortable with the
conventional perspective on evolutionary theory, though, this one twists it around and comes at it from the point of
view of a developmental biologist.
Biased Embryos and Evolution. Wallace Arthur. A slim and readable book about evo-devo.
The Triple Helix: Gene, Organism, and Environment. Richard Lewontin. A slender book that lucidly summarizes the
non-reductionist position on modern biology; it's a call for greater breadth in science.
The Shape of Life : Genes, Development, and the Evolution of Animal Form. Rudy Raff. Hardcore evo-devo. A little out of
date, but very influential.
For the anti-creationist:
Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design. Barbara Carroll Forrest, Paul R. Gross. The best summary of
the sneaky political strategy of the creationists of the Discovery Institute.
Unintelligent Design. Mark Perakh. Nice, blunt dissection of the pseudo-science of creationism.
Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism. Matt Young, Taner Edis, eds. A team-takedown
of Intelligent Design's bad science.
Steven Sullivan
> Todd Mitchell wrote:
> > "rojon" wrote
> > >
> > > Steven Sullivan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > I love it when religious babblers start demanding *facts*.
> > >
> > >
> > > I love it when science tries to cover over it's lack of facts by name
> > > calling.
> >
> > LOL. Then read the link provided in the story again, Mr. Thod. The only side
> > not presenting *facts* are the I.D. advocates. And that's because I.D.
> > *isn't* science. It's nonsense.
> >
> True, you posted a story about ID VS Evolution in classrooms. But
> following that, the section I entered was when CJ condescended upon
> Chuck upon the mount of spontaneous generation.
> > > >
> > > > The *fact* is, the *facts* we have at hand are *overwhelmingly*
> > > > on the side of evolution...
> > >
> > >
> > > Hello...McFly! We we're not talking about evolution.
> >
> > Sure we are. We're talking about the "other side" of the children's story
> > known as I.D., remember?
> >
> Oddly when I mention evolution in the topic of spontaneous generation,
> all evolutioners say it is unrelated. Or am I supposed to pay homage to
> the original subject in every post that wanders off center? Is there no
> end to the crap you guys nitpick at?
If you're *really* interested in origin-of-life issues, rojo,
suck on the *272* articles that come up when one searches
just the *titles* in Medline/PubMed with the phrase 'origin of life'
(there's rather more if one searches abstracts as well).
You might even find the one of two ID-ish papers that flew in
below the scientific radar. The search term is
"origin of life"[TI], in case you're interested.
But you aren't *really* interested, are you?
This is all about ideology and culture war, not learning,
for your type.
Chuck
>Rob "seems like there's always >something" Allen
That is actually a valid point. Many scientists state that matter may
have *always* existed. The finite brain has trouble comprehending
"always". CB
Chuck
>Give me a little more information about the author, and I'll consider
>putting it on my xmas list (er, *Christmas* list). Really.
CB
Mike Smith
>
> Oddly when I mention evolution in the topic of spontaneous generation,
> all evolutioners say it is unrelated.
That's because... wait for it... it's *unrelated*.
--
Mike Smith
Chris Jemmett
rojon wrote:
> Fundies and tripe and pretending science has all the answers? You are
> conflicted sir.
Show me where I or anyone here has claimed or even pretended that
science has all the answers.
You are confused, sir and are amazingly creative in how you manage to
demonstrate that confusion.
Peter
>So something just appears from nothing
Who said something comes from nothing? Read some multidimensional
modern string theory to see how the Universe, or at least the one we
reside in, results due to the energy release that occurs in the
intersection between two manifolds in the greater space-time
continuum.
> has incredible order
Who said it had "incredible order"? The universe is a seriously
chaotic place, and with the reality of entropy is becoming more
disordered every day.
>evolves into matter that can have consciousness and grasp it's own
>existence.?
I would contend that all DNA structures, the Universe over, results in
the evolution of intelligent life. The mistake is in human arrogance
supposing we have something unique.
>I recently read a delicious book; "The Wonder of the World, A Journey
>from Modern Science to the Mind of God".
I'll check it out, thanks for the tip.
Peter
>Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
>word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps
I know how I get to work everyday, but I don't know all the individual
rocks and pepples along the way. And in fact, beyond seeing the
overall direction, those countless details are most likely irrelevant.
> you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
>the development of life. You believe science will someday discover the
>answers. YET today, you have no "facts."
There are plenty of facts, what the IDers don't have are facts to back
up *their* suppositions, instead only trying to counter evolutionist
arguments with philosophical conjecture. One solid piece of data that
demonstrates that *anything* was created through ID would be helpful.
>Disorder is the accepted state of the universe,
"Accepted"? This implies there is a choice in order or disorder. There
is virtually no systematic order in the Universe short of a few
elemtary laws, such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear
forces. And there's no proof that those are unique to the
"Multiverse", just to the specific space-time continuum we happen to
be inhabiting.
>usual. That order exists inside this state is the puzzle. A tiny bit of
>order in an ocean of chaos might be unexpected, but we are not just
>talking about a tiny bit of order, this is order of the highest
>magnitude. You see in three dimension, you touch, you feel love, you
>argue points online. You breathe and live inside an ecosphere that is
>an incredibly delicate balance on the only planet that we know for a
>fact is like ours. None of this is the result of chaos, it is the
>result of order.
I see no order here, only the human mind putting a pattern to
non-pattern, a very common human psychological need, shared by almost
everyone. Bear in mind, I believe in God, but the Universe is what it
is, and it's far more complex than what you are describing, and I also
believe there may be some order at some level, but for your arguments
to hold true, they must be far more vigorous than "we breathe and we
love". Life is going to prove to be very common in this Universe.
>This is not what ID represents. ID teaches that the order that we see
>is far too complex to be the result of a random process. It does not
>teach God.
Whether or not you want that to be the case, the fact is that ID is
being used as a political tool for the religious right to push
creationism on people. Btw, evolution is *NOT* random at all, it is
basesd upon clear, logical principles of natural selection.
>What if they don't. What if God created the world and life and did so
>outside the realm of observable evidence? What would science say then?
>How would they come to this conclusion?
If God did, then He created Science also, in order that we might
someday learn about Him and His creation.
>> To jump in and teach that Some Imagined Being just plain did it all in
>> science class is kind of retarded.
>
>You can't demonstrate that God is imagined.
True, and I agree that belief in no God is as much a matter of faith
as belief in God. But ID should NOT be taught in a science context as
it is not, in any way, scientific. It is not a theory, it has no
evidence supporting it, it is strictly a matter of faith, therefore,
if it is taught at all, should only be done so in the context of
relition and mythology classes - which btw, I support, but my classes
wouldn't make most Christians too happy, since I would give all major
religions equal time (or perhaps allocate it based on worldwide
distribution of belief systems - I think Islam wins in that case).
Christians do not have a monopoly on God.
Peter
Yes, I refer folks again back to reading up on multidimensional string
theory and modern interpretations on hos the Universe emerged from the
overlapping of various "manifolds" of multidimensional space-time.
rojon
> On 7 Dec 2005 10:07:10 -0800, "rojon" <Rojo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
> >Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
> >word, YET. If science doesn't YET know about these billions of steps
>
> I know how I get to work everyday, but I don't know all the individual
> rocks and pepples along the way. And in fact, beyond seeing the
> overall direction, those countless details are most likely irrelevant.
>
You know how to get to work. We don't know how life began.
> > you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
> >the development of life. You believe science will someday discover the
> >answers. YET today, you have no "facts."
>
> There are plenty of facts, what the IDers don't have are facts to back
> up *their* suppositions, instead only trying to counter evolutionist...
Why is it no one can focus on the subject at hand. It is like pointing
the way for butterflies
> arguments with philosophical conjecture. One solid piece of data that
> demonstrates that *anything* was created through ID would be helpful.
>
> >Disorder is the accepted state of the universe,
>
> "Accepted"? This implies there is a choice in order or disorder.
Aaaargh! Accepted, meaning that most scientists accept the concept of
entropy. How about "Disorder is a widely accepted state of the
universe, minus Peter.
> There
> is virtually no systematic order in the Universe short of a few
> elemtary laws
You say potato...
> such as gravity, electromagnetism, and the nuclear
> forces. And there's no proof that those are unique to the
> "Multiverse", just to the specific space-time continuum we happen to
> be inhabiting.
>
I shall await ET's entry in this thread.
> > That order exists inside this state is the puzzle. A tiny bit of
> >order in an ocean of chaos might be unexpected, but we are not just
> >talking about a tiny bit of order, this is order of the highest
> >magnitude. You see in three dimension, you touch, you feel love, you
> >argue points online. You breathe and live inside an ecosphere that is
> >an incredibly delicate balance on the only planet that we know for a
> >fact is like ours. None of this is the result of chaos, it is the
> >result of order.
>
> I see no order here
Bullshit.
You can battle it out with Mike who just said, "I don't know what you
mean. There is a *huge* amount of order in the
universe. Planets orbit stars, which orbit galaxies..."
You two disagree with my point but by using opposite logic.
> only the human mind putting a pattern to
> non-pattern, a very common human psychological need, shared by almost
> everyone.
The need being what? To perceive order?
> Bear in mind, I believe in God, but the Universe is what it
> is, and it's far more complex than what you are describing
It is also far more complex than you or mike or chuck or chris or todd
or stephen or steve or zembarato are describing. Your concept of what I
believe seems to range from thinking I am attached to dogma while
giving interesting descriptions of Yes music.
> and I also
> believe there may be some order at some level
Remember when I said bullshit? See above.
> but for your arguments
> to hold true, they must be far more vigorous than "we breathe and we
> love".
Shouldn't that be breath and hope and chase and love?
>
> Life is going to prove to be very common in this Universe.
>
ID is going to prove that man was designed.
> >ID...does not
> >teach God.
>
> Whether or not you want that to be the case, the fact is that ID is
> being used as a political tool for the religious right to push
> creationism on people.
I think ID provides a way to remove religion from concepts that have
been under the domain of religion. As such we had to distance ourselves
from promoting a "religion." Now the ideas themselves can be considered
free from this entanglement. I don't fear the critical eye Gmelin
suggests it be put under. If it fails, it should. If it is truth, it
will succeed.
> Btw, evolution is *NOT* random at all, it is
> basesd upon clear, logical principles of natural selection.
>
I hate to tell you but even natural selection would require order. To
develop a thumb there has to be an ordered universe where the use of a
thumb merits advancement over the lack of. The development of eyes
relies on that there is something to see, a concept to form and a
reason to see it, even if it is for food.
> >What if they don't. What if God created the world and life and did so
> >outside the realm of observable evidence? What would science say then?
> >How would they come to this conclusion?
>
> If God did, then He created Science also, in order that we might
> someday learn about Him and His creation.
>
You say. And science is good tool, but what if God did not wish to be
seen by this revealing of science? What if God wishes to stand outside
of the observable? There could be a clear motive for this. "Young man,
just wait until your Father gets home." This is a universal Mom
statement that shows that kids misbehave in the absence of authority.
When the cats away. Judeao/Christian religions say one reaches God by
faith. If we can prove God exists, we won't need faith. Father will be
home. I think these two concepts in tandem are why God chose faith as
the path rather than intellect. Science will never discover why we
exist. Why is outside the realm of the observable. In this existence,
you can only come to "why" thorough faith. You can like it or lump it.
But even science with all its rejection of God, has no idea how OR why
we exist.
> >> To jump in and teach that Some Imagined Being just plain did it all in
> >> science class is kind of retarded.
> >
> >You can't demonstrate that God is imagined.
>
> True, and I agree that belief in no God is as much a matter of faith
> as belief in God.
We do agree on that.
> But ID should NOT be taught in a science context as
> it is not, in any way, scientific.
Going in circles. ID is not teaching a path to God, or about God.
> It is not a theory, it has no
> evidence supporting it
In the Atheism.Music.Yes? thread, I explained the rebuttal to the squid
eye argument against intelligent design. The complex order in the
assembly of the human eye is sufficient as a counter argument against
these claims. Will this explanation be accepted by evolutionists? No.
Why? They choose to believe by faith that which they are committed to.
Evidence is what you make of it.
> it is strictly a matter of faith, therefore,
> if it is taught at all, should only be done so in the context of
> relition and mythology classes - which btw, I support, but my classes
> wouldn't make most Christians too happy, since I would give all major
> religions equal time (or perhaps allocate it based on worldwide
> distribution of belief systems - I think Islam wins in that case).
> Christians do not have a monopoly on God.
The only monopoly on God is the one he holds, he names himself.
Chet
Re: OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker
Group: alt.music.yes Date: Wed, Dec 7, 2005, 10:35pm (PST+8) From:
ssu...@panix.com (Steven Sullivan)
You sound like a school book. ...a Public School book.
Chet
Re: OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker
ccje...@rogers.com (Chris Jemmett)
What does your book say?
Chet
Re: OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker
mikeUNDER...@acm.org (Mike Smith)
I really never thought I'd read a post where Henry paraphrased Donald
Rumsfelt!
himself in a more press-friendly manner, and you may not like him from a
political standpoint, but he's a fairly smart cookie.
--
Mike Smith
---
Is that what your public school book told you? Political Science
Peter
>Why is it no one can focus on the subject at hand. It is like pointing
>the way for butterflies
What subject are you discussing? ID? If so, then the argument is very
clear. Provide something to counter it. Or better yet, instead of
arguing about how life was formed, when we have clear evidence of it,
discuss where consciousness comes from. Far more interesting, and not
provable by either side.
>Aaaargh! Accepted, meaning that most scientists accept the concept of
>entropy. How about "Disorder is a widely accepted state of the
>universe, minus Peter.
Entropy is FACT, Rojon. That some choose to ignore FACT doesn't make
it not FACT.
>I shall await ET's entry in this thread.
You should. The probability is that we are not in any way special.
>You can battle it out with Mike who just said, "I don't know what you
>mean. There is a *huge* amount of order in the
>universe. Planets orbit stars, which orbit galaxies..."
>You two disagree with my point but by using opposite logic.
Those are simple laws of gravitation. Yes, there are certain
fundamental properties of matter, of course there are. There may well
be other Universes in which those forces vary significantly. If you
choose only to believe in yuor own presuppositions, then you aren't
doing God any good whatsoever. We are here to LEARN, and learning
requires understanding FACT.
>> only the human mind putting a pattern to
>> non-pattern, a very common human psychological need, shared by almost
>> everyone.
>
>
>The need being what? To perceive order?
Yes, exactly, a need to perceive order when there is none.
>It is also far more complex than you or mike or chuck or chris or todd
>or stephen or steve or zembarato are describing. Your concept of what I
>believe seems to range from thinking I am attached to dogma while
>giving interesting descriptions of Yes music.
I have no clear idea of what you believe, because you don't state
positive points here, you argue others' points by saying they aren't
true. That isn't discourse. And I'm sorry that you think it is a
problem that you have interetsing descriptions of Yes music.
But be precise about what you believe, as I was several days ago,
when I clearly laid out how I think God, man, faith and science are an
intertwined whole.
Science and fiath search for the same thing, and the Universe and God
are a symbiotic thing. That does NOT preclude natural forces from
working within themselves without the formation of some particular
plan. You put 100 billion galaxies in a pot, stir up the appropriate
chemicals and energy and what comes out is LIFE! We, as priimitive
humans have created most of the precursors in a few decades, and
already know that the precursor molecules exist in interstellar
clouds. By suggesting that there is anything to any of it that makes
us or this Universe special, is simply anthropomorphism, IMO. ID
strongly suggests that we are somehow a special creature in this
universe, and I'm not even certain we're the most special creatures on
this planet.
>ID is going to prove that man was designed.
ID has proven not a single thing, as it has no logical, philosophical
or contextual basis, as well as not a shred of evidence. Telling
others how they are wrong does not give you any insight as to what is
right. You can follow your heart, but that doesn't mean that those
beliefs correlate to the evidence.
Give a clear, convincing, logical, non-emotional argument that
explains the actual data, and back it up with predictions, and then
everyone will follow the theory. No one has yet done so.
>I think ID provides a way to remove religion from concepts that have
>been under the domain of religion.
No, it doesn't. It can only work within the context of a *designer*.
Who might that be?
> Now the ideas themselves can be considered free from this entanglement.
Only from those who want to free themselves from the burden of
consistency. I'll repeat this time: It can only work within the
context of a *designer*. Who might that be?
> I don't fear the critical eye Gmelin
>suggests it be put under. If it fails, it should. If it is truth, it
>will succeed.
I've thrown down the gauntlet, forget the other's insults, and talk
honestly. I'm open to real discussion, but you need to convince me of
a system that works universally and fits the observed data. I'm not
worried about you proving God exists, I want your arguments as to why
ID is right. So far, nothing that has been provided in this or other
threads has done so. The various links have, IMO, only tried to
explain why "bloggers" (for all practical purposes) with little or no
understanding of science, or the realities of the natural world around
them, believe that evolution is wrong. If you do not fear what Gmelin
has said, then use *science* to prive ID, if it isn't faith based,
then you should be able to find solid evidence of it.
>I hate to tell you but even natural selection would require order. To
>develop a thumb there has to be an ordered universe where the use of a
>thumb merits advancement over the lack of. The development of eyes
>relies on that there is something to see, a concept to form and a
>reason to see it, even if it is for food.
Yes, the human mind does like to create order out of non-ordered
patterns, doesn't it. Senses OF COURSE are going to react to the
environment around them, that's more or less the first thing that has
to exist for any life to survive.. If you are simply saying that
evolution is the way God's plan works, then fine. Let's be done with
the discussion and move on.
>You say. And science is good tool, but what if God did not wish to be
>seen by this revealing of science? What if God wishes to stand outside
>of the observable?
God IS observable. EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY. God is in the rocks, the
trees, the people, our minds are God's consciousness, good, bad and
ugly. Our hands are God's hands. But we and the whole universe have
"free will", at best the "guidance" you look for are in the natural
laws, which are only valid for this section of the Multiverse. NONE of
this precludes evolution or implies an intelligent plan to get from
point A in time to point B in time.
> I think these two concepts in tandem are why God chose faith as
>the path rather than intellect.
Sorry, this just isn't the way I see the Universe at all. God doesn't
play games like that. With faith, prayer and meditation you can see
God any time you want. That's what the repressed Gnostics tried to
teach, the secret Christian doctrines that were crushed by the Roman
Church, since THEY wanted to play Dad, and punish those who didn't pay
their tithings on time, or kiss the right royal butt. God didn't
choose "faith over intellect". HE GAVE US BOTH!!!!!!! He expects us to
use BOTH. All the time, as the situation requires.
It's the false religious doctrines, that truly insult God, IMO, which
have tried to empower the ignorant and the greedy into convincing
those who they would lead no to think for themselves, not to discover
the world and it's many wonders and realities.
> Science will never discover why we exist. Why is outside the realm of the observable.
Not at all, it's inside all of us all the time. Your world view has
severely limited the capabilities of an infinite God.
> In this existence, you can only come to "why" thorough faith. You can like it or lump it.
>But even science with all its rejection of God, has no idea how OR why
>we exist.
Science doesn't reject God. In fact, the bulk of scientists in the US
are believers, despite what you may see here. Most don't follow
particular dogmas. Science attempts to define the reality of the world
around us. That's all. Faith is about matters of the spirit, the
source of consciousness, not the source of matter.
>Going in circles. ID is not teaching a path to God, or about God.
Who was the designer? Simple question, please answer in as definitive
way as you can, please.
>In the Atheism.Music.Yes? thread, I explained the rebuttal to the squid
>eye argument against intelligent design. The complex order in the
>assembly of the human eye is sufficient as a counter argument against
>these claims.
No, it doesn't say anything to prove intelligent design, it merely
proves that nature is capable of producing complex items. We'll find
that eyeballs exist by the millions of trillions, if we live another
couple of hundred years. Besides, we are not looking for a
"counter-argument",we are looking for one clear piece of evidence that
cannot be explained away, one solid logical train that explains the
fossil record, that explains the evolution of the eye from the
primitive spider's all the way to humanity.
> Will this explanation be accepted by evolutionists? No.
Of course not, it contains no logic, only emotional rhetoric. "See, it
just can't be any other way", is not an explanation.
But then again, will any logic and evidence be accepted by ID'ers.
Apparently not.
>Why? They choose to believe by faith that which they are committed to.
>Evidence is what you make of it.
No, evidence is in the fossil and DNA. Find some evidence in DNA. ONE
gene that indicates that it couldn't have been formed through natural
selection. I have plenty of personal evidence of God's existence due
to God's interaction with my consciousness, but all the hard data of
natural phenomenon are much more easily explained through natural law
then by some being simply willing things to be so. Again, if you are
to insist that natural laws are there because of God's plan, then the
argumant becomes circular, and there's no point in continuing.
Steven Sullivan
another installment in the continuing series of 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them'
Margaret Talbot wrote an article on the Dover trial for the New Yorker a couple of weeks back.
The article's not online yet (too bad because it's great) but a Q&A with Talbot it. Here's an
excerpt:
Q: Some of the board members who voted in favor of mandating the teaching of intelligent
design in Dover admitted to having no definition of what, exactly, it is. Did you get a sense
of why they voted the way they did? Did they view intelligent design merely as a lesson in
critical thinking or did they believe in it as a theory?
A: I would say there was a certain amount of, to put it delicately, disingenuousness in how
they presented these arguments in court. Several of the board members said they thought they
were promoting good pedagogy, critical thinking, the chance to learn about another theory, and
so on. But at the board meetings, one of the members had said, for example, Two thousand years
ago, someone died on a cross. Cant someone take a stand for Him? and This country wasnt
founded on Muslim beliefs or evolution. This country was founded on Christianity, and our
students should be taught as such. There was evidence presented that they had started off
wanting to teach creationism, before they latched on to intelligent design. And, as you say,
they didnt seem to have a particularly sophisticated understandingor, in some cases, an
understanding at allof intelligent design.
http://www.newyorker.com/online/content/articles/051205on_onlineonly01
-S.
NP: 'Army of Me', Bjork
Steven Sullivan
and another installment of 'Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them': a nice
essay outlining the links between neoconservatism and the
anti-evolution campaign.
http://reason.com/9707/fe.bailey.shtml
Chet
Re: OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker
ssu...@panix.com (Steven Sullivan)
UFOs are real! I need to show you all the links that will convince
you!! Time is running out. I.D. has to be taught, so you and the other
schoolboys will be prepared for what's to come!! Such a pure delight!
The coming of outerspace!! ....Just as Jon foretold!
Stephen Bruun
news:8g2fp1157ua1sds3r...@4ax.com...
> Who said it had "incredible order"? The universe is a seriously
> chaotic place, and with the reality of entropy is becoming more
> disordered every day.
I think the point is that there is *regularity* in the universe - the same
laws of physics etc. seem to apply everywhere, for instance. One could, at
this point, be curmudgeonly and point out that an "ordered" universe with
fixed laws seems to be on autopilot - whereas a universe under the direct
control of a conscious intelligence would show a good deal more
arbitrariness and irregularity because events in such a universe would be
governed not by unchanging, predictable principles, but by the unpredictable
whims of the intelligent agent.
--
To reply, get rid of THAT THING
Teakbois
Stephen Bruun wrote:
> I think the point is that there is *regularity* in the universe -
And when there is not, at least science can show us the way to a nice
big 'ol glass of prune juice!
Todd Mitchell
news:dn7njm$q9g$1...@reader2.panix.com...
Dimensions of Conscious Experience. Amsterdam: John
> Benjamins Publishing Company. p 73-99.
> 7 Watkins J. 1995. Popper and Darwinism. In: O'Hear A , editor. Karl
Popper: Philosophy and Problems. Cambridge:
> Cambridge University Press. p 191-206.
Whew. What are you trying to do, kill me with a little "light" reading over
the holidays?
Actually, some of these titles look innerestin. Danke.
--
Todd Mitchell: Hiding Behind the Constitution Since 1789.
DAVID RHEAULT
<rob...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133970516.3...@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Chuck wrote:
>> >> Some things we just can't know for sure:
>> >> -How does something come from nothing?
>>
>>
>> LOL, case closed ?
>
>
> I'm still having trouble with this notion of "nothing".
It's what ain't there.
gmelin
Todd Mitchell wrote:
> > Unlike you, I believe in the individual's ability to decipher their own
> > truth from fiction after being well-informed.
>
> So you're ok with teaching astrology *and* astronomy? Teaching animism *and*
> physics? Let the students "decide on their own" which is real and which
> isn't? That's what you really think education is really all about?
Education is about teaching the students *how* to make such decisions.
That's why we should get ID into the clasroom and *show* the students
whether or not it's real. It's you who want to exclude it and force
the students to "decide on their own."
> > You probably think the
> > government should walk people through their lives from womb to tomb,
> > because individuals do not know any better.
>
> No, I think the government should teach people *science* in a *science*
> class, not fantasy or religious dogma.
Science is the process of distinguishing that which is provable and
valid from that which is not; it is something the vast majority of the
population seem to lack any ability to do. Sadly, there are people
who, while decrying the number of people who believe invalid things,
nevertheless resist any attempt to use the educational process to
counter that.
> > -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> > matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> > purpose for it's being?
>
> *Evolution*
Oops! Better scale it back, Toddster. In no way does evolution
address those issues. Nor does it need to. Your knee-jerk support for
evolution seems to have suppressed your understanding of what it
actually is.
> > Intelligent design / something beyond our humanity ... deserves a place
> > in the academic community.
>
> And yet for some reason, *no one* in the I.D. community wants to step up to
> the plate and submit something for peer review. Hmmmm...
If only students in school were being shown that. Hmmm. . .
gmelin
Chris Jemmett
gmelin wrote:
> Todd Mitchell wrote:
> > And yet for some reason, *no one* in the I.D. community wants to step up to
> > the plate and submit something for peer review. Hmmmm...
> If only students in school were being shown that. Hmmm. . .
As in at least one other thread, yours is the only argument that comes
close to giving a good reason to put I.D. into a science class. Still,
I really think that it belongs in another subject. This one might be an
exception but I can't see opeing the door to teaching faith based ideas
in any science classes, even if only to show how scientifically
groundless they are. How long until the next completely unscientific
agenda worms its way into a science class using I.D. as a precident? We
could end up with a generation of graduates who know what is not
science but who have had almost no time to learn any real science
because they had to sit in class and listen to ridiculous a.m.y. style
arguments about god and stuff all day, every day.
I.D. is a really bad idea looking for a wedge. I suspect science
teachers already have enough distractions and off topic asides to deal
with without this one.
Steven Sullivan
> gmelin wrote:
> > Todd Mitchell wrote:
"Intelligent design" isn't generally introduced into classes that deal with the
study of the natural world for the same reason that every statement
of fact by a science, history, literature, math etc teacher isn't
followed by 'but then again, you might just be a brain in a jar somewhere
and this could all be an illusion'.
Even though that is true.
There are, in fact, some teachers who now talk about ID in order to
show why it's crap. But that's PURELY because of the political brouhaha
that the IDeologues have fomented (which has led to kids going home
telling their parents that 'evolution is a lie')...NOT because it has any
scientific traction.
Todd Mitchell
And besides, if students want to hear about I.D. *not* being able to produce
anything meeting the definition of science, they can find out the way I
posted: in the New York Times, or the news or (fill in the blank). Where
they *don't* need to be "taught" that I.D. is bullshit is in the *science*
classroom.
Todd Mitchell
news:1134072226....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
>
> Todd Mitchell wrote:
> > > -How does matter give birth to consciousness, and then this random
> > > matter induced consciousness bring forth the ability to question the
> > > purpose for it's being?
> >
> > *Evolution*
>
> Oops! Better scale it back, Toddster. In no way does evolution
> address those issues. Nor does it need to. Your knee-jerk support for
> evolution seems to have suppressed your understanding of what it
> actually is.
Mabye you should peruse the reading list Steve posted earlier. Your "knee
jerk support" for I.D. has "suppressed your understanding" for what
evolution actually is.
Steven Sullivan
I would bet that rojo hasn't much interest in *understanding*
the scientific arguments for evolution, or abiogenesis,
any more than the IDeologues in Dover, Kansas, or Seattle do.
They're much more interested in changing the definition of
science for ideological reasons. Only when 'maybe the Judeo-Christian
God did it' is deemed a *scientific* answer to a question about
the material world, will they be truly interested in 'science'.
Because then they don't really have to understand anything.
Robert Seeberger
"Steven Sullivan" <ssu...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:dn7hab$i2h$1...@reader2.panix.com...
> Mike Smith <mikeUNDER...@acm.org> wrote:
>> rojon wrote:
>> > Chris Jemmett wrote:
>> >
>> >>The pocket of relative order that allowed for our developement
>> >>is indeed remarkable but that doesn't mean that "something appeared
>> >>from nothing and has incredible order". You like glossing over the
>> >>nearly countless billions of trillions of litle steps along the way
>> >>because, why is that again? Is it becase we don't know all about them
>> >>yet.
>> >
>> > Everything you say up to this point about how life began, hinges on the
>> > you are saying you don't know about the countless little steps led to
>> > the development of life.
>
>> camp knows.
>
>> > You believe science will someday discover the
>> > answers. YET today, you have no "facts."
>
>> that science has demonstrated thus far in terms of being able to provide
>> sensible, reality-based explanations for things that were previously
>> considered to be "mysterious".
>
>
> I love it when religious babblers start demanding *facts*.
>
> blinkered ideologues waiting for the second coming of Jebus is ever
> going to change that.
>
From Ansible:
IAIN BANKS had a letter in _New Scientist_: `Symbolically, reason has
already triumphed in the debate over intelligent design. The faith-based
side has shifted from using the term "creationism" to using "intelligent
design". So their argument has ... evolved.' [GW]
xponent
Revealing Science Of Rob Maru
rob
Peter
<THATshrubn...@verizon.net> wrote:
> whereas a universe under the direct
>control of a conscious intelligence would show a good deal more
>arbitrariness and irregularity because events in such a universe would be
>governed not by unchanging, predictable principles, but by the unpredictable
>whims of the intelligent agent.
I think this is actually a good point, unpredictable changes in the
DNA, without any known natural cause would be a reasonable piece of
data for an argument on ID.
Robert Seeberger
I'm waiting for a little honesty out of the ID camp.
I fully expect to soon hear ID proponents say :
"We no longer care for America to hold on to its position at the forefront
of engineering and the sciences. We don't care if Johnny can't think his way
out of a wet paper bag as long as he is Godly and does whatever his preacher
tells him to do and thinks what he is told to think."
Of course, if these people were to be successful, when the conquerors come I
doubt they will be swayed by such discourse.
xponent
The End Of America Maru
rob
Stephen Bruun
> > And yet for some reason, *no one* in the I.D. community wants to step up
to
> > the plate and submit something for peer review. Hmmmm...
"gmelin" <gme...@scc.losrios.edu> wrote in message
news:1134072226....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> If only students in school were being shown that. Hmmm. . .
Okay. Show the students that, and explain "that's why we are not going to
talk in any detail about intelligent design." Once the students know the
basics of how science works - including evidence, testable predictions,
falsifiability, and peer review - it should suffice to take sixty seconds to
say "intelligent design meets none of these criteria." The end. Bye-bye.
Nighty-night. There is no need to spend a month or a week or a day
explaining that ID hasn't produced any peer-reviewed research - the sentence
"ID hasn't produced any peer-reviewed research" says it all. If there's
nothing there then there's nothing to discuss. Right?
Stephen Bruun
news:1134016219....@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
> ID is going to prove that man was designed....
>
> I don't fear the critical eye Gmelin
> suggests it be put under. If it fails, it should. If it is truth, it
> will succeed.
It appears to have already failed. There is no "research" on ID, and no one
has voiced any coherent plan for conducting any research. ID "theory"
consists of a handful of philosophical objections to natural selection, and
these objections have already been dissected and shown to be fatally flawed
by logical holes, circular reasoning, profound misunderstanding of
probability and information theory, etc. When the ID chieftains are shown
these shortcomings, they re-publish their old arguments and call them
devastating rebuttals.
You say "if it fails, it should." What would you accept as evidence of ID's
failure? What would you accept as evidence against design? And why haven't
you answered that second question even though it has been asked repeatedly?
If there is *nothing* that would convince you that ID is wrong, then it's
not
a "theory," it's dogma. Putting a coat of paint over a religious belief
doesn't make it non-religious, it makes it religion in disguise.
> And science is good tool, but what if God did not wish to be
> seen by this revealing of science?
If God didn't want Eve to eat the fruit, he chose a damn poor spot for the
tree.
> What if God wishes to stand outside of the observable?
Then, two things.
(A) If God wants to be deliberately concealed from us, then the notion of
"revealed religion" goes straight out the window, along with the notion that
God expects certain behaviors from us. A totally unobservable God is not a
lawmaker, he's an anthropologist. If he's gonna hide behind a rock, then
he's got no reason to hold a grudge against people who don't think he's
there at all. The biblical God wants to be observed, wants us to know he
sees us when we're sleeping and knows when we're awake, he's dug himself a
lake of fire so be good for goodness sake. Parting the Red Sea and
exclaiming "this is my son with whom I am well pleased" tend to draw
attention to oneself. Either God wants to be obeyed, or he wants to be
hidden. He cannot logically want both things.
(B) If I were God, and I wanted to be unobservable, I sure as shootin'
wouldn't put "appearance of design" in my creation.
> Judeao/Christian religions say one reaches God by
> faith. If we can prove God exists, we won't need faith.
So you're saying God would never pull flashy supernatural stunts like
raising the dead, multiplying loaves and fishes, speaking from a donkey or a
burning bush? Because anyone who actually *saw* that stuff would have a
pretty strong argument that they had seen proof of God's existence. Which
is it? Awesome displays of power or hiding in a cupboard so we don't lose
faith?
And why, exactly, do we need to reach God by faith? That's never been
explained. If someone were consciously fabricating a religious belief
system, I can see how they would have a strong vested interest in pushing
blind belief and absence of evidence as *good* things. Why would God pursue
a strategy that makes his disciples look like they're just making stuff up
(because it is indistinguishable from the behavior of someone making stuff
up)?
> Science will never discover why we exist.
Faith will never prove there is any "because," and if there is no "because,"
then there is no "why."
Science will also never discover why wood nymphs cry at Adam Sandler movies.
Is this because science is flawed, or is it because it's a question with no
answer?
> But even science with all its rejection of God, has no idea how OR why
> we exist.
Science isn't about "rejection of God," it's about following the evidence.
I suppose some people might presume that, because science is silent about
God, it must be ANTI-God - kind of like how saying "Happy Holidays" is
somehow anti-Christmas to the point where people are organizing boycotts.
(If I say "happy holidays" to someone, it's because I don't know what their
religion is and I think it's presumptuous to presume they're Christian.
I'll quite gladly say "Merry Christmas" to friends of mine whom I know to be
Christian.)
> > [ID] is not a theory, it has no
> > evidence supporting it
>
> In the Atheism.Music.Yes? thread, I explained the rebuttal to the squid
> eye argument against intelligent design. The complex order in the
> assembly of the human eye is sufficient as a counter argument against
> these claims. Will this explanation be accepted by evolutionists? No.
> Why? They choose to believe by faith that which they are committed to.
> Evidence is what you make of it.
Recap: Humans have inverted retinas, and squid don't, because squid live in
murky water and need more light-sensitivity, whereas the inverted retina is
exquisitely designed for sight on dry land where the light is stronger. It
was then pointed out that vertebrate fish have inverted retinas. That part
of the conversation never seems to have gotten past that point. Why is the
inverted retina a good "design" for fish, when they live where the squid
are?
The "complexity" argument is not "evidence of design." Even if you could
prove conclusively that the human eye cannot possibly be a product of
evolution by natural selection, you still have not proven intelligent
design. It's the fallacy of the excluded middle. You arbitrarily assume
there are only two possible scenarios - natural selection or intelligent
design. You therefore assume that, if natural selection is eliminated,
intelligent design wins by default. But how do you prove that natural
selection and ID are the only two possible scenarios?
Meanwhile, http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB301.html.
Steven Sullivan
Didn't you know? God is a *robot*.
Steven Sullivan
In today's headlines:
Kansas' science standards fail
Topeka Capital Journal
Kansas has the nation's worst science standards for public schools, a national education group says....
gmelin
Chris Jemmett wrote:
> gmelin wrote:
>
> > Todd Mitchell wrote:
>
> > > And yet for some reason, *no one* in the I.D. community wants to step up to
> > > the plate and submit something for peer review. Hmmmm...
>
> > If only students in school were being shown that. Hmmm. . .
>
> As in at least one other thread, yours is the only argument that comes
> close to giving a good reason to put I.D. into a science class. Still,
> I really think that it belongs in another subject. This one might be an
> exception but I can't see opeing the door to teaching faith based ideas
> in any science classes, even if only to show how scientifically
> groundless they are. How long until the next completely unscientific
> agenda worms its way into a science class using I.D. as a precident?
Oh, yeah, right. "Hey, their idea got totally torn to shreds; let's
have it done to our idea now." Uh huh, I can really see that happening
. . .
gmelin
gmelin
Steven Sullivan wrote:
> There are, in fact, some teachers who now talk about ID in order to
> show why it's crap.
Good.
But that's PURELY because of the political brouhaha
> that the IDeologues have fomented (which has led to kids going home
> telling their parents that 'evolution is a lie')...NOT because it has any
> scientific traction.
And at this point that seems like plenty good reason to do it.
gmelin
gmelin
I wish. Unfortunately the thousands of people who still seem to
believe this shit suggest that's not sufficient. As I said, when all
21 of my students are willing to accept ID as a potentially valid
alternative, that tells me conclusively that science education as it's
being offered now is not cutting it.
gmelin
gmelin
rojon wrote:
Judeao/Christian religions say one reaches God by
> home. I think these two concepts in tandem are why God chose faith as
> the path rather than intellect.
But what about the babel fish?
gmelin
rojon
>"rojon" wrote:
>
> >Why is it no one can focus on the subject at hand. It is like pointing
> >the way for butterflies
>
> What subject are you discussing?
I will give you this. You have a very Yes-ish philosophy, Very Tales.
At first glance it appears to be one of the most Yes-like I have
encountered. Example where you said, "God is in the rocks, the trees,
the people, our minds are God's consciousness...Our hands are God's
hands." Ours to shape for all time, ours the right.
I probably would have enjoyed hangin' with you a bit in the
mid-Seventies. Not that you aren't an okay person now, I'm sure you
are, but I'm not really in that same "Tales" place right now. but
anywho...
> What subject are you discussing?
> ID?
No, I'm in that topic extensively here in another thread. The point I
entered in on this was about spontaneous generation, "origin of life."
> If so, then the argument is very
> clear. Provide something to counter it. Or better yet, instead of
> arguing about how life was formed
I thought you were unclear on the subject? You seemed to have focused a
bit.
> when we have clear evidence of it,
We have clear evidence of how life was formed? I dun thin so.
>
> discuss where consciousness comes from. Far more interesting, and not
> provable by either side.
>
Interesting Yes, although not central to this already existing
discussion. Last thing I need right now is new material to cover. Chet
wants to discuss how to measure imagination, you guys need to be in the
same thread.
> >Aaaargh! Accepted, meaning that most scientists accept the concept of
> >entropy. How about "Disorder is a widely accepted state of the
> >universe, minus Peter.
>
> Entropy is FACT, Rojon. That some choose to ignore FACT doesn't make
> it not FACT.
>
I just don't get the problem. No one is denying entropy. You seem to be
arguing with a ghost.
> >I shall await ET's entry in this thread.
>
> You should. The probability is that we are not in any way special.
>
My difficulty in addressing your post is the vast amount of unfounded
speculation you just pass by as if everyone accepts it as established
facts. Maybe many are interesting enough, but that is besides the
point. For example:
>
> Yes, there are certain
> fundamental properties of matter, of course there are. There may well
> be other Universes in which those forces vary significantly. If you
> choose only to believe in yuor own presuppositions
>
> I have no clear idea of what you believe, because you don't state
> positive points here, you argue others' points by saying they aren't
> true. That isn't discourse. And I'm sorry that you think it is a
> problem that you have interetsing descriptions of Yes music.
>
> But be precise about what you believe, as I was several days ago,
> when I clearly laid out how I think God, man, faith and science are an
> intertwined whole.
>
> Science and fiath search for the same thing, and the Universe and God
> are a symbiotic thing.
> That does NOT preclude natural forces from
> working within themselves without the formation of some particular
> plan. You put 100 billion galaxies in a pot, stir up the appropriate
> chemicals and energy and what comes out is LIFE! We, as priimitive
> humans have created most of the precursors in a few decades, and
> already know that the precursor molecules exist in interstellar
> clouds. By suggesting that there is anything to any of it that makes
> us or this Universe special, is simply anthropomorphism, IMO. ID
> strongly suggests that we are somehow a special creature in this
> universe, and I'm not even certain we're the most special creatures on
> this planet.
>
#1 the Universe and God are a symbiotic thing.
#2 There are certain fundamental properties of matter, there may well
be other Universes in which those forces vary significantly.
#3 Put 100 billion galaxies in a pot, stir up the appropriate chemicals
and energy and what comes out is LIFE
#4 Suggesting that there is anything to any of it that makes us or this
Universe special, is simply anthropomorphism
Even odder is that you just had finished saying, "what the IDers don't
have are facts to back up *their* suppositions," and then you start off
on this # list.
> >ID is going to prove that man was designed.
>
> ID has proven not a single thing
Again, oddly enough, I said this as irony, my way of point out that you
had just made an unsupported suppositions when you said:
> Life is going to prove to be very common in this Universe.
So, I countered with:
> >ID is going to prove that man was designed.
> as it has no logical, philosophical
> or contextual basis, as well as not a shred of evidence. Telling
> others how they are wrong does not give you any insight as to what is
> right.
> You can follow your heart, but that doesn't mean that those
> beliefs correlate to the evidence.
>
Back at ya.
> Give a clear, convincing, logical, non-emotional argument that
> explains the actual data, and back it up with predictions, and then
> everyone will follow the theory.
Back at ya.
> No one has yet done so.
>
> >I think ID provides a way to remove religion from concepts that have
> >been under the domain of religion.
>
> No, it doesn't. It can only work within the context of a *designer*.
> Who might that be?
>
It doesn't matter. You don't have to prove WHO the artist is to show
that you have a painting.
> > Now the ideas themselves can be considered free from this entanglement.
>
> Only from those who want to free themselves from the burden of
> consistency.
I don't agree.
>I'll repeat this time: It can only work within the
> context of a *designer*. Who might that be?
>
You don't have to prove WHO the artist is to recognize that you have a
painting.
> > I don't fear the critical eye Gmelin
> >suggests it be put under. If it fails, it should. If it is truth, it
> >will succeed.
>
> I've thrown down the gauntlet, forget the other's insults, and talk
> honestly. I'm open to real discussion, but you need to convince me of
> a system that works universally and fits the observed data. I'm not
> worried about you proving God exists, I want your arguments as to why
> ID is right. So far, nothing that has been provided in this or other
> threads has done so. The various links have, IMO, only tried to
> explain why "bloggers" (for all practical purposes) with little or no
> understanding of science, or the realities of the natural world around
> them, believe that evolution is wrong. If you do not fear what Gmelin
> has said, then use *science* to prive ID, if it isn't faith based,
> then you should be able to find solid evidence of it.
>
Personally I think the best thing to do, if you want to know what ID
claims, is to read from more authoritative sources. You mention
bloggers above, surely you know that what you get here is the laymen
pov (mostly.) Even Sullivan usually refers you to outside sources for
reading, and incidentally even Sullivan mention in this thread about a
Medline/PubMed search that included "one of two ID-ish papers." I could
read and paraphrase them for you, but why not get it from the sources?
All I would do is inflict my limited understanding.
> >I hate to tell you but even natural selection would require order. To
> >develop a thumb there has to be an ordered universe where the use of a
> >thumb merits advancement over the lack of. The development of eyes
> >relies on that there is something to see, a concept to form and a
> >reason to see it, even if it is for food.
>
> Yes, the human mind does like to create order out of non-ordered
> patterns, doesn't it.
Thems pretty words mister, but they are out of context with the subject
at hand. (Get it? Hand?) The suggestion that our minds merely interpret
this development as some explanation of orderliness does not address
that order was inherently needed to fuel the changes. The disorder of
chaos would not produce upwards development. Survival of the fittest
only makes sense in an ordered environment, otherwise fittest is a
nonsense term.
> Senses OF COURSE are going to react to the
> environment around them, that's more or less the first thing that has
> to exist for any life to survive.. If you are simply saying that
> evolution is the way God's plan works, then fine. Let's be done with
> the discussion and move on.
>
left field.
> >what if God did not wish to be
> >seen by this revealing of science? What if God wishes to stand outside
> >of the observable?
>
> God IS observable. EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY. God is in the rocks, the
> trees, the people, our minds are God's consciousness, good, bad and
> ugly. Our hands are God's hands.
add # 5
#5 God IS observable. EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY. God is in the rocks,
the trees, the people, our minds are God's consciousness, good, bad and
ugly. Our hands are God's hands.
> But we and the whole universe have
> "free will", at best the "guidance" you look for are in the natural
> laws, which are only valid for this section of the Multiverse. NONE of
> this precludes evolution or implies an intelligent plan to get from
> point A in time to point B in time.
>
> > I think these two concepts in tandem are why God chose faith as
> >the path rather than intellect.
>
> Sorry, this just isn't the way I see the Universe at all. God doesn't
> play games like that.
#6 God doesn't "play games" like that.
Note here that I am not really discussing the validity of these #
points as much pointing out the volume of sentences you state as fact
when they are your opinion.
I take it you did not read it. It was not an emotional response.
>
> No, evidence is in the fossil and DNA.
And ID claims macroevolutionists misinterpret the fossil record. You
know, it isn't like anyone watched evolution take place. We have
guesses based on what we see from the fossil records.
> I have plenty of personal evidence of God's existence due
> to God's interaction with my consciousness
Are the atheists listening? God is talking to him. Where are you gonna
put this guy? With me, or with you?
> but all the hard data of
> natural phenomenon are much more easily explained through natural law
> then by some being simply willing things to be so. Again, if you are
> to insist that natural laws are there because of God's plan, then the
> argumant becomes circular, and there's no point in continuing.
We don't have the ability to create life from matter. Life is something
more than the observable. Stand there with your loved one as they die.
Something leaves them as they become cold mass. What is it? Where does
it go? It is something in the physical universe and science owes
inquiring minds an answer.
Did this spark begin in primordial pools? Did that first animated cell
die? Did it reproduce before it died? If it reproduced, it had a
sophisticated enough makeup for that process. Become alive from matter
is quite a feat, passing it on is quite another. The same first living
matter did both? Did it generate already having this ability or did it
live long enough to develop this ability? If it died before
reproducing, then we have to be saying that life is not only possible,
it has to be probable, because another cell must have developed at some
point and probably another and another. Until one was successful at
both becoming alive and passing it on. If life is so capable of just
abundantly generating, why isn't it doing so now? Conditions aren't
right? Again with the delicate balance. But at some point one of these
cells had to have lived long enough to reproduce. Survival of the
fittest. These first two sons now also have to survive and reproduce or
it still is moot. How did they gain energy, did they have a ready food
source?
I need facts. Don't give me faith. How are we here?,
Teakbois
>
>#1 the Universe and God are a symbiotic thing.
>
>#2 There are certain fundamental properties of matter, there may well
>be other Universes in which those forces vary significantly.
>
>#3 Put 100 billion galaxies in a pot, stir up the appropriate chemicals
>and energy and what comes out is LIFE
>
>#4 Suggesting that there is anything to any of it that makes us or this
>Universe special, is simply anthropomorphism
>
It is "The Order Of The Universe". Rock gives courage.
Everything about you inside your eyes
>
>#5 God IS observable. EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY. God is in the rocks,
>the trees, the people, our minds are God's consciousness, good, bad and
>ugly. Our hands are God's hands.
>
God is in my fingers God is in my head God is in the trigger God is in
the lead
God is freedom, God is truth God is power and God is proof God is
fashion, God is fame God gives meaning, God give pain
God is on the cell phone, God is on the net, God is in the warning,
God is in the threat.
ryno
GMT, the Noodly Appendage moved "Robert Seeberger"
<rceeb...@houston.rr.com> to write:
>From Ansible:
>
>IAIN BANKS had a letter in _New Scientist_: `Symbolically, reason has
>already triumphed in the debate over intelligent design. The faith-based
>side has shifted from using the term "creationism" to using "intelligent
>design". So their argument has ... evolved.' [GW]
>
>
>xponent
>Revealing Science Of Rob Maru
>rob
>
So, another Thoggist?
/ryno
The original Hornery Critter.
--
not that nice.
Peter
>Note here that I am not really discussing the validity of these #
>points as much pointing out the volume of sentences you state as fact
>when they are your opinion.
I'm afraid that in your continued attempts to rebut rather than put
forth positive points, you have completely missed my point, which was
precisely to state my *opinion*, and asking you to state yours,
clearly and unambiguously. Of course, my opinions on God are
*opinions*, EVERYBODY'S are, whether believer or non-believer.
So, let me put it this way ... you've said that ID is not religious in
origin, and yet said that some knowledge, presumably this requires
faith. Then you deny claiming any belief in who "created the
painting". I asked *specifically* who created life, in your opinion,
if it was created by an intelligence? Another being? Where did that
being come from? Oh, who knows, but we're supposed to have "faith"? In
WHAT precisely? An unknown entity capable of creating life intelligent
enough to be self-aware? Wouldn't that be ... God? What is all this
supposed to say about you and your arguments? Instead of stating your
opinions as if they came from *you*, you've given contradictory
statements based on apparently someone else's opinions and told me to
research for these other people's opinions on the web myself.
So you don't want to state your beliefs, fine. I stuck out my neck,
but you chose to be like so many of the others, and simply attack my
positions, rather than debate with your own. You truly didn't answer a
single one of my questions with a real answer. So much for that.
So, let me tell you this ... If ID, or the creation of life,
whichever, requires faith and a"painter", and you claim not to know
who that might be, then either: you are deceiving us about your belief
in ID, etc., and are trolling to get a reaction; or you are deceiving
yourself, which I doubt - I think you know full well who you think
created life, and know full well that ID is a fully faith-based
system, meant to encourage belief in Judeo-Christian Creationism. And
finally, you've publicly denied God's involvement in the creation of
the Universe that was supposedly created by intelligence. AND refused
to make any claims. I didn't notice if you denied Him three times or
not, it was at least twice. Maybe *you* should be going by the name
Peter.
Per the Tales comment, what you see are the echoes of Hinduism in
Tales, and what I am discussing through the belief that God is in
everything is based largely on Hindu-ism. I happen to be far more into
Hindu belief systems than most Americans. So it goes.
>I take it you did not read it. It was not an emotional response.
What I meant was it is an argument meant to appeal to the emotions but
lacked logic, not that you were being emotional.
>And ID claims macroevolutionists misinterpret the fossil record.
ID doesn't even attempt to properly explain the fossil record, IMO.
>Are the atheists listening? God is talking to him. Where are you gonna
>put this guy? With me, or with you?
Neither, hopefully. I've spent many years with beliefs that vary
pretty greatly from the norm in this country, I'd hate to find out
I've really been conforming all this time.
>I need facts. Don't give me faith. How are we here?,
As physical creations, the result of chemical and biological
interactions that are common throughout the Universe. As spiritual
beings, as part of the Totality of the Spirit that is God.
Peter
<Bobby...@cool-running.com> wrote:
>God is in my fingers God is in my head God is in the trigger God is in
>the lead
>
>God is freedom, God is truth God is power and God is proof God is
>fashion, God is fame God gives meaning, God give pain
>
>God is on the cell phone, God is on the net, God is in the warning,
>God is in the threat.
That crossed my mind.
DAVID RHEAULT
"Robert Seeberger" <rceeb...@houston.rr.com> wrote in message
news:Yz5mf.42137$Ox.2...@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> I'm waiting for a little honesty out of the ID camp.
> I fully expect to soon hear ID proponents say :
>
> "We no longer care for America to hold on to its position at the forefront
> of engineering and the sciences.
Meanwhile, the sciences are globalizing. America's multinational science
corporations will globally source talent and materials whereever they can
find it at the cheapest price. A US workforce with science and engineering
degrees will cost these companies too much. The US computer industry sought
to undermine US initiatives to train a native workforce to do the work by
bringing in massive numbers of guestworker programmers. Once they figured
out a way to actually ship the work abroad they were golden. Who is more
important in terms of influencing this debate, the preacher or the
executive?
Big Pharma is next on the agenda of shaking out thousands of expensive (and
highly trained) workers if something isn't done to arrest the slide.
> We don't care if Johnny can't think his way out of a wet paper bag as long
> as he is Godly and does whatever his preacher tells him to do and thinks
> what he is told to think."
>
> Of course, if these people were to be successful, when the conquerors come
> I doubt they will be swayed by such discourse.
It would be nice to suggest that fancy computer or engineering degrees will
somehow make a difference but under globalized conditions supply and demand
will be the master and the master wants things done cheaply! Their theories
of free trade work brilliantly on paper but in reality no-one (not even the
out-to-lunch lackeys in the media) is addressing the human cost of what's
going on.
dcr
DAVID RHEAULT
> that tells me conclusively that science education as it's
> being offered now is not cutting it.
Hmmm. Gmelin might be onto something...
DAVID RHEAULT
"Blackpig" <g.joh...@dsl.pipex.com> wrote in message
news:1133971585.0...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>I really never thought I'd read a post where Henry paraphrased Donald
> Rumsfelt!
He's really paraphrasing Plato and Confucius.
rojon
Peter wrote:
> "rojon" wrote:
>
>
> I'm afraid that in your continued attempts to rebut rather than put
> forth positive points, you have completely missed my point, which was
> precisely to state my *opinion*, and asking you to state yours,
> clearly and unambiguously.
>
> So, let me put it this way ... you've said that ID is not religious in
> origin,
Nope, never said it. Unlike you, I remember what I say.
> and yet said that some knowledge, presumably this requires
> faith. Then you deny claiming any belief in who "created the
> painting"
Never said it
>. I asked *specifically* who created life, in your opinion,
> if it was created by an intelligence? Another being? Where did that
> being come from? Oh, who knows, but we're supposed to have "faith"? In
> WHAT precisely? An unknown entity capable of creating life intelligent
> enough to be self-aware? Wouldn't that be ... God? What is all this
> supposed to say about you and your arguments? Instead of stating your
> opinions as if they came from *you*, you've given contradictory
> statements based on apparently someone else's opinions and told me to
> research for these other people's opinions on the web myself.
>
I have no idea what you are talking about.
> So you don't want to state your beliefs, fine.
> I stuck out my neck,
> but you chose to be like so many of the others, and simply attack my
> positions, rather than debate with your own. You truly didn't answer a
> single one of my questions with a real answer. So much for that.
>
Attacking you? With angry statements like "I probably would have
enjoyed hangin' with you a bit in the mid-Seventies?" Or maybe when I
said, " I am not really discussing the validity of these # points as
much pointing out the volume of sentences you state as fact when they
are your opinion.
I have posted on this list for years, much of it on the subject of
religion. You seem totally unaware of this so I assume you are new. I
have made no attempt to hide my beliefs.
> So, let me tell you this ... If ID, or the creation of life,
> whichever, requires faith and a"painter", and you claim not to know
> who that might be
Never said it, what is with you?
> then either: you are deceiving us about your belief
> in ID, etc., and are trolling to get a reaction; or you are deceiving
> yourself, which I doubt - I think you know full well who you think
> created life
Of course I do. God.
> and know full well that ID is a fully faith-based
> system, meant to encourage belief in Judeo-Christian Creationism.
I think there would be those that do. I also state that their personal
motivation still does not alter the topic itself, that evidence of
design in nature can be observable outside of religious entanglements.
> And
> finally, you've publicly denied God's involvement in the creation of
> the Universe that was supposedly created by intelligence. AND refused
> to make any claims. I didn't notice if you denied Him three times or
> not, it was at least twice. Maybe *you* should be going by the name
> Peter.
>
This is just downright odd, an attempt to make fun of me with YOUR
name. That IS quite a new twist on schoolyard taunting.
> Per the Tales comment, what you see are the echoes of Hinduism in
> Tales, and what I am discussing through the belief that God is in
> everything is based largely on Hindu-ism. I happen to be far more into
> Hindu belief systems than most Americans.
Which is why I said I would have like to hang with you in the
Seventies.
> So it goes.
>
> >I take it you did not read it. It was not an emotional response.
>
> What I meant was it is an argument meant to appeal to the emotions but
> lacked logic, not that you were being emotional.
>
What I meant was that I take it you did not read it.
> >And ID claims macroevolutionists misinterpret the fossil record.
>
> ID doesn't even attempt to properly explain the fossil record, IMO.
>
In your opinion? In other words, you haven't read it.
>
> >I need facts. Don't give me faith. How are we here?,
>
> As physical creations, the result of chemical and biological
> interactions that are common throughout the Universe. As spiritual
> beings, as part of the Totality of the Spirit that is God.
How does an aeronautical engineer not understand what facts are?
Todd Mitchell
Which of course has a lot to do with the fact that they *changed* the
definition of science itself in order to fit I.D. into the curriculum.
*Kansas*
Chet
Re: OT: I.D. Meeting Its Maker
Group: alt.music.yes Date: Fri, Dec 9, 2005, 1:37am (PST+3) From:
Bobby...@cool-running.com (Teakbois)
---
You forgot to tell them, you've got a halo round your head. God is in
the thread.
Todd Mitchell
Yeah, and I'm sure they way you phrased the question regarding I.D. had
*nothing* to do with it.
Teakbois
<drhe...@verizon.net> muttered:
>Meanwhile, the sciences are globalizing. America's multinational science
>corporations will globally source talent and materials whereever they can
>find it at the cheapest price. A US workforce with science and engineering
>degrees will cost these companies too much. The US computer industry sought
>to undermine US initiatives to train a native workforce to do the work by
>bringing in massive numbers of guestworker programmers. Once they figured
>out a way to actually ship the work abroad they were golden. Who is more
>important in terms of influencing this debate, the preacher or the
>executive?
I'm not sure what you are getting at, but the off-shoring in the US
computer industry is strictly a cost-cutting method, nothing more,
nothing less.
Teakbois
muttered:
>Universe special, is simply anthropomorphism
>It is "The Order Of The Universe". Rock gives courage.
>Everything about you inside your eyes
>#5 God IS observable. EVERY MINUTE OF EVERY DAY. God is in the rocks,
>the trees, the people, our minds are God's consciousness, good, bad and
>ugly. Our hands are God's hands.
>
>
>God is in my fingers God is in my head God is in the trigger God is in
>the lead
>God is freedom, God is truth God is power and God is proof God is
>fashion, God is fame God gives meaning, God give pain
>God is on the cell phone, God is on the net, God is in the warning, God
>is in the threat.
>---
>
>
>You forgot to tell them, you've got a halo round your head. God is in
>the thread.
LOL!
Peter
>Nope, never said it. Unlike you, I remember what I say.
No, you said, "I think ID provides a way to remove religion from
concepts that have
been under the domain of religion. As such we had to distance
ourselves
from promoting a "religion." Now the ideas themselves can be
considered
free from this entanglement. "
So you're right, you know it is religious, but are just seeking a way
to avoid the connotation. Pretty minimal difference, IMO.
>> and yet said that some knowledge, presumably this requires
>> faith. Then you deny claiming any belief in who "created the
>> painting"
>
>Never said it
Specifically, you said: " It doesn't matter. You don't have to prove
WHO the artist is to show that you have a painting." plus, "ID is not
teaching a path to God, or about God."
That;s a denial in my book.
>I have no idea what you are talking about.
" I could read and paraphrase them for you, but why not get it from
the sources? All I would do is inflict my limited understanding."
I asked for *YOUR* opinion and logic, what is still not forthcoming.
At least you admit to knowing as little about ID as you know about
science.
>I have posted on this list for years, much of it on the subject of
>religion. You seem totally unaware of this so I assume you are new. I
>have made no attempt to hide my beliefs.
Nope, I am not new, I've been here, sometimes under other names, since
about 1997. as you would think you would understand from my two-year
old comment about your posts on Yes lyrics. I am looking for ONE solid
logical point from one that would discern why *you* believe that ID is
correct, that would be compelling enough to cause anyone else to
change their opinion. Instead, yuo choose to argue and sidestep, and
not answer a single question or point.
>> So, let me tell you this ... If ID, or the creation of life,
>> whichever, requires faith and a"painter", and you claim not to know
>> who that might be
>
>
>Never said it, what is with you?
No, you keep trying to act as if ID doesn't *REQUIRE* positing God, as
I pointed out your own words above. It does, but you keep denying it,
in this thread and others. Now, I'm starting to think you' might be
deceving yourself.
>Of course I do. God.
Fine, then why say things like "Specifically, you said: " It doesn't
matter. You don't have to prove WHO the artist is to show that you
have a painting." plus, "ID is not teaching a path to God, or about
God."" and "No, you said, "I think ID provides a way to remove
religion from concepts that have been under the domain of religion."
That's dishonesty, Rojon.
>I think there would be those that do. I also state that their personal
>motivation still does not alter the topic itself, that evidence of
>design in nature can be observable outside of religious entanglements.
But you've not shown any of that, and cannot posit a Creator who could
have intellignetly designed life without "religious entanglements" as
you put it.
>This is just downright odd, an attempt to make fun of me with YOUR
>name. That IS quite a new twist on schoolyard taunting.
It's not schoolyard taunting. YOU said several times that ID doesn't
require God, yet claim that God created it. That contradiction of
denying someone/thing that you believe in should ring a familiar bell.
>Which is why I said I would have like to hang with you in the
>Seventies.
Well, thanks. Seriously, I am not angry or trying to insult, I'm
trying to get a real conversation going, but it seems to keep going in
circles.
>What I meant was that I take it you did not read it.
Yes, I did. It did not invoke logic or include clear explanation of
fact, but instead tried to make an argument more or less that "complex
systems just *can't* randomly occur". That's appealing to emotion, not
intellect.
>In your opinion? In other words, you haven't read it.
Nearly everything in this debate is an opinion Rojon, Playing with
semantics doesn't change the fact that the facts that yes, I read it,
and no, I found the points illogical and not in accordance with
observed fact.
>> >I need facts. Don't give me faith. How are we here?,
>>
>> As physical creations, the result of chemical and biological
>> interactions that are common throughout the Universe. As spiritual
>> beings, as part of the Totality of the Spirit that is God.
>
>How does an aeronautical engineer not understand what facts are?
<shaking head> Wow
rojon
> "rojon" wrote:
>
> >Nope, never said it. Unlike you, I remember what I say.
>
> No
No?
> you said, "I think ID provides a way to remove religion from
> concepts that have
> been under the domain of religion. As such we had to distance
> ourselves
> from promoting a "religion." Now the ideas themselves can be
> considered
> free from this entanglement. "
>
> So you're right
I thought you said no, like I was wrong?
> you know it is religious, but are just seeking a way
> to avoid the connotation. Pretty minimal difference, IMO.
>
No, you still don't get it.
I made the statement sometime back that I think the order and
complexity of the universe suggests a designer much like a painting
suggests a painter. There were some insinuations to the effect that I
was an ID supporter. I had never even heard of ID. It wasn't until
several other threads mentioned ID that I read a bit about it.
I still don't consider myself versed in their teachings but we share
some ideas. One that I am quite at ease with that also seems to cause
the most commotion is this concept of separating the study of design
from the religious belief of a designer.
Mirror the idea.
An atheist believes we evolved and no God exists to have a hand in
that. Is his study of science free from his beliefs or not? Darwin was
an admitted atheist. He even said of his younger days "I do not think
that the religious sentiment was ever strongly developed in me." So,
when he looked for evidence in the fossil record to see if it supported
his concept, was pure science at work? Did his rejection of a personal
God influence him to look for evidence that supported his beliefs?
> >>
> >> you deny claiming any belief in who "created the painting"
> >
> >Never said it
>
> Specifically, you said: " It doesn't matter. You don't have to prove
> WHO the artist is to show that you have a painting." plus, "ID is not
> teaching a path to God, or about God."
>
> That;s a denial in my book.
>
Then your book needs a new chapter where denial is when one says God is
in no way the designer.
>
> >> If ID, or the creation of life,
> >> whichever, requires faith and a"painter", and you claim not to know
> >> who that might be
> >
> >
> >Never said it, what is with you?
>
> No
No? Again? Are you sure this time?
>
> you keep trying to act as if ID doesn't *REQUIRE* positing God
>
No, I am not "trying to act as if" anything. I am directly saying it.
ID does not require any specific designer to be named for science to
look for evidence of design.
>
> then why say things like "Specifically, you said: " It doesn't
> matter. You don't have to prove WHO the artist is to show that you
> have a painting." plus, "ID is not teaching a path to God, or about
> God."" and "No, you said, "I think ID provides a way to remove
> religion from concepts that have been under the domain of religion."
> That's dishonesty, Rojon.
>
No not at all. It isn't even a difficult concept. Say that I am walking
thorough the woods and I stumble on a watch, (tee hee) is it dishonest
to say that I think we can determine through study that this is a
designed object? You say, designed by who? I don't have to commit to
who designed it to look for elements of design, do I pal?
> That contradiction of
> denying someone/thing that you believe in should ring a familiar bell.
>
>
> >Which is why I said I would have like to hang with you in the
> >Seventies.
>
> Well, thanks.
Don't get weepy, I said in the Seventies.
>
> Nearly everything in this debate is an opinion Rojon
>
Tell that to the atheists that are determined that evolution is fact,
not opinion.
> Playing with
> semantics doesn't change the fact that the facts that yes, I read it,
> and no, I found the points illogical and not in accordance with
> observed fact.
>
Fact? You just said everything in this debate is opinion. Pick a side.
My explanation of the anatomy of the eye is not flawed, if it is show
me how or shut up. Dawkins generally accepted argument that backwards
wiring of the eye disproves design was flawed logic.
> >> >I need facts. Don't give me faith. How are we here?,
> >>
> >> As physical creations, the result of chemical and biological
> >> interactions that are common throughout the Universe. As spiritual
> >> beings, as part of the Totality of the Spirit that is God.
> >
> >How does an aeronautical engineer not understand what facts are?
>
> <shaking head> Wow
Are you serious? I ask you to present facts of how we are here, so you
give me some voodoo about biological interaction throughout the
universe? The universe? You have facts about biological interactions in
other parts of the universe? And when I explain that these are not
facts you just say Wow, as if everyone here shares in this common
knowledge of biological interactions in Andromeda.
---
np: rocket man.
Chuck
Or simply "on something". Hey gman, how is that push for getting Nukes
for Iran? You know, so it's a level playing field. With their brilliant
leader proudly proclaiming that "Israel should be wiped off the map"
they are about ready, wouldn't you say? CB
Robert Seeberger
"ryno" <virtualc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:3baip1lcha2j16dta...@4ax.com...
> On this day of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:10:33
> GMT, the Noodly Appendage moved "Robert Seeberger"
> <rceeb...@houston.rr.com> to write:
>
>
>>From Ansible:
>>
>>IAIN BANKS had a letter in _New Scientist_: `Symbolically, reason has
>>already triumphed in the debate over intelligent design. The faith-based
>>side has shifted from using the term "creationism" to using "intelligent
>>design". So their argument has ... evolved.' [GW]
>>
>>
>>xponent
>>Revealing Science Of Rob Maru
>>rob
>>
>
> So, another Thoggist?
>
Solipsist perhaps <G>
xponent
Me Maru
rob
Robert Seeberger
"Teakbois" <Bobby...@cool-running.com> wrote in message
news:js1kp1d7kbg6v1088...@4ax.com...
And has little to do with the overall winnowing of the Sciences here.
xponent
Research Maru
rob
Stephen Bruun
> As I said, when all
> 21 of my students are willing to accept ID as a potentially valid
> alternative, that tells me conclusively that science education as it's
> being offered now is not cutting it.
Some time ago, I read a comment from a scientist - I think he was a
biologist - who is also a creationist. (There are some out there, but fewer
per capita amongst Ph.D. biologists.) He said even if he believed the
evidence for evolution to be overwhelming, he would still have to reject
that evidence because he perceives it to be in conflict with the Bible.
This isn't just an issue of how to think scientifically (although that's
part of it). Some people can be thoroughgoing skeptics in every other facet
of their lives, but they have built a fortress around their religious
beliefs in which a whole other realm of logic applies. The phenomenon may
be hard-wired into the human brain.
--
To reply, get rid of THAT THING
Peter
>
>An atheist believes we evolved and no God exists to have a hand in
>that.
This is the point at which I came in. Science and belief in evolution
has *nothing* to do with science. One can believe in evolution and God
and science. You've completely missed that.
> Is his study of science free from his beliefs or not?
I have already stated that atheism is a form of faith, and in fact,
any form of belief one way or the other, in the face of no data either
way, is an act of faith. As far as science itself goes, it is
specifically designed to be self-contained and independent of the bias
of the observer. That is not atheistic, it does not require a God
either way, although by describing the universe, it effectively
describes a part of God, IMO, since the entire Universe is in fact the
energy of God.
> Darwin was an admitted atheist.
So what?
>" So, when he looked for evidence in the fossil record to see if it supported
>his concept, was pure science at work? Did his rejection of a personal
>God influence him to look for evidence that supported his beliefs?
Not in my opinion, he looked for data in the fossil record and found
compelling evidecen that evolution has occurred and is occurring. The
data has been backed by other scientists, both believers and
non-believers. The point of science is to be objective, whereas faith
is based on subjectiveity.
>Then your book needs a new chapter where denial is when one says God is
>in no way the designer.
Then who is? You can't simply state that someone else created us,
because in the view of ID, one would need someone to create them -
it's an infinite loop, otherwise. With this logic, at some point it
stops and there is an original creator. Is that not God, in yuo
ropinion?
>No, I am not "trying to act as if" anything. I am directly saying it.
>ID does not require any specific designer to be named for science to
>look for evidence of design.
Ah, so what you are saying is that science could find evidence of ID
if it looked, despite the fact that those scientists who are believers
and who have looked for it, have found nothing. I'll agree with this -
if science can find evidence of ID, it should therefore someday be
able to find proof of God's existence, therefore proving my point that
intellet is as important as faith in finding God. If science cannot
find either, then both concepts stay in the area of faith, and this
whole discussion is moot.
>No not at all. It isn't even a difficult concept. Say that I am walking
>thorough the woods and I stumble on a watch, (tee hee) is it dishonest
>to say that I think we can determine through study that this is a
>designed object? You say, designed by who? I don't have to commit to
>who designed it to look for elements of design, do I pal?
This argument is comp,etely fallacious, and is an example of what I
mean by an "emotional" (as in appealing to emotions) and not logic. If
yo find a "watch", then it implies you *already know* there's a
designer as it is a known arificial technology. If we found evidence
in the UNiverse of the evolution of watch spings, etc., then we could
guess there are other forces at work, but there aren't. In fact,
nearly all the pieces required to create life have already been found
in molecular clouds, carbonaceous metroites and the like.
Additionally, we have found evidence of "sundials", "spiring watches",
etc. throughout the fossil record that clearly lead from one species
to another. The decision by fundamentalists to turn their backs on
actual data doesn't mean the data isn't there. Yes, there are other
possibilities to explain the data, but ID doesn' actually do so, as
far I;m concerned.
>> Nearly everything in this debate is an opinion Rojon
>>
>
>Tell that to the atheists that are determined that evolution is fact,
>not opinion.
Once again, for the umpteenth time: the world is not a binary system
between Christians and atheists. Evolution is a fact. I am a bliever
and NOT an atheist. Perhaps all the details haven't been worked out by
scientists yet, and maybe evolution turns out to be the mechanism by
which so-called Intelligent Design operates. But that biological
entities evolved from one to the next until they reach this place is
as clear as day, and that fact doesn't inflict *ANY* impact on my
faith in God, whatsoever.
>Fact? You just said everything in this debate is opinion. Pick a side.
I meant everything regarding spiritual issues, in the context of what
I was saying, that was clear.
>My explanation of the anatomy of the eye is not flawed, if it is show
>me how or shut up.
Water and vitrious fluid have indices of refraction similar enough to
one another so that when a large eyeball and lens combination is
required to see in dark water, the focal plane is such that it doesn't
require inverting the image to get good focu on the back. The size of
the human eye lens, eyeball and the amount of light it recives, as
well the shift in index of refraction cause ours to be inverted. That
is all a matter of simple physics. That the brain can invert images to
suit itself is no big deal, turn your computer monitor over for a year
- you'll be able to read it just fine eventually.
>Are you serious? I ask you to present facts of how we are here, so you
>give me some voodoo about biological interaction throughout the
>universe? The universe? You have facts about biological interactions in
>other parts of the universe? And when I explain that these are not
>facts you just say Wow, as if everyone here shares in this common
>knowledge of biological interactions in Andromeda.
Your belief that organic chemstry only occurs here is what is flawed.
There are exmaples of organic precursors throughout the universe, and
further, life on this planet has invaded every single niche but a very
very few. I stated UP FRONT that my belief, that WILL be proven true
is that life is everywhere. If you think we are it, then your views
are sadly anthopomorphic and greatly lacking in understanding of what
is in the Universe at large. When I say, "wow", it is because I can't
believe people can be so humano-centric and arrogant as to believe
*WE* are the center of the universe. I though that went out hundreds
of years ago. There is NOTHING unique about out planet in the grander
scope of the universe. There are hundred of billions of stars in our
own galaxy alone. Now that we have ways for finding planets around
other stars, we are finding them all over the place. In fact, it's
getting almost as challenging to *not* find them. Planets are a
natural side-effect of the*EVOLUTION* of a star system, they condense
from the interstelaar dust clounds just as star do. They have energy,
they have the same organic compounds available to them as we do, so
there is NO REASON whatsoever that life wll not have evolved. Read
this:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0151003769/104-3163482-4645539?v=glance&n=283155
Peter
>No, I am not "trying to act as if" anything. I am directly saying it.
>ID does not require any specific designer to be named for science to
>look for evidence of design.
The real issue is that ID is an attempt for those who believe in the
fundamentalist Judeo-Christian doctrine of Creationism to slip it in
at the expense of science and our God-given capability of intellect.
> And when I explain that these are not
>facts you just say Wow, as if everyone here shares in this common
>knowledge of biological interactions in Andromeda.
I would bet that nearly all, if not every, scientist here, believer or
otherwise, would say that the evidence and logic supporting life being
common in the Universe is MUCH stronger than the logic and evidence
supporting ID. Many would say the data is already conclusive, and that
we're simply not able to detect it *yet*.
Any system of "ID" and every religion wandering this Earth is going to
have to come to terms with that fact, and be able to integrate it, at
some point in the future.
ryno
>
>"ryno" <virtualc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:3baip1lcha2j16dta...@4ax.com...
>> On this day of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Fri, 09 Dec 2005 01:10:33
>> GMT, the Noodly Appendage moved "Robert Seeberger"
>> <rceeb...@houston.rr.com> to write:
>>
>>
>>>From Ansible:
>>>
>>>IAIN BANKS had a letter in _New Scientist_: `Symbolically, reason has
>>>already triumphed in the debate over intelligent design. The faith-based
>>>side has shifted from using the term "creationism" to using "intelligent
>>>design". So their argument has ... evolved.' [GW]
>>>
>>>
>>>xponent
>>>Revealing Science Of Rob Maru
>>>rob
>>>
>>
>> So, another Thoggist?
>>
>
>Solipsist perhaps <G>
Ha. I imagined you that way.
>xponent
>Me Maru
>rob
rojon
others I missed.
Stephen Bruun wrote:
>
> (A) If God wants to be deliberately concealed from us, then the notion of
> "revealed religion" goes straight out the window
Not really. I don't mean that ALL traces of God are not visible. It is
more like the "when your Father gets home," thing. Disobeying children
are more likely to disobey in the Fathers absence even though they know
his return is eminent.
> along with the notion that
> God expects certain behaviors from us. A totally unobservable God is not a
> lawmaker, he's an anthropologist.
I don't mean totally unobservable.
> If he's gonna hide behind a rock, then
> he's got no reason to hold a grudge against people who don't think he's
> there at all. The biblical God wants to be observed, wants us to know he
> sees us when we're sleeping and knows when we're awake, he's dug himself a
> lake of fire so be good for goodness sake. Parting the Red Sea and
> exclaiming "this is my son with whom I am well pleased" tend to draw
> attention to oneself. Either God wants to be obeyed, or he wants to be
> hidden. He cannot logically want both things.
>
Why not? Before a father goes to work, he tells his child he wants him
to behave today, he leaves and the child eventually misbehaves. When
the father is in the room, the child finds it easier to behave.
Whatever it is that makes children disobey, is lurking in them even as
they obey in the presence of their Father.
> (B) If I were God, and I wanted to be unobservable, I sure as shootin'
> wouldn't put "appearance of design" in my creation.
>
Again, not exactly the definition I was intending.
> > Judeao/Christian religions say one reaches God by
> > faith. If we can prove God exists, we won't need faith.
>
> So you're saying God would never pull flashy supernatural stunts like
> raising the dead, multiplying loaves and fishes, speaking from a donkey or a
> burning bush? Because anyone who actually *saw* that stuff would have a
> pretty strong argument that they had seen proof of God's existence. Which
> is it? Awesome displays of power or hiding in a cupboard so we don't lose
> faith?
>
You may have heard of the doubting Thomas, that after Christ was
crucified said, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and
put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will
not believe." Jesus did appear to him but said, ""Have you come to
believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen
and have believed."
> And why, exactly, do we need to reach God by faith? That's never been
> explained.
Children have a natural connection of faith to their parents. They
believe what their parents tell them. This natural trust is beneficial
to the child because it greatly speeds his learning process. The child
asks why, the parent explains why. If an infant had to have every
little point proven in its development they would probably not get
beyond speech.
> If someone were consciously fabricating a religious belief
> system, I can see how they would have a strong vested interest in pushing
> blind belief and absence of evidence as *good* things.
I don't know why you give this distinction to just religion, every lie
ever made by anyone is a misuse of faith. You tell someone something
that isn't true, in hopes that they will place trust in your lie. All
men lie. Governments lie, you employer lies.
>
> Science will also never discover why wood nymphs cry at Adam Sandler movies.
> Is this because science is flawed, or is it because it's a question with no
> answer?
>
Again, we do exist, the question of existence remains whether you like
it or not. When I see wood nymphs in the theater, I will assume it is a
valid question.
> > But even science with all its rejection of God, has no idea how OR why
> > we exist.
>
>
> I suppose some people might presume that, because science is silent about
> God, it must be ANTI-God
>
That is a good point.
Science is not a living thing. When I say science, I should say the
practice of science as evidenced by its followers. The people I have
known that are vocal advocates of science usually do not believe in
God. The Christians that I have known that are scientists are not
usually "on" about science. The more vocal the advocate for science,
the more anti-religious he tends to be. Take yourself, or Sullivan,
take Mike, or Henry. Vocal advocates of science usually do not believe
in God.
Paul Goodwin
"Chuck" <ShorT...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1133995420.8...@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> That is actually a valid point. Many scientists state that matter may
> have *always* existed. The finite brain has trouble comprehending
> "always".
I've felt that way for a long time & have no trouble whatsoever
comprehending the concept of "always". Not sure why anyone would.
--
Paul
rojon
> "rojon" wrote:
>
> >
> >An atheist believes we evolved and no God exists to have a hand in
> >that.
>
> This is the point at which I came in. Science and belief in evolution
> has *nothing* to do with science. One can believe in evolution and God
> and science. You've completely missed that.
>
> > Is his study of science free from his beliefs or not?
>
> I have already stated that atheism is a form of faith, and in fact,
> any form of belief one way or the other, in the face of no data either
> way, is an act of faith. As far as science itself goes, it is
> specifically designed to be self-contained and independent of the bias
> of the observer. That is not atheistic, it does not require a God
> either way, although by describing the universe, it effectively
> describes a part of God, IMO, since the entire Universe is in fact the
> energy of God.
>
> > Darwin was an admitted atheist.
>
> So what?
Thank you, exactly. So what? Just because a particular advocate of ID
believes God to be the designer has nothing to do with the separate
subject of whether his study is looking for evidence of design in
nature.
>
> >" So, when he looked for evidence in the fossil record to see if it supported
> >his concept, was pure science at work? Did his rejection of a personal
> >God influence him to look for evidence that supported his beliefs?
>
> Not in my opinion, he looked for data in the fossil record and found
> compelling evidecen that evolution has occurred and is occurring.
Again, thank you. ID looks at the fossil record and states that the
evidence for microevolution is much stronger than the traditional
macroevolution concept.
>
> >Then your book needs a new chapter where denial is when one says God is
> >in no way the designer.
>
> Then who is?
Who is, is up to individual belief. Two ID could work side by side with
differing ideas of who a designer might be, yet could still work
towards the goal of establishing design.
>You can't simply state that someone else created us,
> because in the view of ID, one would need someone to create them -
> it's an infinite loop, otherwise. With this logic, at some point it
> stops and there is an original creator. Is that not God, in yuo
> ropinion?
>
...best dealt with later in your post
>
> Ah, so what you are saying is that science could find evidence of ID
> if it looked, despite the fact that those scientists who are believers
> and who have looked for it, have found nothing. I'll agree with this -
> if science can find evidence of ID, it should therefore someday be
> able to find proof of God's existence, therefore proving my point that
> intellet is as important as faith in finding God. If science cannot
> find either, then both concepts stay in the area of faith, and this
> whole discussion is moot.
>
Will the day come when science will provide THE definite final answer
of whether or not we are designed, and if we were, who the designer is?
I do not know. Until then you and I will probably die without the
answer, and Yes, faith is the only path we have. That is actually the
point I came in on quite some time ago.
> >No not at all. It isn't even a difficult concept. Say that I am walking
> >thorough the woods and I stumble on a watch, (tee hee) is it dishonest
> >to say that I think we can determine through study that this is a
> >designed object? You say, designed by who? I don't have to commit to
> >who designed it to look for elements of design, do I pal?
>
> This argument is comp,etely fallacious, and is an example of what I
> mean by an "emotional" (as in appealing to emotions) and not logic. If
> yo find a "watch", then it implies you *already know* there's a
> designer as it is a known arificial technology. If we found evidence
> in the UNiverse of the evolution of watch spings, etc., then we could
> guess there are other forces at work, but there aren't. In fact,
> nearly all the pieces required to create life have already been found
> in molecular clouds, carbonaceous metroites and the like.
All the pieces required to create a watch are found at the molecular
level. And you would no more stumble on a watch spring than you would
stumble upon an eye. In fact, it is partly the high order of assembly
at the molecular level that suggests a designer is involved. Primitive
microorganisms are not actually simple as was once believed in the
early days as the evolution concept was formulating. They are
complicated and intricate at the microscopic level. From Wikipedia: "It
is generally accepted that the first living cells were some form of
prokaryote." But even this "simple" structure has a makeup that is
beyond our ability to duplicate. It contains a cell wall, cell
membrane, cytoplasm, ribosomes, and even DNA. This means that even at a
primitive stage, a thing as intricately complex as DNA was already in
place.
--
"Blacksburg, November 10, 2003 -- Primitive microorganisms provide
important clues as to how all creatures employ a basic regulatory
mechanism to conduct the business of life. Peter Kennelly, professor of
biochemistry at Virginia Tech, is studying a primitive organism
discovered in acidic hot springs at Yellowstone National Park to find
clues about that mechanism in higher organisms."
http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/story.php?relyear=2003&itemno=341
This was intended to be a study to provide clues in evolution, but
actually seems to suggest that design at the primitive stage is
actually very complicated.
> >My explanation of the anatomy of the eye is not flawed, if it is show
> >me how or shut up.
>
> Water and vitrious fluid have indices of refraction similar enough to
> one another so that when a large eyeball and lens combination is
> required to see in dark water, the focal plane is such that it doesn't
> require inverting the image to get good focu on the back. The size of
> the human eye lens, eyeball and the amount of light it recives, as
> well the shift in index of refraction cause ours to be inverted. That
> is all a matter of simple physics. That the brain can invert images to
> suit itself is no big deal, turn your computer monitor over for a year
> - you'll be able to read it just fine eventually.
>
The backwards wiring argument refers to the nerve ending come from the
front screen side of the eye rather than coming from the back, it is
not referring to the reversed projected image.
> >I ask you to present facts of how we are here, so you
> >give me some voodoo about biological interaction throughout the
> >universe?
>
> Your belief that organic chemstry only occurs here is what is flawed.
Never said it. I do say you have no evidence for it, otherwise known as
facts.
> There are exmaples of organic precursors throughout the universe, and
> further, life on this planet has invaded every single niche but a very
> very few. I stated UP FRONT that my belief, that WILL be proven true
> is that life is everywhere.
All well and good and not fact.
> If you think we are it, then your views
> are sadly anthopomorphic and greatly lacking in understanding of what
> is in the Universe at large. When I say, "wow", it is because I can't
> believe people can be so humano-centric and arrogant as to believe
> *WE* are the center of the universe.
You would have been great in Star Trek.
> I though that went out hundreds
> of years ago. There is NOTHING unique about out planet in the grander
> scope of the universe.
Not really a point I am concerned with but I bet you can't name even
one.
Stephen Bruun
news:1134194703.4...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> An atheist believes we evolved and no God exists to have a hand in
> that. Is his study of science free from his beliefs or not?
There are plenty of scientists who believe in God *and* accept evolutionary
theory. There is nothing *necessarily* atheistic about evolution, as Pope
John Paul II acknowledged in 1996.
> Darwin was an admitted atheist.
He was, in later life, an agnostic. When he sailed on the Beagle, he was
preparing to enter the clergy.
> So,
> when he looked for evidence in the fossil record to see if it supported
> his concept, was pure science at work? Did his rejection of a personal
> God influence him to look for evidence that supported his beliefs?
Darwin didn't start with "the fossil record." It started with finch beaks
in the Galapagos. Even then, the idea didn't occur to him until about eight
months after he *left* the Galapagos.
Meanwhile, Alfred Russel Wallace was piecing together an almost identical
theoretical framework regarding evolution by natural selection. Wallace's
well-documented belief in spiritualism is proof that he did not reject the
supernatural.
> Tell that to the atheists that are determined that evolution is fact,
> not opinion.
Are you saying that it is a matter of opinion that species in the distant
past were not the same as the species that exist today? We know these
animals existed - we have the fossils. And we know that they are different
than the ones that exist now. And we know that the strata containing these
different species do not contain fossils of modern species. And finally the
genetic evidence, linking one modern species to another, is about as strong
as it gets unless you claim that the entire science of genetics is an
"opinion" that should be thrown out the window.
Evolution happened. That's a fact, about as solidly proven as anything one
could hope for in the natural sciences. The underlying *mechanisms* of
evolution are still the subject of discussion. And was evolution following
a pre-ordained "plan" of some kind? That's an opinion, because there's no
way to tell one way or the other. If there was, then it would be a
legitimate area for scientific (rather than philosophical/theological)
inquiry.
Loz
ryno <virtualc...@hotmail.com> said:
>On this day of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:39:27
>GMT, the Noodly Appendage moved "Robert Seeberger"
><rceeb...@houston.rr.com> to write:
>
>>
>>"ryno" <virtualc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:3baip1lcha2j16dta...@4ax.com...
>>>
>>> So, another Thoggist?
>>>
>>
>>Solipsist perhaps <G>
>
>Ha. I imagined you that way.
Rubbish. I'm the *only* _real_ solipsist here.
--
Loz {:-)>
"Honk if your mental patient is exerting herself"
Steven Sullivan
> "gmelin" <gme...@scc.losrios.edu> wrote in message
> news:1134106031....@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> > As I said, when all
> > 21 of my students are willing to accept ID as a potentially valid
> > alternative, that tells me conclusively that science education as it's
> > being offered now is not cutting it.
> Some time ago, I read a comment from a scientist - I think he was a
> biologist - who is also a creationist. (There are some out there, but fewer
> per capita amongst Ph.D. biologists.) He said even if he believed the
> evidence for evolution to be overwhelming, he would still have to reject
> that evidence because he perceives it to be in conflict with the Bible.
That would probably be Kurt Wise, who, at least, shows admirably honesty
about his scientific bankruptcy:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.music.yes/msg/7b31179b0958bef4?hl=en&
Incredibly, he's a former student of Stephen Gould's.
--
-S
"The most appealing intuitive argument for atheism is the mindblowing stupidity of religious
fundamentalists." -- Ginger Yellow
Steven Sullivan
> >
> >An atheist believes we evolved and no God exists to have a hand in
> >that.
> This is the point at which I came in. Science and belief in evolution
> has *nothing* to do with science. One can believe in evolution and God
> and science. You've completely missed that.
Rojob apparently equates 'science' with 'atheism'.
So does *Chet*. Birdbrains of a feather.
Many scientists are athetists. Many are agnostic. Many believe
is some sort of god or 'higher power'. The vast majority of them,
of all three stripes, accept the factuality of evolution.
> > Darwin was an admitted atheist.
> So what?
It's funny -- Jebus-droolers either try to claim Darwin was a believer,
or that he was an atheist. What Darwin *certainly* was, was torn up
emotionally by the implications of his dangerous idea for the
prevailing Victorian religious beliefs. He was, after all, originally
trained to be a pastor. And of course he was a man of his time.
Stephen Bruun
> Disobeying children
> are more likely to disobey in the Fathers absence even though they know
> Before a father goes to work, he tells his child he wants him
> to behave today, he leaves and the child eventually misbehaves. When
> the father is in the room, the child finds it easier to behave.
> Whatever it is that makes children disobey, is lurking in them even as
> they obey in the presence of their Father.
Well then, if obedience is truly important to the Father, then why not stay
there? What purpose is served by leaving and letting the kids break
something? To make sure they show their "true colors" and get punished for
something they never would have done if Dad had been watching? That's kind
of sadistic. If Dad's presence makes it "easier to behave," and there is so
very, very much at stake . . . then what's wrong with making it "easier to
behave"? There is no "free will" problem because you could still misbehave
in God's direct presence if you really had your heart set on it. So why
not?
> You may have heard of the doubting Thomas, that after Christ was
> crucified said, "Unless I see the mark of the nails in his hands and
> put my finger into the nailmarks and put my hand into his side, I will
> not believe." Jesus did appear to him but said, ""Have you come to
> believe because you have seen me? Blessed are those who have not seen
> and have believed."
Yet he said this right after he let Thomas stick his hands into the wounds.
And after turning water into wine, multiplying loaves and fishes, raising
Lazarus, healing lepers and the blind, etc.
According to the Gospels, Jesus preached and performed wonders for three
years, then vanished from the earth, instructing his followers to tell his
story. The purpose for telling this story, presumably, was so that all
mankind could be saved. If this message is true, then it is unquestionably
the most important piece of information that ever has or ever will exist.
So why was the message left in the hands of twelve guys who were instructed
to write letters and walk from town to town? He could have at least visited
Rome, Alexandria and other centers of first-century civilization. At age
twelve he was talking with rabbis; why not speak with the foremost scholars
of the day? Why not speak to the emperor?
How much more effective it would have been for Jesus to remain on earth and
travel the world! Today, he would have the medium of television at his
disposal. Isn't this a tragically missed opportunity? If events really did
unfold in the manner described in the Gospels, it's unfortunate that they so
resemble fifth-hand hearsay.
> > And why, exactly, do we need to reach God by faith? That's never been
> > explained.
>
> Children have a natural connection of faith to their parents. They
> believe what their parents tell them. This natural trust is beneficial
> to the child because it greatly speeds his learning process. The child
> asks why, the parent explains why. If an infant had to have every
> little point proven in its development they would probably not get
> beyond speech.
That's not an explanation, that's a questionable analogy.
> > If someone were consciously fabricating a religious belief
> > system, I can see how they would have a strong vested interest in
pushing
> > blind belief and absence of evidence as *good* things.
>
> I don't know why you give this distinction to just religion, every lie
> ever made by anyone is a misuse of faith. You tell someone something
> that isn't true, in hopes that they will place trust in your lie. All
> men lie. Governments lie, you employer lies.
Yes, but they can be caught. They make testable claims. If liars were
never caught, we wouldn't know about liars, would we?
Religious lies are much harder to catch because you are told that all will
be revealed after you die, or at the "end times" (which have been coming ANY
MINUTE NOW for two thousand years).
> Again, we do exist, the question of existence remains whether you like
> it or not.
No, there are TWO questions of existence:
1. Does the human race exist for a purpose?
2. If the human race does exist for a purpose, then what is that purpose?
You have been operating under the assumption that the answer to question 1
is "yes." You seem to treat that answer as being so self-evident that you
don't even consider number 1 to be a question. Instead, question 2,
rephrased as "Why do we exist?" is treated as "the" question.
On the other hand, if the answer to question 1 is "no," then question 2
never comes into play.
> > > But even science with all its rejection of God, has no idea how OR why
> > > we exist.
> >
> > I suppose some people might presume that, because science is silent
about
> > God, it must be ANTI-God
>
> That is a good point.
>
> Science is not a living thing. When I say science, I should say the
> practice of science as evidenced by its followers. The people I have
> known that are vocal advocates of science usually do not believe in
> God. The Christians that I have known that are scientists are not
> usually "on" about science. The more vocal the advocate for science,
> the more anti-religious he tends to be. Take yourself, or Sullivan,
> take Mike, or Henry. Vocal advocates of science usually do not believe
> in God.
But your repeated use of the word "usually" shows that this is only a
tendency rather than an absolute. Other people have been quite able to
reconcile belief in God with the tenets of science.
It is fair to say that some people base their religious beliefs on some kind
of "first cause" principle, and when they study science, they find such a
principle to be unnecessary. They lose their faith, but it was not a very
strong faith in the first place. Also, science is about asking questions,
even to the point of looking for weaknesses in one's own beliefs. This,
too, will sometimes undermine religious faith, but it depends on what the
foundation for that faith was in the first place.
You might want to check out some of the writings of Martin Gardner and Steve
Allen. They are/were not scientists as such, but they have certainly
advocated skepticism and have strongly rejected the excesses of organized
religion. At the same time, they have both clearly stated that they believe
in God. Steve Allen and, earlier, Thomas Paine both rejected the claims of
the Bible not because they were atheists, but because they believed the
Biblical description of God to be insulting to the deity. They were
pro-God, and pro-Jesus (whom they regarded as an admirable philosopher);
they just weren't pro-Bible.
ryno
from Loz <loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com>
posted to alt.music.yes on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:21 +0000:
>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:46:16 +1000, the trouble really kicked off when
>ryno <virtualc...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>>On this day of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:39:27
>>GMT, the Noodly Appendage moved "Robert Seeberger"
>><rceeb...@houston.rr.com> to write:
>>
>>>
>>>"ryno" <virtualc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:3baip1lcha2j16dta...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>> So, another Thoggist?
>>>>
>>>
>>>Solipsist perhaps <G>
>>
>>Ha. I imagined you that way.
>
>Rubbish. I'm the *only* _real_ solipsist here.
In my dreams, pal.
Robert Seeberger
> In reply to <g0sop196dlun9rn5s...@4ax.com>
> from Loz <loz...@garbage.bigfoot.com>
> posted to alt.music.yes on Sun, 11 Dec 2005 18:32:21 +0000:
>
>>On Sun, 11 Dec 2005 15:46:16 +1000, the trouble really kicked off when
>>ryno <virtualc...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>>On this day of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Sat, 10 Dec 2005 23:39:27
>>>GMT, the Noodly Appendage moved "Robert Seeberger"
>>><rceeb...@houston.rr.com> to write:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"ryno" <virtualc...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:3baip1lcha2j16dta...@4ax.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> So, another Thoggist?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Solipsist perhaps <G>
>>>
>>>Ha. I imagined you that way.
>>
>>Rubbish. I'm the *only* _real_ solipsist here.
>
> In my dreams, pal.
>
>
I'm amazed at how my imagination runs away with me so.
xponent
A Dream Within A Dream Maru
rob