Modern Science Makes The Case For Creator More Compelling Than Ever
soundof...@hoshmail.com
No Place for a Small God
Modern science makes the case for a Creator more compelling than ever.
by Howard Van Till
The universe is expanding. Galaxies are moving away from each other at
speeds proportional to their separation, or, to say it more precisely,
the framework of space is expanding, and galaxies are going along for
the ride. Speaking metaphorically, if space is expanding, one might
surmise that there is now more room for God in the universe than ever
before. Perhaps, but the reality and presence of God within the
physical universe have come under severe question. In the minds of many
persons, what scientific cosmology has discovered is not more space for
God, but, ironically, less space-perhaps no space at all. Strident
proponents of naturalism-a worldview built on the premise that Nature
is all there is and needs no Creator to give it being-continue to
bombard us with bold assertions that modern science leaves no place for
God. If science answers all questions about the universe, they ask,
what need is there for the "God hypothesis?"
What need? More than ever, I would say. The more science discovers
about the workings of the universe, the more conspicuous is the need to
look beyond science for answers to the most profound of our questions.
The more science discovers about the evolutionary history of the
universe, for example, the more we wonder about the ultimate Source of
its remarkable character. No space in this universe for God? No, more
space than ever.
Myths of a Self-Creating Universe
One common version of the no-place-for-God thesis is the simple
presumption that the universe needs no Creator because it has the
capability to bring itself into existence from absolutely nothing. Like
other myths of self-creating universes, however, this assertion does
not actually begin with an authentic nothing, but rather with some
highly capable form of self. Anything that has the capability to
transform itself into our remarkable universe cannot reasonably be
called "absolutely nothing." Thus this version simply begs the
original question.
A second and more subtly flawed version of the no-place-for-God thesis
focuses our attention on the robustness of the universe's
capabilities for organizing itself into novel and more complex forms.
When scientists construct theories about the formational history of
both inanimate structures and living organisms, they begin with an
extremely important presupposition that I call the "Robust
Formational Economy Principle." This principle expresses the
assumption that matter and material systems possess a sufficiently
robust set of self-organizational and self-transformational
capabilities to make possible the formation of all the physical
structures and life forms that have ever appeared in the history of the
universe. Or, stated less formally, we assume that the universe has the
"right stuff" to make possible the evolutionary development of its
multifarious natural structures and living organisms. This principle is
seldom stated explicitly, but it nonetheless constitutes one of the
foundational assumptions of natural science, especially in its
theorizing regarding the formational history of the universe and of
life itself.
My question is, would the truth of this principle provide any support
for the no-place-for-God thesis? The rhetoric of many proponents of a
naturalistic worldview is built on the simple assertion of a "yes"
answer. My answer, on the contrary, is "No, not at all." As I see
it, the Robust Formational Economy Principle not only fails to provide
warrant for the no-place-for-God thesis but actually has the opposite
effect of making the intentional action of a Creator/Provider even more
necessary. The proponents of naturalism base their answer on a false
dichotomy between evolution and a specific form of creationism, one
that conflates the action of "Mind" and "Hand." Ironically,
they receive considerable ammunition from the common belief within a
portion of the Christian community that the theological doctrine of
creation either entails or is strengthened by the episodic creationist
picture of God's creative activity. (Episodic creationism comes in
several forms: young-earth special creationism, old-earth special
creationism, progressive creationism, and most versions of
"intelligent design theory.") A major portion of the North American
Christian community, for instance, posits not only that God gave being
to the elemental substances of the universe at the beginning, and that
He continually sustains the creation in being, but also presumes that
the arrangement of matter into specific physical and biotic forms
required occasional episodes of divine, form-imposing intervention in
the course of time.
Why would it have been necessary for God to perform these additional
acts of extra-natural assembly? Because, says episodic creationism, the
formational capabilities of atoms, molecules, and cells are not
sufficient to bring about the assembling of all the structures and
forms that we now see, at least not all the biotic forms. Hence the
familiar argument that God must have occasionally intervened to
introduce certain novel forms that could not have arisen by the
exercise of any "natural" capabilities.
Naturalistic Challenge
With all due respect for the good intentions of its proponents, this
perspective is unpersuasive and, in fact, self-defeating. Contrary to
the beliefs of many proponents of episodic creationism, there is no
warrant for the claim that the Scriptures require one to adopt this
perspective. (For an expanded development of this thesis, see my book
The Fourth Day: What the Bible and the Heavens Are Telling Us About the
Creation, Eerdmans, 1986.) Furthermore, and perhaps most damaging, the
episodic creationist position invites what I call the naturalistic
challenge-a form of the no-place-for-God sentiment-which can be
summarized as follows: If there are no gaps (missing capabilities) in
the formational economy of the universe, what need, then, is there for
a Creator?
There is no scarcity of literature conveying this naturalistic
challenge. The philosopher Daniel C. Dennett, for example, expresses
this concept in his book Darwin's Dangerous Idea (1995). He analyzes
the argument that the things we see in the world around us, especially
living things, exhibit Design. For Dennett, the term Design denotes
more than mere order. "Design," he says, "is Aristotle's telos,
an exploitation of Order for a purpose, such as we see in a cleverly
designed artifact." Dennett rejects arguments that proceed from the
empirical observation of design to the conclusion of the existence of a
Designer:
The overwhelming favorite among purportedly scientific arguments for
religious conclusions . . . was one version or another of the Argument
from Design: among the effects we can objectively observe in the world,
there are many that are not (cannot be, for various reasons) mere
accidents; they must have been designed to be as they are, and there
cannot be design without a Designer; therefore, a Designer, God, must
exist (or have existed), as the source of all these wonderful effects.
Dennett forcefully rejects the "Handicrafter-God" of both episodic
creationism and the Argument from Design, characterizing such
approaches as ill-conceived attempts to inject supernatural
explanations into circumstances where natural explanations would
suffice. Dennett's position is composed of claims at several quite
different levels (although his rhetoric does not demonstrate an
awareness of these differing levels). First, the credibility of
unbroken genealogical continuity among all life forms has, he says,
been established. Second, the concept of episodic creation has, once
and for all time, been discredited. And third, the existence of the
entire universe, complete with its remarkably robust formational
economy, may therefore be taken for granted as a starting point that
needs no explanation.
Dennett states his first claim with characteristic immodesty: "To put
it bluntly, but fairly," he says, "anyone today who doubts that the
variety of life on this planet was produced by a process of evolution
is simply ignorant-inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out
of four people have learned to read and write." Suppose, however,
that I were to restate that claim more politely and in a more
comprehensive form, drawing on some of the vocabulary introduced
earlier: We have substantial empirical warrant for presuming that
matter and material systems do possess capabilities for
self-organization and self-transformation of the sort envisioned by
evolutionary theorizing in sciences such as cosmology and biology.
Stated in this form, I would be not only willing but also eager to give
my assent. I cannot, of course, prove its validity, but I do judge it
to be a warranted belief.
Dennett's second claim follows quite directly from the first. Given
the credibility of evolutionary continuity, we are then warranted in
rejecting the concept of episodic creation-a picture of divine
creative action centered on the presumption that matter and material
systems do not possess sufficient self-organizational and
transformational capabilities to make evolutionary continuity possible,
and that substantial gaps in the formational economy of the universe
have been bridged by successive episodes of divine form-imposing
intervention. Here, too, I agree with Dennett.
Now, having granted two of Dennett's three claims, have I thereby
"given away the store?" By my acceptance of evolutionary continuity
and by my rejection of episodic creationism, have I made the acceptance
of Dennett's naturalistic worldview the inevitable conclusion? The
usual rhetoric of the popular creation-evolution debate would say that
I have. But that common perception vanishes when we look more closely
at that third claim.
In essence, it says that if we are warranted in rejecting the concept
of episodic creation, then we are equally warranted in rejecting any
concept of a Creator, including a Creator whose comprehensive act of
creation consists in the giving of being to a universe generously
gifted with a formational economy sufficiently robust to make possible
the evolutionary development of physical and biotic systems. In other
words, Dennett believes that if he can discredit the particular concept
of episodic creation, he is then fully warranted in rejecting the broad
theistic doctrine of creation and in presuming that the existence of
the entire universe, complete with its remarkably robust formational
economy, may be taken for granted. But that is quite clearly a non
sequitur of colossal proportions. One might even be tempted to say that
anyone who fails to recognize that as a non sequitur is "simply
ignorant-inexcusably ignorant, in a world where three out of four
people have learned to read and write."
All that Dennett has been able to demonstrate is that one particular
scenario for the historical manifestation of God's creative
work-the episodic creationist scenario-lacks empirical support.
Contrary to the presumptions of episodic creationism, there is strong
empirical encouragement for the idea that the formational economy of
the universe is sufficiently robust to account for the assembly of all
known physical and biotic forms.
Now, although that is a relatively simple proposition to state, it
represents a truly astounding state of affairs! Those readers who have
some familiarity with the long list of capabilities that atoms,
molecules, and cells must have in order for evolutionary development to
be possible will recognize how significant it is to grant the
credibility of the Robust Formational Economy Principle. The list of
requisite capabilities is far more extensive than our minds are able to
comprehend. For that matter, even the list of requisite capabilities
that make possible just one day of our existence is beyond our full
comprehension.
The Greater Necessity of Mind
How is it, then, that such a remarkable universe exists? Not only must
we account for the existence of something in place of nothing, but of a
something possessing a host of truly astounding capabilities. How does
something-a universe, for example-come not only to exist, but also
to possess a formational economy as robust as the one exhibited by our
universe? If not as an intentional and generous gift from a Creator,
then how? By consequence of the self-transformational powers of
absolutely nothing? Naturalism would have us think so, but on what
basis? Here is where the "Mind-first" thesis of theism is able to
offer an answer vastly more reasonable and satisfying than the
"no-Mind" thesis of naturalism.
Dennett's presentation of "Darwin's dangerous idea" is
carefully crafted to give the appearance of doing away with the need
for the prior existence of Mind. His premise (that episodic creationism
has been discredited by the growing credibility of the Robust
Formational Economy Principle), however, actually lends credence to
precisely the opposite conclusion-that Mind is more necessary than
ever. Dennett places a lot of weight on the explanatory power of
matter's organizational capabilities, but does the existence of a
robust economy of natural processes actually make Mind unnecessary? Not
at all. Suppose we were to grant that matter does in fact possess the
capabilities to act out a set of formational processes, and that the
outcome might well be the self-assembly of atoms to form molecules,
molecules to form cells, cells to form organisms, and so on. What does
this state of affairs make unnecessary? Only the manipulative
intervention of a Hand to coerce matter into assuming new forms.
What still requires Mind is the thoughtful conceptualization of a
sufficiently robust formational economy. In fact, the more robust the
requisite economy of creaturely capabilities, the more a Creator/Mind
becomes absolutely necessary. The correct conclusion of Dennett's
appeal to the efficacy of natural processes is not that a Mindful
Creator is unnecessary, but rather that the creativity of that Mind is
far more extensive than has ordinarily been presumed and that the
mindfully intended universe to which the Creator has given being is
even more generously gifted with formational capabilities than we have
ever been able to imagine.
Two Invitations
Let me close this essay with two invitations: one to theists, another
to proponents of naturalism. I invite my fellow theists-particularly
those who continue to hold to the episodic creationist picture of
God's creative activity-to enlarge your portrait of the Creator.
Expand it enough to include the possibility that the universe to which
this Creator has given being has been generously gifted from the outset
with a formational economy sufficiently robust to make possible its
self-organization into the full array of physical structures and biotic
forms that have ever been actualized. Develop the habit of perceiving
the self-organizational capabilities of atoms, molecules, and cells as
evidence, not that God is unnecessary, but rather that God has been
unfathomably generous in the giving of being to His creation. Develop
the habit of perceiving the rich productivity of the creation's
formational economy as evidence, not that God need not be active, but
that God's faithful and essential action of blessing the efforts of
his creatures has been fruitful beyond our powers to imagine.
I invite proponents of naturalism-particularly those who base their
apologetic strategy on discrediting the Handicrafter-God of episodic
creationism-to face the reality that there are much larger portraits
of God that you must now engage. Recognize that neither the existence
of the universe, nor the robustness of its formational economy, nor the
fruitfulness of its developmental history, is self-explanatory.
Recognize that a facile extrapolation from the discrediting of episodic
creationism to the denial of the need for a Creator to give being to
the universe represents no substantive accomplishment. Allow the
familiar proposition ex nihilo nihil fit to provide the occasion for
asking some very basic questions: From what Source does our being
proceed? How does the something that exists-this universe-come to
have a formational economy as remarkably robust as we are now beginning
to realize it has? For what purpose did our Source of being grant us
the gifts that we possess? And how, then, shall we, the recipients of a
most remarkable array of gifts, live in the presence of the Giver?
Bret Cahill
< room for God in the universe than ever before.
Does this mean JayeEEEesus?
Bret Cahill
Josh Miles
> http://www.hudson.org/American_Outlook/index.cfm?fuseaction=article_detail&id=1163
>
>
>
> No Place for a Small God
>
>
> Modern science makes the case for a Creator more compelling than ever.
>
>
>
> by Howard Van Till
>
> The universe is expanding. Galaxies are moving away from each other at
> speeds proportional to their separation, or, to say it more precisely,
> the framework of space is expanding, and galaxies are going along for
> the ride. Speaking metaphorically, if space is expanding, one might
> surmise that there is now more room for God in the universe than ever
> before. Perhaps, but the reality and presence of God within the
> physical universe have come under severe question. In the minds of many
> persons, what scientific cosmology has discovered is not more space for
> God, but, ironically, less space-perhaps no space at all. Strident
> proponents of naturalism-a worldview built on the premise that Nature
> is all there is and needs no Creator to give it being-continue to
> bombard us with bold assertions that modern science leaves no place for
> God. If science answers all questions about the universe, they ask,
> what need is there for the "God hypothesis?"
Without naturalism there is no science. Science seeks to find natural
explanations for natural, observable phenomena. It cannot take
supernatural causes into account. This does not mean that science denies
a god or any other supernatural entity or force; it simply means that it
can't say anything about it one way or the other. Quite simply, science
cannot say anything about God. God has no place in science.
Bump Bailey
Is all science then, by your measure, nothing more than "mechanics?
Bump
AcesLucky
> http://www.hudson.org/American_Outlook/index.cfm?fuseaction=article_detail&id=1163
>
>
>
> No Place for a Small God
>
>
> Modern science makes the case for a Creator more compelling than ever.
>
>
>
> by Howard Van Till
>
> The universe is expanding. Galaxies are moving away from each other at
> speeds proportional to their separation, or, to say it more precisely,
> the framework of space is expanding, and galaxies are going along for
> the ride.
> Speaking metaphorically, if space is expanding, one might
> surmise that there is now more room for God in the universe than ever
> before.
started.
Look up the term "Confirmation Bias". You'll see why this article makes
no case at all for a creator, but only that which the writer already
believes.
Brian Fletcher
"Josh Miles" <n...@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:4fmdnSrAVMyCfPzZ...@sigecom.net...
A technically correct statement. However, man is 'charged' with the desire
to discover, and if you take God into account as a "first cause", then thats
his goal.
Would it be also correct to say science has no place in God?
BOfL
Brian Fletcher
"AcesLucky" <aces...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:YKl8g.3253$_m5.1327@fed1read09...
I disagree. He is making a very sound case of semantic definition.
BOfL
MDS
And so by taking something that might very well be supportive evidence
for an intelligent designer and changing it to mean something else
(support for a natural cause), you commit the same mistake Einstein
did. But that is to be expected.
--
MDS (Mister Doctor Sir)
Dave
> http://www.hudson.org/American_Outlook/index.cfm?fuseaction=article_detail&id=1163
> [...]
> I invite proponents of naturalism-particularly those who base their
> apologetic strategy on discrediting the Handicrafter-God of episodic
> creationism-to face the reality that there are much larger portraits
> of God that you must now engage. Recognize that neither the existence
> of the universe, nor the robustness of its formational economy, nor the
> fruitfulness of its developmental history, is self-explanatory.
> Recognize that a facile extrapolation from the discrediting of episodic
> creationism to the denial of the need for a Creator to give being to
> the universe represents no substantive accomplishment. Allow the
> familiar proposition ex nihilo nihil fit to provide the occasion for
> asking some very basic questions: From what Source does our being
> proceed? How does the something that exists-this universe-come to
> have a formational economy as remarkably robust as we are now beginning
> to realize it has? For what purpose did our Source of being grant us
> the gifts that we possess? And how, then, shall we, the recipients of a
> most remarkable array of gifts, live in the presence of the Giver?
Bible goes in the trash but contiinue with the pious whining? How
refreshing to hear this straight from Trumpet-lips.
Sean
"Brian Fletcher" <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote in message
news:u9m8g.1312$S7....@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
Hi Brian, read this last night, seems relevant ... from tolle's New Earth
When you look up at the clear sky at night, you may easily realize a truth
at once utterly simple and extraordinarily profound. What is it you see? The
moon planets, milky way ..... Yes but if you simplify even more, what do
you see? Objects floating in space. So what does the universe consist of?
Objects and Space. ....................
If you have ever expereinced a sense of awe when looking into space, it
means you must have relinguished for a moment your desire to explain and
label and have beocme aware not only of the objects in space but of the
infintie depth of space itself. You must have become still enough inside to
notice the vastness in which these countless worlds exist. ......
When you contemplate the unfathomable depth of space or listen to the
silence in the early hours just before sunrise, something within you
resonates with it as if in recognition. You then sense the vast depth of
space as your own depth, and you know that precious stillness that has no
form to be more deeply who you are than any of the things that make up the
content of your life. .....
The twofold reality of the universe, which consists of things and space -
thingness and no-thingness -- is also your own. A sane, balanced, and
fruitful human life is a dance between the two dimensions that make up
reality; form and space. .....
Being is prior to existence. Existence is form, content, "what happens".
Existence is the foreground of life; Being is the background, as it were.
The collective disease of humanity is that people are so engrossed in what
happens, so hypnotised by the world of fluctuating forms, so absorbed in the
content of thier lives, they have forgotten the essence, that which is
beyond content, beyond form, beyond thought. They are so consumed by time
that they have forgotten eternity, which is thier origin, their home, their
destiny. Eternity is the living reality of who you are.
.... Here are the two dimensions that make up reality, thingness and
no-thingness, form and the denial of form, which is the recognition that
form is not who you are.
....................
cheers
Christopher A. Lee
<bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>A technically correct statement. However, man is 'charged' with the desire
>to discover, and if you take God into account as a "first cause", then thats
>his goal.
As soon as you provide evidence for "God", whatever that is. Until
then you are begging the question with a baseless presumption.
>Would it be also correct to say science has no place in God?
What a remarkably ridiculous thing to say.
>BOfL
>
shrikeback
"Bret Cahill" <BretC...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1147263200.0...@j73g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
No. It means Dionysus.
There's always room for Dionysus at your party.
moanin...@gmail.com
logical holes applying to any diety. The universe that we reside in
appears to have existed for a finite amound of time (although there are
numerous ways to interpret this) so it must, apparently, have been
created. However, god just existed indefinately?
Occam's razor and common sense alike say that there is catagorically no
NEED for a creater to explain the universe as we observe it.
Josh Miles
How did you come to that conclusion? I said nothing of the sort. I
simply said that God is a supernatural concept and therefore cannot be
studied scientifically.
Josh Miles
There is no scientific evidence of an intelligent designer. "Intelligent
design" is a completely subjective term. That's the problem with the
"theory" of intelligent design: it cannot be falsified. You can look at
anything in nature and say, "this was designed," and no one can prove
you wrong. All scientific theories are falsifiable. Intelligent design
is not.
Josh Miles
Correct.
> and if you take God into account as a "first cause", then thats
> his goal.
But that's beyond the realm of what science is capable of. One cannot
"find God" by scientific means.
> Would it be also correct to say science has no place in God?
I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by this.
> BOfL
>
>
Bump Bailey
I didn't come to any conclusion, I asked you a question to clarify your
position.
>I said nothing of the sort.
Of what sort?
>I simply said that God is a supernatural concept and therefore cannot be
>studied scientifically.
Judging intent by your statements, it would seem that your position is
politically motivated and has little or nothing to do with science.
John Baker
<bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
Since science has an annoying (to theists, anyway) habit of poking any
number of holes in the God hypothesis, I'd say that's a fair
assessment.
>
>BOfL
>
Bret Cahill
We Americans are a free people. We don't want to be forced to kneel
down a pray to creationism science.
Bret Cahill
AL
NEED for a creater to explain the universe as we observe it.
AL: Occam's razor says when there seems to be no comprensible answer to
an incomprensible question, the conclusion that is correct is usually
the simplest one.
Question: Hey! We are discovering that there is likely no end to time
and space and no end to quantum level smallnes and programmed equasion.
Even math breaks down in search for the beginning of time and emplodes.
Mathathematical ineviatibility as a basis for all percieved reality
over random time, would work against as well as for any manifested
order. One orderly phenomenon minus one distructive phenomenon = a
wash.
Some orderly intelligence has to give order equasion the priority, the
upper hand, the advantagious odds!
Beneath the quark. It is chaos. There is an intelligent FACILITY even
in those incomprehensible phenomenon OUR MINDS CANNOT CONCEPTUALLY
convey to us.
The Occam's razor: -"Looks like there is infinite intelligence in
dimentions outside of matter, energy and time, above and beneath what
we feebly conceive of as nature.
William T. Goat
Brian Fletcher wrote:
> "Josh Miles" <n...@thanks.com> wrote in message
> news:4fmdnSrAVMyCfPzZ...@sigecom.net...
> > Without naturalism there is no science. Science seeks to find natural
> > explanations for natural, observable phenomena. It cannot take
> > supernatural causes into account. This does not mean that science denies a
> > god or any other supernatural entity or force; it simply means that it
> > can't say anything about it one way or the other. Quite simply, science
> > cannot say anything about God. God has no place in science.
>
> A technically correct statement. However, man is 'charged' with the desire
> to discover, and if you take God into account as a "first cause", then thats
> his goal.
Actually, the desire to discover, is a sinful desire. It comes from the
Serpent, not from God. Didn't you read the story of Adam and Eve and
the Tree of Knowledge? God wanted humans ignorant.
--Billy
Immortalist
DIONYSIUS (JOY GIVER) AND HIS FRIENDS AND SATYRS
Dionysius (Bacchus) roamed the world with a retinue of his randy
friends, the Satyrs, bringing the world the vine (wine), erotic joy,
and sometimes - trouble.
THE SECOND BIRTH OF "TWICE-BORN" DIONYSIUS (JOY GIVER)
Zeus lay with Semele, The Moon, and she became pregnant with Dionysius.
Hera (Juno) the mother-goddess, furiously jealous of yet another of
Zeus's affairs instigated a fierce argument between Zeus and Semele.
Zeus, losing his head, flashed thunder and lightning which consumed
Semele, then six months pregnant. (That is why she is now nothing but a
cold cinder.) The sweet god Hermes, however, saw fit to save his little
unborn half-brother. He snatched the baby from the fiery lightning
which destroyed the mother and then, later, while Zeus was sleeping,
place the immature infant inside Zeus's inner thigh just beneath the
warmth of his pendulous sexual organs, there to mature for another
three months. At the end of that time Zeus leaned back, spread his
Olympian legs and delivered himself of immortal, "twice-born"
Dionysius.
Josh Miles
I didn't say that science is "nothing more than mechanics."
>> I simply said that God is a supernatural concept and therefore cannot be
>> studied scientifically.
>
> Judging intent by your statements,
And what "intent" would that be?
> it would seem that your position is
> politically motivated and has little or nothing to do with science.
It's not political. Quite simply, science does not deal with the
supernatural. That's all I said.
MDS
Except evolution, of course
Intelligent design
> is not.
AcesLucky
What is semantic definition? Semantics refers to "meaning". What do you
mean a "sound case" of semantic definition for science making the case
for a creator more compelling? I'm not following your /meaning/.
Lloyd King
"MDS" <mrd...@atlanticbb.net> wrote in message
news:446254...@atlanticbb.net...
> Josh Miles wrote:
>>
>> There is no scientific evidence of an intelligent designer. "Intelligent
>> design" is a completely subjective term. That's the problem with the
>> "theory" of intelligent design: it cannot be falsified. You can look at
>> anything in nature and say, "this was designed," and no one can prove
>> you wrong. All scientific theories are falsifiable.
>
>
>
> Except evolution, of course
>
Including evolution. Find a human skull fossil in the jaws of a dinosaur
fossil, and you've done it. There are lots of ways it could be falsified.
But so far, all the evidence supports evolution.
Mordecai!
I wish it did.
I am sad to say that I have many models of the universe - atheistic
models and several theistic models
Any model which is wrong is discarded (naturally) and several models
with no predictions are ... not discarded but rather - ignored. Little
green men from mars is such a theory - unable to be disproved and thus
"possible" but without predictions. If a little green man gets out of his
ufo and walks up to the whitehouse - then I will dust it off. Until then
- who cares?
PS - The reason for me to keep little green men from mars is to keep my brain flexible. My ideas of the universe are not real and what I think does not impose upon reality. That is far more important to me than the "truth" of the proposition. I am reminded of my many limits.
Models like creationism, and intelligent design are discarded. Creationism because it does not fit the facts or the bible it is supposed to be based upon, intelligent design because it it a flawed even in model design.
I have many such models from the ridiculous to the intricate.
I cannot dismiss any of my models.
Every one of these models successfully describes the universe.
If something new comes up - I test them on all my models. Sometimes
I change my models - sometimes I discard some models ...
There is no test I can think of to separate out the theistic models
and the atheistic models.
If you think there is such, then I could discard some false models of
the universe.
Be they the theistic models or the atheistic models - I do not care
which.
Besides which - I have a theory which I am much taken with -- not that
I class it as "proved" as it as I have some rather broad assumptions in
it.
There is a model that species "learn" behaviour which is passed down
"instinctively." This is my most unreliable assumption.
The human species has an inbuilt learned behaviour called belief in
G_d. (this is testable and I am satisfied with this idea)
It was a survival mechanism.
The truth of a deity is not relevant to this theory - and I am rather
taken with it.
... I suspect it is STILL a survival characteristic. That is an interesting
conclusion.
It does not follow that because it was a survival characteristic, it
still is.
Sigh - the world is a very big, very strange place.
I wish I had half the answers that so many posters on this thread seem
to think they have - and the world is as easily explained like they think
it can be explained. My life would be much easier.
--
Mordecai!
When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality
is wrong, and reality is Never wrong.
Mark K. Bilbo
<1147261527....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com>...
> No Place for a Small God
Or any at all...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
Bump Bailey
Where do you get the authority to make that declaration? Or, is that just
your personal feelings about the way science should conduct itself? Why
would science not deal with the "supernatural"? Are you saying that science
ignores origins because it may be what some consider "supernatural"? If that
were the case then there wouldn't have ever been much science. What we view
as common now was indeed considered supernatural in the past.
MDS
Sure it does. I'll just send a letter to those who doubt evolution and
tell them they're wrong.
Brian Fletcher
"Sean" <santimva...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cYednTuqOaq...@inspired.net.au...
He's becoming very popular , is old Eckie Tolle.
:-)
BOfL
Joseph Hertzlinger
>< one might surmise that there is now more
>
>< room for God in the universe than ever before.
>
> Does this mean JayeEEEesus?
Not when I'm discussing it.
BTW, what is the point of making fun of a mispronunciation that was
not actually observed?
For that matter, I missed any mention of Jesus in the original post.
Joseph Hertzlinger
> Without naturalism there is no science. Science seeks to find
> natural explanations for natural, observable phenomena. It cannot
> take supernatural causes into account. This does not mean that
> science denies a god or any other supernatural entity or force; it
> simply means that it can't say anything about it one way or the
> other. Quite simply, science cannot say anything about God. God has
> no place in science.
What is meant by materialism?
That's a serious question.
Defenses of materialism would be more convincing if they included a
non-circular definition of materialism. (Let's see ... Materialism is
a matter of rejecting supernatural explanations and supernatural
explanations are those that reject materialism ...)
\begin{digresssion}
Of course, from one point of view, nukes are supernatural. It's common
for members of the "reality-based community" to treat nuclear fission
as though it were cursed. This is sometimes combined with worship of
solar energy. This actually makes sense when you consider that Secular
Humanism Release 1.0, otherwise known as Epicurean philosophy,
included the theory that all natural phenomena were due to the
movement of atoms in the void. According to Democritus, the founder of
classical atomic theory:
> ... color exists by convention, sweet by convention, bitter by
> convention, in reality nothing exists but atoms and the void.
The class of natural phenomena might be much broader than
rearrangements of atoms, but if the class of natural phenomena can be
expanded at will, the claim that a phenomenon is natural becomes
empty. All that's left is the idea that reality can be rationally
analyzed --- and there's no good non-circular reason to think rational
analysis precludes religion.
If natural phenomena are only due to rearrangements of atoms, those
phenomena due to other causes must be supernatural. In particular,
nuclear fission or the sun's luminosity are classed as supernatural.
If "black magic" is defined as a supernatural phenomenon summoned by
the will of the sorceror then nukes are clearly black magic. Sunlight,
on the other hand, is freely given by the Sun so, by the same
standards, we have a holy obligation to accept it.
Those leftists who actually are rational could help prove that by
coming out in favor of nukes. (Don't give me the excuse that it's
politically impossible; that hasn't stopped leftists before. In any
case, it's easier to ignore anti-nuke activists than persuade people
to give up fossil fuels.) Most anti-leftist stereotypes are
incompatible with being pro-nuke.
\end{digression}
In today's physics, there are phenomena with causes other than the
motion of atoms. Even if you discuss elementary particles in general
as well as atoms, a physics in which particles can be created or
destroyed and in which the void is a participant as well as a
background isn't that Epicurean. (Come to think of it, Newtonian
action at a distance wasn't that Epicurean.)
It's always possible to move the goalposts and claim that today's
physics is materialist anyway. It can, for example, be understood
rationally. On the other hand, that brings us back to circular
definitions ...
Essential disclaimer: According to some interpretations of quantum
mechanics, events don't have a definite existence until they are
perceived. According to what I think of as the Nitwit Interpretation
of quantum mechanics, you can prevent events from having a definite
existence by refusing to perceive them. That's going waaay too
far. Events have a way of making you perceive them. There's no way you
can ignore a nuclear bomb going off, no matter how stoned you get.
Llanzlan Klazmon
What is the difference between supernatural and imaginary?
Klazmon.
Shrikeback
Bret Cahill wrote:
> Look, what part of "no" do you fundies NOT unnerstand?
The part where Dionysus has anything
to do with your knee-jerk response?
> We Americans are a free people.
Whaddaya mean "we", paleface?
> We don't want to be forced to kneel
> down a pray to creationism science.
Just what is it you want to be forced to
kneel down and pray to?
> Bret Cahill
... a strange poster.
Josh Miles
That's what science is. I don't make the rules.
> Or, is that just your personal feelings about the way science should conduct itself?
No, it's science. It has nothing to do with anyone's personal feelings.
> Why would science not deal with the "supernatural"?
Because, by definition, it cannot. Science is the acquisition of
knowledge by way of empiricism, methodological naturalism, and
experimentation. It seeks to provide *natural* explanations for natural,
observable phenomena. Supernatural phenomena--spiritual, religious, and
metaphysical concepts--are not within the realm of scientific inquiry.
Again, this is not rejecting the existence of God, but rather limiting
our inquiry to the natural world.
> Are you saying that science
> ignores origins because it may be what some consider "supernatural"?
No. Science does not ignore origins. Science cannot, however, cannot
attribute origins to a creator.
> If that were the case then there wouldn't have ever been much science. What we view
> as common now was indeed considered supernatural in the past.
Completely and utterly false. What's considered supernatural now has
always been considered supernatural.
From Merriam-Webster:
Supernatural
Function: adjective
Etymology: Medieval Latin /supernaturalis/, from Latin /super-/ +
/natura/ nature
1 : of or relating to an order of existence beyond the visible
observable universe; especially: of or relating to God or a god,
demigod, spirit, or devil
2 a : departing from what is usual or normal especially so as to appear
to transcend the laws of nature b: attributed to an invisible agent
(as a ghost or spirit)
If you liken science to a game, the laws of nature are the rules. If you
don't go by those rules you aren't playing the game correctly.
Josh Miles
Do your homework. Evolution *is* falsifiable.
>
> Intelligent design
>> is not.
>
Josh Miles
For me, nothing.
> Klazmon.
MDS
Of course it is. Just don't ever expect any solid evidence against it
and for anything smacking of intelligent design to ever get out.
Hollis Brown
No need to trouble yourself; they already know.
HB
John Baker
All that would be required to falsify evolution would be the
occurrence of any one of the ridiculous constructs creationists claim
would be required to *prove* it. Such as a dog giving birth to a
litter of kittens, for example, or a bird hatching from a crocodile
egg..
And no, I don't expect any solid evidence against evolution for the
simple reason that there isn't any. And as for "Intelligent
Design"...well, whenever the IDiots get around to actually coming up
with a testable, falsifiable hypothesis based on hard physical
evidence, we'll discuss it. Until then, there's nothing to talk about.
Lloyd King
Well, you could suggest that they try reading. Looking at the evidence.
Maybe even attempting some of their own research.
Lloyd King
> Josh Miles wrote:
>> >> All scientific theories are falsifiable.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Except evolution, of course
>>
>> Do your homework. Evolution *is* falsifiable.
>
>
> Of course it is. Just don't ever expect any solid evidence against it
> and for anything smacking of intelligent design to ever get out.
If you ever find any such evidence, be sure and let us know. It would be
*impossible* to prevent it from getting out.
Josh Miles
You don't have much in the way of a science education, do you?
Matt Silberstein
<mrd...@atlanticbb.net> in <44633D...@atlanticbb.net> wrote:
>Josh Miles wrote:
>>
>> MDS wrote:
>> > Josh Miles wrote:
[snip]
>> >> you wrong. All scientific theories are falsifiable.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > Except evolution, of course
Darwin laid out a number of ways to falsify evolution. For example,
find an organism with a feature that exists for the benefit of some
other organism and not for itself. Or we could have found a mismatch
between the pattern of genetic similarity and morphological
similarity. Or we could have found a mismatch between either of those
and the fossil record. Or the Earth could have been too young for
evolution to have occurred. Lot and lots of ways it could have been
false, it just happens that the Universe we do observe does fit
evolution.
>> Do your homework. Evolution *is* falsifiable.
>
>
>Of course it is. Just don't ever expect any solid evidence against it
I don't expect evidence against evolution to exist, but I don't try to
limit the Universe to my expectations.
>and for anything smacking of intelligent design to ever get out.
What would evidence for Intelligent Design look like? More to the
point, can you imagine any observation that would point away from
Design?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
MDS
They have. Take the irreducibly complex eye, for example. The best
that you lot could come up with is some fantasy about a light-sensitive
patch of skin developing that no one will ever find or verify.
MDS
If you mean atheist-science education, actually I have.
MDS
>
More to the
> point, can you imagine any observation that would point away from
> Design?
I'm sure I could if I had some time to consider it. I'll get back to
you.
Lloyd King
Apparently you slept through those classes.
MDS
What difference would it make? Science according to you fundamentalist
atheists Sometimes leaves the truth far behind.
Milan
"Llanzlan Klazmon" <Kla...@llurdiaxorb.govt> wrote in message
news:Xns97C0A5FB9BBB7Kl...@203.97.37.6...
The same difference between "circumferentially challenged" and "fat".
regards
Milan
John Baker
Well, go back and take them again. And stay awake this time.
Brian Fletcher
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:7lt3625fnksqorori...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:45:26 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
> <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>>A technically correct statement. However, man is 'charged' with the desire
>>to discover, and if you take God into account as a "first cause", then
>>thats
>>his goal.
>
> As soon as you provide evidence for "God", whatever that is. Until
> then you are begging the question with a baseless presumption.
Baseless in your view. Common to people who are looking to others to
provide proof.
>
>>Would it be also correct to say science has no place in God?
>
> What a remarkably ridiculous thing to say.
Not if you consider that there is nothing that isn't part of God, which is
my base.
That the whole purpose behind the search for knowledge (science), is to
discover the 'divine' self.
Most of us dont have a problem with the perception that the body 'evolves'.
To apply this principle to all of life, I find to be natural.
BOfL
>
>>BOfL
Christopher A. Lee
<bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>
>"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:7lt3625fnksqorori...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:45:26 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
>> <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>>A technically correct statement. However, man is 'charged' with the desire
>>>to discover, and if you take God into account as a "first cause", then
>>>thats
>>>his goal.
>>
>> As soon as you provide evidence for "God", whatever that is. Until
>> then you are begging the question with a baseless presumption.
>
>Baseless in your view. Common to people who are looking to others to
>provide proof.
No. Baseless. Provide evidence for it and then it won't be baseless
any more.
What's that? You can't?
Then it remains baseless.
Look up "begging the question".
>>>Would it be also correct to say science has no place in God?
>>
>> What a remarkably ridiculous thing to say.
>
>Not if you consider that there is nothing that isn't part of God, which is
>my base.
Don't be so stupid, and stop begging the question.
>That the whole purpose behind the search for knowledge (science), is to
>discover the 'divine' self.
Only if you're deluded.
>Most of us dont have a problem with the perception that the body 'evolves'.
>To apply this principle to all of life, I find to be natural.
?
>BOfL
>
>>
>>>BOfL
>
>
Matt Silberstein
<mrd...@atlanticbb.net> in <4463AC...@atlanticbb.net> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
> More to the
>> point, can you imagine any observation that would point away from
>> Design?
>
>
>
>I'm sure I could if I had some time to consider it. I'll get back to
>you.
Until you can you don't have any science.
Elmer
(snip)
> They have. Take the irreducibly complex eye, for example. The best
> that you lot could come up with is some fantasy about a light-sensitive
> patch of skin developing that no one will ever find or verify.
Oh sure, like this?
Mol Biol Evol. 2005 Jul;22(7):1569-78. "The Trichoplax PaxB gene: a putative
Proto-PaxA/B/C gene predating the origin of nerve and sensory cells." By Hadrys
T, DeSalle R, Sagasser S, Fischer N, Schierwater B. ITZ, Ecology & Evolution,
Hannover, Germany. t
"Pax genes play key regulatory roles in embryonic and sensory organ development
in metazoans but their evolution and ancestral functions remain widely
unresolved. We have isolated a Pax gene from Placozoa, beside Porifera the only
metazoan phylum that completely lacks nerve and sensory cells or organs. These
simplest known metazoans also lack any kind of symmetry, organs, extracellular
matrix, basal lamina, muscle cells, and main body axis. The isolated Pax gene
from Trichoplax adhaerens harbors a paired domain, an octapeptide, and a
full-length homeodomain. It displays structural features not only of PaxB and
Pax2/5/8-like genes but also of PaxC and Pax6 genes. Conserved splice sites
between Placozoa, Cnidaria, and triploblasts, mark the ancient origin of intron
structures. Phylogenetic analyses demonstrate that the Trichoplax PaxB gene,
TriPaxB, is basal not only to all other known PaxB genes but also to PaxA and
PaxC genes and their relatives in triploblasts (namely Pax2/5/8, Pax4/6, and
Poxneuro). TriPaxB is expressed in distinct cell patches near the outer edge of
the animal body, where undifferentiated and possibly multipotent cells are
found. This expression pattern indicates a developmental role in cell-type
specification and/or differentiation, probably in specifying-determining fiber
cells, which are regarded as proto-neural/muscle cells in Trichoplax. While
PaxB, Pax2/5/8, and Pax6 genes have been linked to nerve cell and sensory
system/organ development in virtually all animals investigated so far, our study
suggests that Pax genes predate the origin of nerve and sensory cells."
Annu Rev Neurosci. 1997;20:483-532. "PAX-6 in development and evolution." By
Callaerts P, Halder G, Gehring WJ. Department of Cell Biology, Biozentrum,
University of Basel, Switzerland.
"Pax-6 is a member of the Pax gene class and encodes a protein containing a
paired domain and a homeodomain. The molecular characterization of Pax-6 genes
from species of different animal phyla and the analysis of Pax-6 function in the
developing eyes and central nervous system of vertebrates, Drosophila
melanogaster, and Caenorhabditis elegans suggest that Pax-6 homologues share
conserved functions. In this review, we present recent data on the structural
and functional characterization of Pax-6 homologues from species of different
animal phyla. We discuss the implications of these findings for our
understanding of the development and evolution of eyes and nervous systems."
And,
Science. 1994 Aug 5;265(5173):785-9. "Homology of the eyeless gene of Drosophila
to the Small eye gene in mice and Aniridia in humans." By Quiring R, Walldorf U,
Kloter U, Gehring WJ. Department of Cell Biology, University of Basel, Switzerland.
"A Drosophila gene that contains both a paired box and a homeobox and has
extensive sequence homology to the mouse Pax-6 (Small eye) gene was isolated and
mapped to chromosome IV in a region close to the eyeless locus. Two spontaneous
mutations, ey2 and eyR, contain transposable element insertions into the cloned
gene and affect gene expression, particularly in the eye primordia. This
indicates that the cloned gene encodes ey. The finding that ey of Drosophila,
Small eye of the mouse, and human Aniridia are encoded by homologous genes
suggests that eye morphogenesis is under similar genetic control in both
vertebrates and insects, in spite of the large differences in eye morphology and
mode of development."
Bret Cahill
< Whaddaya mean "we", paleface?
The 65% of Americans who want your buddy AwOL Bush out of office.
Bret Cahill
Chris H. Fleming
People often repeat that, but it's not entirely true.
Science _does_ deny some gods and other supernatural entities or
forces. Science specifically denies that
(1) The Earth resides on the back of a turtle.
(2) Disease is caused by demons.
(3) The Universe was created 6,000 years ago.
(4) Snakes can speak human languages.
(5) A virgin human female can give birth to a male baby.
...
What science cannot take into account are rediculous situations like if
there was a God that really did create the Universe 6,000 years ago or
even last Tuesday but made it seem that wasn't the case. Science cannot
take into account a Universe that is deceptive and a God that is a
Liar, Science can only conclude how things really seem to be. If an all
powerful God wants to trick us into believing in dinosaurs, then
Science will conclude dinosaurs. The Fundies could be right, but their
God would be a Liar.
What science does not make claims about are things that don't interact
with what we have at hand. Science cannot make claims about an
invisible, intangible donut jelly that fills all of space. But the
claimant has to ask himself "Does this donut jelly even matter? In what
sense can it really exist?"
If religion makes a testable claim, then science has the power to
affirm it or deny it.
Chris H. Fleming
> >>Moaningch Writes:Occams's razor and common sense alike say that there is catagorically no
> NEED for a creater to explain the universe as we observe it.
>
> AL: Occam's razor says when there seems to be no comprensible answer to
> an incomprensible question, the conclusion that is correct is usually
> the simplest one.
>
> Question: Hey! We are discovering that there is likely no end to time
> and space and no end to quantum level smallnes and programmed equasion.
> Even math breaks down in search for the beginning of time and emplodes.
> Mathathematical ineviatibility as a basis for all percieved reality
> over random time, would work against as well as for any manifested
> order. One orderly phenomenon minus one distructive phenomenon = a
> wash.
> Some orderly intelligence has to give order equasion the priority, the
> upper hand, the advantagious odds!
> Beneath the quark. It is chaos. There is an intelligent FACILITY even
> in those incomprehensible phenomenon OUR MINDS CANNOT CONCEPTUALLY
> convey to us.
> The Occam's razor: -"Looks like there is infinite intelligence in
> dimentions outside of matter, energy and time, above and beneath what
> we feebly conceive of as nature.
You can't understand it.
You don't see it.
But you believe it?
That's actually below the level of things that Occam's razor removes.
Josh Miles
There is no "atheist science."
Josh Miles
> "Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
> news:7lt3625fnksqorori...@4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 10 May 2006 13:45:26 GMT, "Brian Fletcher"
>> <bria...@bigpond.net.au> wrote:
>>
>>> A technically correct statement. However, man is 'charged' with the desire
>>> to discover, and if you take God into account as a "first cause", then
>>> thats
>>> his goal.
>> As soon as you provide evidence for "God", whatever that is. Until
>> then you are begging the question with a baseless presumption.
>
> Baseless in your view. Common to people who are looking to others to
> provide proof.
>>> Would it be also correct to say science has no place in God?
>> What a remarkably ridiculous thing to say.
>
> Not if you consider that there is nothing that isn't part of God, which is
> my base.
>
> That the whole purpose behind the search for knowledge (science), is to
> discover the 'divine' self.
The concept of divinity has no place in science.
Matt Silberstein
<mrd...@atlanticbb.net> in <4463AB...@atlanticbb.net> wrote:
[snip]
>They have. Take the irreducibly complex eye, for example.
Which organism has this IC eye?
>The best
>that you lot could come up with is some fantasy about a light-sensitive
>patch of skin developing that no one will ever find or verify.
Did you not understand that those intermediary eyes *exist*. There are
organisms with light sensitive cells. And some with those cells in a
depression (gives directionality). And some with a liquid filled
depression (gives a bit of focus). And so on. Those organisms actually
exist today.
MDS
Obviously there is because those words of mine have been sitting there
for two days, and you're the first person to say it's not true.
MDS
>
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 21:27:46 GMT, in alt.atheism , MDS
> <mrd...@atlanticbb.net> in <4463AB...@atlanticbb.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> >They have. Take the irreducibly complex eye, for example.
>
> Which organism has this IC eye?
>
> >The best
> >that you lot could come up with is some fantasy about a light-sensitive
> >patch of skin developing that no one will ever find or verify.
>
> Did you not understand that those intermediary eyes *exist*. There are
> organisms with light sensitive cells. And some with those cells in a
> depression (gives directionality). And some with a liquid filled
> depression (gives a bit of focus). And so on. Those organisms actually
> exist today.
That's irrelevent. To make it relevant, you need to demonstrate change
whereby the light-sensitive skin BECOMES an eye. I have enough
confidence in science, the same science you read and study, that you
will never be able to demonstrate this. You're simply guessing.
SeppoP
You are dim, willfully pig ignorant and know nothing about science. *Skin* cells do not become an eye [sic].
Nerve cells became light sensitive and led to about 40 (if I remember correctly) *totally* different visual systems,
aka. eyes.
>
>
>
--
Seppo P.
What's wrong with Theocracy? (a Finnish Taliban, Oct 1, 2005)
Josh Miles
Don't be so willfully ignorant. It makes baby Jesus cry.
Lloyd King
Elmer
Does genetic evidence count? Are the similarity of genes simply guessing?
2432 Dead
Of which human eyes are far from the best. The acuity of raptor
vision is well known, as is the night vision of many species. The
best designed eye of all may be that of the octopus, which has no
blind spot.
>
>>
>>
>>
--
"The FDA says there's no -- zilch, zero, nada -- shred of medicinal value to the evil weed marijuana. This is going to be a setback to the long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking crowd."
-- Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, April 21, 2006, one week before he officially became a drug felon himself.
Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
SeppoP
Not only that. The human eye manages a very narrow frequency range compared to other animals. Insects get easily into
the UV, and funnily enough, some reptiles get far into IR with *another, added* pair of "eyes"...
>>>
>>>
> --
> "The FDA says there's no -- zilch, zero, nada -- shred of medicinal value to the evil weed marijuana. This is going to be a setback to the long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking crowd."
> -- Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, April 21, 2006, one week before he officially became a drug felon himself.
> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
> For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
> http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
> http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
>
> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
Matt Silberstein
<mrd...@atlanticbb.net> in <446496...@atlanticbb.net> wrote:
>Matt Silberstein wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 11 May 2006 21:27:46 GMT, in alt.atheism , MDS
>> <mrd...@atlanticbb.net> in <4463AB...@atlanticbb.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> >They have. Take the irreducibly complex eye, for example.
>>
>> Which organism has this IC eye?
>>
>> >The best
>> >that you lot could come up with is some fantasy about a light-sensitive
>> >patch of skin developing that no one will ever find or verify.
>>
>> Did you not understand that those intermediary eyes *exist*. There are
>> organisms with light sensitive cells. And some with those cells in a
>> depression (gives directionality). And some with a liquid filled
>> depression (gives a bit of focus). And so on. Those organisms actually
>> exist today.
>
>
>That's irrelevent. To make it relevant, you need to demonstrate change
>whereby the light-sensitive skin BECOMES an eye.
No, I don't. You asserted that it was a fantasy and that "the eye" was
irreducibly complex. The current existence of a long sequence of
*eyes* shows it is not IC. It also makes the claim far more than
fantasy.
> I have enough
>confidence in science, the same science you read and study, that you
>will never be able to demonstrate this. You're simply guessing.
Sort of like guessing where the Moon is at the moment by using past
observations and some "theories" regarding gravity and momentum.
2428 Dead
Plus critters that use echolocation, such as bats and dolphins. And
birds are believed to be able to sense magnetic fields, and it's quite
likely that fish and insects can, as well.
SeppoP
<snip>
>> Not only that. The human eye manages a very narrow frequency range compared to other animals. Insects get easily into
>> the UV, and funnily enough, some reptiles get far into IR with *another, added* pair of "eyes"...
>
> Plus critters that use echolocation, such as bats and dolphins. And
> birds are believed to be able to sense magnetic fields, and it's quite
> likely that fish and insects can, as well.
Yep, that too, but this must be getting far too complexicated for "MDS"...
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> "The FDA says there's no -- zilch, zero, nada -- shred of medicinal value to the evil weed marijuana. This is going to be a setback to the long-haired, maggot-infested, dope-smoking crowd."
>>> -- Rush Limbaugh on his radio show, April 21, 2006, one week before he officially became a drug felon himself.
>>> Not dead, in jail, or a slave? Thank a liberal!
>>> Pay your taxes so the rich don't have to.
>>> For the finest in liberal/leftist commentary,
>>> http://www.zeppscommentaries.com
>>> For news feed (free, 10-20 articles a day)
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_news
>>> For essays (donations accepted, 2 articles/week)
>>> http://groups.yahoo.com/subscribe/zepps_essays
>>>
>>> a.a. #2211 -- Bryan Zepp Jamieson
>
Lloyd King
No wonder you reject evolution. You have virtually no understanding of it.
Perhaps if you tried to educate yourself about the subject...
2428 Dead
<seppo_pi...@xyahoox.com> wrote:
>2428 Dead wrote:
>
><snip>
>
>>> Not only that. The human eye manages a very narrow frequency range compared to other animals. Insects get easily into
>>> the UV, and funnily enough, some reptiles get far into IR with *another, added* pair of "eyes"...
>>
>> Plus critters that use echolocation, such as bats and dolphins. And
>> birds are believed to be able to sense magnetic fields, and it's quite
>> likely that fish and insects can, as well.
>
>Yep, that too, but this must be getting far too complexicated for "MDS"...
Well, he'll just say that gawd magicked it all that way...
Milan
"AL" <aaver...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147280827.3...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
> >>Moaningch Writes:Occams's razor and common sense alike say that there is
catagorically no
> NEED for a creater to explain the universe as we observe it.
>
> AL: Occam's razor says when there seems to be no comprensible answer to
> an incomprensible question, the conclusion that is correct is usually
> the simplest one.
Occam's razor says nothing of the sort. Occam's razor says that hypotheses
should not be multiplied unnecessarily. It says nothing about which
conclusion is the correct one.
> Question: Hey! We are discovering that there is likely no end to time
> and space and no end to quantum level smallnes and programmed equasion.
> Even math breaks down in search for the beginning of time and emplodes.
> Mathathematical ineviatibility as a basis for all percieved reality
> over random time, would work against as well as for any manifested
> order. One orderly phenomenon minus one distructive phenomenon = a
> wash.
> Some orderly intelligence has to give order equasion the priority, the
> upper hand, the advantagious odds!
> Beneath the quark. It is chaos. There is an intelligent FACILITY even
> in those incomprehensible phenomenon OUR MINDS CANNOT CONCEPTUALLY
> convey to us.
> The Occam's razor: -"Looks like there is infinite intelligence in
> dimentions outside of matter, energy and time, above and beneath what
> we feebly conceive of as nature.
LOL. You seem to be able to make poor old Occam say anything you want.
regards
Milan
MDS
Well when a light-sensitive patch of skin becomes a human eye through
various successive transitional forms, you be sure to trumpet your
victory. Until then, it's all faith. So join the club.
MDS
No thanks. I understand that atheists believe it to be some factual
occurence (speciation) when there is simply not enough evidence to
support their faith.
Matt Silberstein
Humans already evolved, nothing else is going to evolve into humans.
That cleared up, is it the human eye the is, according to you,
irreducibly complex?
Matt Silberstein
Your "understanding" does not fit the facts:
Observed Instances of Speciation
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
Some More Observed Speciation Events
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/speciation.html
29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: the Scientific Case for Common
Descent
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Macroevolution FAQ
http://talkorigins.org/faqs/macroevolution.html
HTH. HANW.
Craig Franck
> Josh Miles wrote:
Most of what you've posted on this thread is so willfully ignorant that
in an ideal world, there would be no responses at all to such nonsense.
I'll just comment on another one of your postings and say that it is
an inference that intermediate structures between light sensitive cells
and an actual eye chart the path by which eyes developed. Evolution
predicts we should see them. A snapshot of life on the planet is a
snapshot of evolution at work.
Geological processes work the same way: we see every possible
stage of mountain building and wearing away at the current moment.
Evolution proceeds far too slowly to see things happen that you feel
are required to demonstrate that evolution explains biodiversity. But
then the TOE doesn't predict that they should be occurring in the first
place.
No one who cares about the truth wants to make arguments that are
completely ignorant of any of the most basic facts involved. You are
an honest IDer's worst nightmare.
--
Craig Franck
craig....@verizon.net
Cortland, NY
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
They being the atheists right? Oh no, dont tell me what and ewe reckon
there are other mystics who feel they can do a better job than mystic
Bush? Do they use the same evidence of their better abilities as they
did to find their god? Oh really, well in which case its a case of
better the devil we know I reckon. Bush is at least a predictable
mystic, now anyway.
Michael Gordge
2428 Dead
And yet, unlike any single deity ever devised, examples of various
levels of ocular development exist, showing clearly the path from
light sensitive patches to human eyes and beyond.
MDS
And therein lies the problem. You assume that various levels of ocular
development means evolution of the eye. You're guessing. Good work,
creationist!
Brian Fletcher
"Josh Miles" <n...@thanks.com> wrote in message
news:TomdnWQP5Yf...@sigecom.net...
> Brian Fletcher wrote:
>> "Josh Miles" <n...@thanks.com> wrote in message
>> news:4fmdnSrAVMyCfPzZ...@sigecom.net...
>> desire to discover,
>
>
>> and if you take God into account as a "first cause", then thats his goal.
>
> "find God" by scientific means.
Of course, in the same way one cannot find the mind by dissecting the brain.
Doesnt stop him looking, because "all of life" is looking for answers
relative to its own "cluster's" position.
>> Would it be also correct to say science has no place in God?
>
> I'm not sure if I understand what you mean by this.
Consider that a manifestation of God is intelligence,and the purpose of
intelligence is to discover and create "around" that discovery. (I'm not
referring to God in the religious sense).
BOfL
>
>> BOfL
2428 Dead
Well, now, there is a theory among fundies that life forms never
change, which of course would eliminate evolution.
All you have to do is prove that all life forms existed since the
beginning, and there is no evidence that genetic drift can occur.
Brian Fletcher
"John Baker" <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote in message
news:ld5462hec9t1hate6...@4ax.com...
>>thats
>>his goal.
>>
>>Would it be also correct to say science has no place in God?
>
> number of holes in the God hypothesis, I'd say that's a fair
> assessment.
Of course scientists and theists are not mutually exclusive.
My early "spiritual" (as opposed to religious) mentor was an eminent
scientist.
BOfL
>
>>
>>BOfL
>>
Brian Fletcher
"Mordecai!" <"mldavis(please dont spam)"@internode.on.net> wrote in message news:446262E2...@internode.on.net...
I wish it did.
I am sad to say that I have many models of the universe - atheistic models and several theistic models
Any model which is wrong is discarded (naturally) and several models with no predictions are ... not discarded but rather - ignored. Little green men from mars is such a theory - unable to be disproved and thus "possible" but without predictions. If a little green man gets out of his ufo and walks up to the whitehouse - then I will dust it off. Until then - who cares?PS - The reason for me to keep little green men from mars is to keep my brain flexible. My ideas of the universe are not real and what I think does not impose upon reality. That is far more important to me than the "truth" of the proposition. I am reminded of my many limits.
Models like creationism, and intelligent design are discarded. Creationism because it does not fit the facts or the bible it is supposed to be based upon, intelligent design because it it a flawed even in model design.
I have many such models from the ridiculous to the intricate.
I cannot dismiss any of my models.
Every one of these models successfully describes the universe.
If something new comes up - I test them on all my models. Sometimes I change my models - sometimes I discard some models ...
There is no test I can think of to separate out the theistic models and the atheistic models.If you think there is such, then I could discard some false models of the universe.
Be they the theistic models or the atheistic models - I do not care which.Besides which - I have a theory which I am much taken with -- not that I class it as "proved" as it as I have some rather broad assumptions in it.
There is a model that species "learn" behaviour which is passed down "instinctively." This is my most unreliable assumption.
The human species has an inbuilt learned behaviour called belief in G_d. (this is testable and I am satisfied with this idea)
It was a survival mechanism.
The truth of a deity is not relevant to this theory - and I am rather taken with it.
... I suspect it is STILL a survival characteristic. That is an interesting conclusion.
It does not follow that because it was a survival characteristic, it still is.Sigh - the world is a very big, very strange place.
I wish I had half the answers that so many posters on this thread seem to think they have - and the world is as easily explained like they think it can be explained. My life would be much easier.I have such a wonderfully easy life. ;-)
I admire the work you have put in. Consider that discovering "truth" is a process of elimination.
BOfL
--
Mordecai!When words and actions disagree, believe actions.
When rhetoric and reality disagree, either rhetoric is wrong or reality is wrong, and reality is Never wrong.
Brian Fletcher
"William T. Goat" <eric...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1147281670.3...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
>
> Brian Fletcher wrote:
>> "Josh Miles" <n...@thanks.com> wrote in message
>> news:4fmdnSrAVMyCfPzZ...@sigecom.net...
>
>> > explanations for natural, observable phenomena. It cannot take
>> > supernatural causes into account. This does not mean that science
>> > denies a
>> > god or any other supernatural entity or force; it simply means that it
>> > can't say anything about it one way or the other. Quite simply, science
>> > cannot say anything about God. God has no place in science.
>>
>> A technically correct statement. However, man is 'charged' with the
>> desire
>> to discover, and if you take God into account as a "first cause", then
>> thats
>> his goal.
>
>
> Serpent, not from God. Didn't you read the story of Adam and Eve and
> the Tree of Knowledge? God wanted humans ignorant.
>
> --Billy
Look up "reverse psychology" Billy boy.
Knowledge is power. The "priestcraft" over the eons have wanted to keep it
to themselves.
Very appropriate too at certain stages of some cultures evolution.
BOfL
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Josh Miles wrote:
>
> But that's beyond the realm of what science is capable of. One cannot
> "find God" by scientific means.
Oh so god exists as a direct result of man's pure imagination !
MIchael Gordge
Brian Fletcher
> Josh Miles wrote:
>>
>> MDS wrote:
>> > Josh Miles wrote:
>> >> explanations for natural, observable phenomena. It cannot take
>> >> supernatural causes into account. This does not mean that science
>> >> denies
>> >> a god or any other supernatural entity or force; it simply means that
>> >> it
>> >> can't say anything about it one way or the other. Quite simply,
>> >> science
>> >> cannot say anything about God. God has no place in science.
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > for an intelligent designer and changing it to mean something else
>> > (support for a natural cause), you commit the same mistake Einstein
>> > did. But that is to be expected.
>>
>> There is no scientific evidence of an intelligent designer. "Intelligent
>> design" is a completely subjective term. That's the problem with the
>> "theory" of intelligent design: it cannot be falsified. You can look at
>> anything in nature and say, "this was designed," and no one can prove
>> you wrong. All scientific theories are falsifiable.
>
>
>
> Except evolution, of course
>
that evolution is intrinsic to intelligent design.
Do you not teach your children to become more fulfilled and succesful than
yourself?
How could that be conceivable if there was absolutely no ability to evolve?
BOfL
Cary Kittrell
> krv...@4ax.com> <4463AB...@atlanticbb.net> <om49621ac38j0p1m2...@4ax.com> <446496...@atlanticbb.net> <4cjlfaF...@individual.net> <4464FF...@atlanticbb.net> <8r3a62144nc802g77...@4ax.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> Lines: 55
> X-Complaints-To: ab...@easynews.com
> X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
> Date: Fri, 12 May 2006 23:32:25 GMT
> Xref: news.arizona.edu alt.atheism:873110 alt.society.liberalism:214967 alt.messianic:117425
And since development of all the various forms of the eye in animals --
sea urchins, fruit flies, jellyfish, birds, humans -- is directed
by the highly-conserved PAX-6 gene, that's a pretty plausible geuss.
And "various levels of ocular development" is not the best way
of looking at the eye. Some jellyfish have quite complex eyes,
including cornea, retina, lens -- and a pupil which
dilates and constricts in response to the level of light --
and no brain at all to hook all this complexity to. What level
of ocular development does this complex brainless eye represent?
-- cary
Elmer
Yeah, all those millions of scientists simply guessing. All those homologous
genes they research, yet you seem to think all these scientists simply haven't a
clue, and you do. Why?
Sean
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1147478028.8...@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com...
Close.
Man exists as a direct result of God's pure imagination.
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Sean wrote:
>
> Close.
>
> Man exists as a direct result of God's pure imagination.
So whose imagination directly results in god's imagnation? dont tell
me, man needs a creater of his imagination but god doesn't.
Why is that Sean?
How does that happen Sean?
Are you sure this is not just your imagination at work?
Is this yet another of your attempts to do the impossible and escape
the faculty of reason?
Michael Gordge
mikeg...@xtra.co.nz
Sean wrote:
>
> Close.
>
> Man exists as a direct result of God's pure imagination.
HOW do you *know* that Sean?
So what existed before god got started and HOW do you KNOW?
If god exists, then according to reason (man's ONLY means of gaining
knowledge) you should be able to define, it? she? him? rationally,
logically which means ***without contradiction*** Sean.
Why dont you attempt to be the first human being, indeed, first in the
entire history of mankind, to give a non-contradicting definition of
this, thing? you call god?
Now, no gloating Sean, if you were blind and asked for eyes, I would
lend you mine and I would not gloat over your misfortune. eg I did not
gloat over your misfortune in not being able to understand, that, in
order to be aware, there has to be someTHING to be AWARE of.
I did not gloat over your stuffed up back to front explantion of logic.
I did not gloat explaining to you that logic can ONLY be applied to the
information of man's senses, I did not gloat explaining to you that
logic is a tool, logic is an art, logic is a process REQUIRING
existence, logic requires someTHING to identify and integrate into
man's knowledge WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.
Logic is the other foot of reason, man's senses his perceptions of that
which exists, being the other.
Back to the subject on hand Sean, rationally explain your claim that
god has got imagination not of man's making. You like the idea of
*proof*, now lets see how much you do.
Michael Gordge
BusyGuy
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote:
Bravo, Mike. I missed the post you're replying to but...it's nice to
see a fellow Kiwi in here. (Though I'm not so sure that Xtra is
compatible with liberalism! he he)
Sean
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1147489369.6...@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Straw man ..
Sean
<mikeg...@xtra.co.nz> wrote in message
news:1147492239.9...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Sean wrote:
>>
>> Close.
>>
>> Man exists as a direct result of God's pure imagination.
>
> HOW do you *know* that Sean?
>
Good question.
> So what existed before god got started and HOW do you KNOW?
>
I don't know. What do you think?
> If god exists, then according to reason (man's ONLY means of gaining
> knowledge) you should be able to define, it? she? him? rationally,
> logically which means ***without contradiction*** Sean.
>
I don't accept the premise Your Honour
> Why dont you attempt to be the first human being, indeed, first in the
> entire history of mankind, to give a non-contradicting definition of
> this, thing? you call god?
>
Oh come now you flatter me kind sir. nay not the first ... where have you
been. Do some reading and some meditation perhaps.
> Now, no gloating Sean, if you were blind and asked for eyes, I would
> lend you mine and I would not gloat over your misfortune. eg I did not
> gloat over your misfortune in not being able to understand, that, in
> order to be aware, there has to be someTHING to be AWARE of.
>
> I did not gloat over your stuffed up back to front explantion of logic.
>
>
> I did not gloat explaining to you that logic can ONLY be applied to the
> information of man's senses, I did not gloat explaining to you that
> logic is a tool, logic is an art, logic is a process REQUIRING
> existence, logic requires someTHING to identify and integrate into
> man's knowledge WITHOUT CONTRADICTION.
>
> Logic is the other foot of reason, man's senses his perceptions of that
> which exists, being the other.
>
> Back to the subject on hand Sean, rationally explain your claim that
> god has got imagination not of man's making. You like the idea of
> *proof*, now lets see how much you do.
>
>
> Michael Gordge
>
mmmm, this gets more interesting by the moment MG. :-)
You say I claimed "god has got imagination not of man's making"
And where did I make that claim?
Joseph Hertzlinger
> That's irrelevent. To make it relevant, you need to demonstrate change
> whereby the light-sensitive skin BECOMES an eye. I have enough
> confidence in science, the same science you read and study, that you
> will never be able to demonstrate this.
Of course not. Every intermediate form simply becomes evidence of two
gaps.
The claim there is a lack of intermediate forms is even more
non-falsifiable than the theory that global warming will cause either
droughts or floods.