PDA

View Full Version : Intel. Design Scientifically & ReligiouslyBankrupt



Gayle in MD
05-13-2010, 09:44 AM
<span style="color: #000066">Two Very Interesting Articles about Intelligent Design. Note the dates when these were written. </span>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.
Founder, The Clergy Letter Project

Posted: May 11, 2010 06:00 PM





Intelligent Design: Scientifically and Religiously Bankrupt


In case you had any doubt, the last nail was just placed in the coffin of intelligent design (ID). And, in case you had any doubt, that last nail joins many others that have been in place for quite some time.

The latest attack appeared in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America (PNAS) and provides conclusive evidence that the design of the human genome is incredibly imperfect, or, in other words, very far from being intelligently structured. As John Avise, a University of California-Irvine biologist, noted in the paper, his focus "is on a relatively neglected category of argument against ID and in favor of evolution: the argument from imperfection, as applied to the human genome."

The basic concept of intelligent design comes in two parts and is as simple as it is satisfying for those unwilling to think deeply about the natural world, science, or the nature of religion. Part one, stretching way back to the ancient Greeks, notes that nature is so perfectly integrated that it must have been designed just as we see it. Part two, largely attributed to Lehigh University biologist Michael Behe, says that while some aspects of nature might certainly have changed (evolved?) over time, others are so complex that they must always have existed in the form we find them in today. Indeed, he coined the term "irreducibly complex" to explain such structures. Change anything at all in these irreducibly complex structures and they fail to work.

Both parts of ID are spectacularly wrong.

Indeed, demonstrating imperfect design in humans has become something of a fascinating cottage industry. Listen, for example to Abby Hafer, a physiologist at Curry College, discuss five serious flaws, from the blind spot in the human retina to the placement of human testicles, on NPR's Here & Now. In his PNAS article, Avise simply extends this analysis to the human genome discussing myriad serious problems arising from "gratuitous gene complexities" that no self-respecting designer would tolerate.

As Avise notes, Charles Darwin rebutted the intelligent design argument offered by William Paley in 1802. In chapter 14 of On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, Darwin said, "On the view of each organic being and each separate organ having been specially created, how utterly inexplicable it is that parts ... should so frequently bear the plain stamp of inutility."

Beyond the obvious, and growing, problem that natural design is far from perfect, the concept of intelligent design also runs afoul of the scientific method. Simply put, ID offers no hypotheses that can be tested -- the hallmark of scientific investigation.

The concept of irreducible complexity is even more problematic. Each example of a biological entity or process that has been advanced as being irreducibly complex has been found, after further investigation, to be understandable as a function of its constituent parts. Not surprisingly, as scientists focus their attention on complex structures, over time, they begin to make sense of what they see.

Proponents of ID, on the other hand, demonstrate the height of arrogance in their position. Rather than working toward greater understanding of their subjects, they proclaim something to be irreducibly complex and call for scientific investigation to be halted, claiming that any additional study would be a waste of effort.

Not surprisingly, Darwin had something to say about this anti-intellectual position as well. In The Descent of Man, Darwin wrote, "Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."

In calling for enhanced science literacy, most major scientific organizations, including the National Academy of Sciences (in the US) and the American Association for the Advancement of Science, have made it clear that ID has no scientific underpinnings and that promoting it so blurs the line between science and non-science as to make the former almost meaningless.

Religious organizations have also recognized the paucity of intellectual content embodied in ID -- and the damage that it can do to religion as well as science. The United Methodist Church, for example, at its 2008 General Conference, resoundingly adopted the following motion: "The United Methodist Church goes on record as opposing the introduction of any faith-based theories such as Creationism or Intelligent Design into the science curriculum of our public schools."

For religion to accept the concept of intelligent design would mean embracing the concept of the "God of the Gaps," a religiously vacuous idea in which adherents turn to God for an explanation for that which science cannot explain. As science advances, the "gaps" become smaller and smaller and God is relegated to a progressively less interesting role.

From both a scientific and a religious perspective, intelligent design is dead and buried. All that's left is to spread the word about its demise.





Michael Zimmerman, Ph.D.
Founder, The Clergy Letter Project

Posted: May 1, 2010 04:48 PM


A much-needed report on teacher preparation in the United States has just been released by the National Research Council (NRC). While the attention it focuses on ways to improve the education prospective teachers acquire is of critical importance, a major disappointment (perhaps embarrassment would be a better word) with the report is that it completely ignores the manufactured controversy over the teaching of evolution as a central tenet of biology.

This isn't to say that the report ignored the teaching of science itself. Indeed, science was one of the three areas given primary attention, joined by reading and mathematics. Additionally, the committee writing the report recognized two salient points about science education. First, in a participatory democracy it is essential that citizens achieve at least a basic level of science literacy. Second, national and international studies of students' science knowledge continue to show that U.S. students, on average, fare very poorly.

And yet, probably in a desire to avoid controversy, the report omits any mention of the single issue likely to impact teacher training and student learning more than any other. Fear of facing the dominant problem means that progress is likely to be small at best.

Ignoring the issue, however, isn't going to make it disappear. Rather, ignoring the issue is going to make it increasingly difficult for teachers to understand science fully and to teach it well.

The science curriculum advanced by young earth creationists such as those at Answers in Genesis, the folks behind the Creation Museum-cum-theme-park outside Cincinnati where school kids go to see dinosaurs and humans cavorting, is completely at odds with that of the world's scientific community. And it's important to note that if such an extreme curriculum were to be fully implemented, there would be significant impact on subjects well beyond biology. In fact, significant restructuring of chemistry, physics, astronomy, geology, anthropology and linguistics, as well as biology, would have to take place.

That the problem is very real has been strikingly demonstrated by a relatively recent study showing that one in six high school biology teachers could be considered to be a young earth creationist. Given that evolution is the framework upon which all of biology is dependent, and given that the great population geneticist Theodosius Dobzhansky so well and so famously said in 1973 that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution," it isn't surprising that our students are being poorly educated in science. Even though the NRC report makes a general call for teachers to have a richer understanding of scientific content, it just couldn't bring itself to tackle this critical issue.

Perhaps even more important than the lack of specific scientific information taught to our students is our inability, or our unwillingness, to educate students about the very nature of science. For the most part, we refuse to help students differentiate between science and non-science -- and between non-science and nonsense.

The science curriculum advanced by such creationist organizations as the Discovery Institute makes an already bad situation far worse. They're attempting to have science redefined to include the supernatural and to move away from the well-established concept of hypothesis testing that is central to the scientific method. And they're promoting intelligent design creationism, which has the concept of irreducible complexity at its core -- a concept that calls for the end of scientific investigation once a creationist "expert" declares that further investigation would be fruitless. Remember that Michael Behe, the leading proponent of irreducible complexity, declared under oath in the Dover, PA "intelligent design" trial that by his definition, astrology is every bit as much a scientific theory as is intelligent design.

If science education is going to be strengthened in the United States, something that virtually everyone agrees should happen, people must be willing to stand up and be unafraid to declare that some concepts fall outside the bounds of science. And then, collectively, we need the will to say that those topics will not be taught in science classes -- period. We should be no more worried that creationists will be upset when we forcefully declare their ideas unscientific than we are concerned about the feelings of those who promote astrology.

Accomplish this simple goal and have serious discussions with prospective teachers about the nature of science, showing them how to differentiate science from pseudoscience, and we will make great strides toward educating a scientifically literate population.

Refuse to move in this direction, refuse to even raise the issue in a major national report about improving science education, and instead continue to allow local school boards and state legislatures to promote nonsense as science because of the fear that very vocal religious fundamentalists will be disappointed and the students of the United States will continue to land at the bottom of all of those international science tests.

The choice about how to proceed is ours -- and very clear.
</div></div>

wolfdancer
05-13-2010, 01:05 PM
I'm wondering where else would the author believe the testicles could be hung from? I admit it's a reach... to scratch them down there....but....
Occasionally babies are born with undescended testicles.....the perfect storage space? this is normally corrected by surgery, as If left untreated, there is a high risk of testicular cancer.

Deeman3
05-13-2010, 01:13 PM
I am beginning to question "intellegent design" as any intellegent designer would certainly be smart enough to design much better people. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

sack316
05-13-2010, 02:41 PM
All depends on what perspective we choose "intelligent" to be from. The articles assume it means something like "humans, if intelligently designed, should be designed perfectly for humankind".

But what if we're just playthings? Amusement? Like your GI Joes, Barbie dolls, plastic Army men, etc? That we mangled and tortured when we were kids, for our own fun and amusement. Perhaps we are perfectly designed as we should be for the audience that is viewing us. In which case, the entertainment we provide as a species would equate to an extremely intelligent design! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

LWW
05-13-2010, 02:44 PM
I wonder what the person who led the human genome project thinks?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">He opened the session by improvising on hymns at the piano and concluded it by accompanying a singalong on the guitar. In between, he delivered a compelling account of his unlikely conversion from atheism to evangelical Christianity.

The lanky, amiable personality wasn't a traveling revivalist but one of the world's leading biologists.

Francis S. Collins led the international Human Genome Project that mapped the 3.1 billion chemical base pairs in humanity's DNA. He now directs the U.S. government program on applying that information to medical treatments.

He has also emerged as an advocate for faith and its compatibility with science. ...

He asks scientific skeptics to investigate God with the same open-minded zeal they apply to the natural world, saying that there's no incompatibility between belief and scientific rigor.

He tells fellow evangelicals that opposition to evolution -- whether based in the biblical literalism of creationists or "intelligent design" arguments -- undermines the credibility of faith. He finds the first line of thought "fundamentally flawed" and says the second builds upon gaps in evidence that scientists are likely to fill in.

The audience of 200 at Williams gave Collins's views a respectful reception, in contrast to the frosty reaction he got when he said at a national meeting of Christian physicians that the evidence for evolution is "overwhelming."

But scientists are probably the tougher audience. According to Nature, the weekly science journal, "many scientists disagree strongly" with Collins-style arguments, and critics think "more talk of religion is the last thing that science needs."

Surveys have indicated that 40 percent of scientists are religious, Collins said, but "if 40 percent of my own scientific colleagues are believers in a personal God, they're keeping pretty quiet about it."

"For a scientist, it's uncomfortable to admit there are questions that your scientific method isn't going to be able to address," he said. Besides, scientists are busy and focused -- they often don't take the time to explore "these more profound eternal questions."

In his talk, Collins said he was raised by nonreligious parents and became "an obnoxious atheist." But as a medical student, he wondered why patients who were suffering and dying retained faith in God.

He realized that as a scientist, "you're not supposed to decide something is true until you've looked at the data. And yet I had become an atheist without ever looking at the evidence whether God exists or not."

He began looking and early in the process read Lewis's "Mere Christianity."

"In the very first chapter," he said, "all my arguments about the irrationality of faith lay in ruins." ...

Collins writes that "it is time to call a truce in the escalating war between science and spirit," in which the dominant voices have belonged to narrow, anti-God materialists and believers who spurn orthodox science.

<span style='font-size: 17pt'>He says both approaches are "profoundly dangerous. Both deny truth. Both will diminish the nobility of humankind. Both will be devastating to our future. And both are unnecessary."</span></div></div>

&gt;&gt;&gt;WISE WORDS FROM A WISE MAN&lt;&lt;&lt; (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/07/21/AR2006072100927_2.html)

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-13-2010, 04:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">All depends on what perspective we choose "intelligent" to be from. The articles assume it means something like "humans, if intelligently designed, should be designed perfectly for humankind".

But what if we're just playthings? Amusement? Like your GI Joes, Barbie dolls, plastic Army men, etc? That we mangled and tortured when we were kids, for our own fun and amusement. Perhaps we are perfectly designed as we should be for the audience that is viewing us. In which case, the entertainment we provide as a species would equate to an extremely intelligent design! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack </div></div>

I don't think about this, other than when I read that some religious group is trying to block things like teaching students about Darwin's theory of Evolution, which I think is crazy to try and deny the teaching of, or things like preventing stem cell research, basically, anytime religion tries to block Science, equality to pursue happiness, or equal rights under our laws, as in everyone's right to marry whomever they wish...things like that...

As for Intelligent design, I don't subscribe to it, but respect other's rights to choose what they believve, as long as they don't try to force their beliefs upon others, in a way which denies them freedom of choice, ie. whom to marry, control over one's own body, preventing religious ideologies from denying health care to children who need it, all such dictatorship through religiuos beliefs, I am against..

Now, I don't think about things I cannot prove, since I know, now that my dear old Robin, who live in my yerd every spring and summer, apparently died, but returned as a younger Robin, I know I'll be back someday after I'm die, too... /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/laugh.gif

sack316
05-14-2010, 06:24 AM
Yeah /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

My above post isn't something I actually believe, just a different perspective/possibility. I'm a Christian, I am a believer. But I also know that what we "KNOW" and what our beliefs are typically are not synonymous. I believe in what I believe, but never hold others beliefs against them, as they are as likely to be correct as I am.

But I do believe there is something. Even logically, scientifically, I think something is out there. Even subscribing to the big bang theory (which I do), I happen to think something had to be around to a)create that little ball of gas and energy and b) give it a little thump to make it go boom.

Then again, I'm not so naive to think that we as a race are not as smart as we think we are right now. And that perhaps origin and creation will one day be as simple of a concept to mankind's understanding as gravity is to us currently. But for now, I only know what I know... and as such I believe. And, knowing all the things I've gone through over my years, and the fact I'm still around alive and able bodied enough to come talk to you guys and gals on here... I also believe in my heart I'm being watched over /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Just my couple of pennies

Sack

Gayle in MD
05-14-2010, 07:11 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

My above post isn't something I actually believe, just a different perspective/possibility. I'm a Christian, I am a believer. But I also know that what we "KNOW" and what our beliefs are typically are not synonymous. I believe in what I believe, but never hold others beliefs against them, as they are as likely to be correct as I am.

But I do believe there is something. Even logically, scientifically, I think something is out there. Even subscribing to the big bang theory (which I do), I happen to think something had to be around to a)create that little ball of gas and energy and b) give it a little thump to make it go boom.

Then again, I'm not so naive to think that we as a race are not as smart as we think we are right now. And that perhaps origin and creation will one day be as simple of a concept to mankind's understanding as gravity is to us currently. But for now, I only know what I know... and as such I believe. And, knowing all the things I've gone through over my years, and the fact I'm still around alive and able bodied enough to come talk to you guys and gals on here... I also believe in my heart I'm being watched over /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Just my couple of pennies

Sack </div></div>

Good cup. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
05-14-2010, 07:16 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I'm wondering where else would the author believe the testicles could be hung from? I admit it's a reach... to scratch them down there....but....

<span style="color: #000066">LOL, I don't know, maybe where the ear lobes are? Easier to scratch. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif <span style="color: #000066">I just know my guy suffers on long rides with all the rearranging, but
I always thought that was because of his amazing endowment.

If you ask me, those Arab guys have it made.

G.</span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif


Occasionally babies are born with undescended testicles.....the perfect storage space? this is normally corrected by surgery, as If left untreated, there is a high risk of testicular cancer. </div></div>

Deeman3
05-14-2010, 07:37 AM
I would think, even for the most ardent scientist, one would wonder how we have existed for so long, millions and millions of years where even a 2% shift in our distance from the sun, on average, would have meant life or no life, where if we did not have a moon, in it's particular orbit, life could not be sustained and how all this mess hurling through space at incredible speeds, could go on with only minor adjustments that should occur naturally, certain to wipe out all agriculture and life on the planet.

I just can't buy it all as an accident, like Sack. Now wheather you beleive in the Christian model, the Muslim faith or the great Spaghetti Monster God like Chopstick, I think there is some control, at least over the bigger picture with us, having free will to screw most of it up. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Gayle in MD
05-14-2010, 07:56 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would think, even for the most ardent scientist, one would wonder how we have existed for so long, millions and millions of years where even a 2% shift in our distance from the sun, on average, would have meant life or no life, where if we did not have a moon, in it's particular orbit, life could not be sustained and how all this mess hurling through space at incredible speeds, could go on with only minor adjustments that should occur naturally, certain to wipe out all agriculture and life on the planet.

I just can't buy it all as an accident, like Sack. Now wheather you beleive in the Christian model, the Muslim faith or the great Spaghetti Monster God like Chopstick, I think there is some control, at least over the bigger picture with us, having free will to screw most of it up. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif </div></div>

It's beyond me! I just don't feel any need to subscribe to any mythological story lines to find solutions for my vast ignorance of the answers, nor for my fears of lack of control over the way things will go for me in any given accidental, or otherwise dire circumstances, by trying to make unknowable things, make sense, to assuage my fears.

I have had the same feelings of many others....somethings out there, but nothing I've heard so far seems at all reasonable, and it's all so full of contradiction, I prefer to just do the best I can, try not to hurt anyone, be a responaible person, help others along when I'm able, and leave it all to The Gods, or The SuperSpace Aliens, or the super Giant in whoms' huge diamond ring, we are all irrelevant atoms.

It's beyond me....but whatever thoughts others can find that make it all easier to survive, "Man's lives quiet Desperation" Kudos to them, as long as they don't try to force the ideologies of their personal beliefs and solutions upon everyone else.

I am probably more a Buddhist, than anything else...tell ya the truth...but Buddhism is really more a philosophy, to me, than a religion.

g.

Deeman3
05-14-2010, 08:48 AM
I think Buddhism is more of a philosophy to even the Buddhists than a religion. At least that is what a monk in Thailand told me once. No big reward in the end, even though there is that in the official belief system.

Almost none of us are complely pagan, beleiveing that natural survival of the fittest is the right way. Only animals live completely by that belief or system and some gang members and totalitarian leaders.

cushioncrawler
05-14-2010, 06:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would think, even for the most ardent scientist, one would wonder how we have existed for so long, millions and millions of years where even a 2% shift in our distance from the sun, on average, would have meant life or no life, where if we did not have a moon, in it's particular orbit, life could not be sustained and how all this mess hurling through space at incredible speeds, could go on with only minor adjustments that should occur naturally, certain to wipe out all agriculture and life on the planet. I just can't buy it all as an accident, like Sack. Now wheather you beleive in the Christian model, the Muslim faith or the great Spaghetti Monster God like Chopstick, I think there is some control, at least over the bigger picture with us, having free will to screw most of it up. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</div></div>Dee -- I had a little laugh when i read what u sayd here. It woznt a LOL -- iz there a code for a quiet little internal chuckle. Not picking on u here, koz allmost everyone makes the same mistake. Its a logik thing.

How shood i explain. Hmmmmmmm.

Ok. Lets change things around a little, say, and assume that life woznt sustained on earth for very long, and that everything died. Ok, then, i guess that u would be sitting there saying how u thort that there iznt a gods.
madMac.

sack316
05-15-2010, 12:39 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would think, even for the most ardent scientist, one would wonder how we have existed for so long, millions and millions of years where even a 2% shift in our distance from the sun, on average, would have meant life or no life, where if we did not have a moon, in it's particular orbit, life could not be sustained and how all this mess hurling through space at incredible speeds, could go on with only minor adjustments that should occur naturally, certain to wipe out all agriculture and life on the planet. I just can't buy it all as an accident, like Sack. Now wheather you beleive in the Christian model, the Muslim faith or the great Spaghetti Monster God like Chopstick, I think there is some control, at least over the bigger picture with us, having free will to screw most of it up. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</div></div>Dee -- I had a little laugh when i read what u sayd here. It woznt a LOL -- iz there a code for a quiet little internal chuckle. Not picking on u here, koz allmost everyone makes the same mistake. Its a logik thing.

How shood i explain. Hmmmmmmm.

Ok. Lets change things around a little, say, and assume that life woznt sustained on earth for very long, and that everything died. Ok, then, i guess that u would be sitting there saying how u thort that there iznt a gods.
madMac.

</div></div>

I think what deeman was saying that even the smallest change in circumstance would not allow for survival here. Were we slightly closer, or slightly further from the sun... life forms as exist here now could not.

His perspective, if I am not mistaken, is that some divine hand had a role in this. And I suppose for those that don't believe in that, then they just believe in the greatest coincidence ever known. Because, even solely scientifically speaking, all the factors that have to work together as one for us to have life here is nothing short of amazing. Some of us just happen to think of it as a mircale.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Ok, then, i guess that u would be sitting there saying how u thort that there iznt a gods.
madMac.

</div></div>

Actually, he wouldn't be sitting there or saying anything at all. Which was more or less the point.

Sack

Qtec
05-15-2010, 06:12 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I think what deeman was saying that even the smallest change in circumstance would not allow for survival here. Were we slightly closer, or slightly further from the sun... life forms as exist here now could not. </div></div>

We are an accident. Its taken billions of years and numerous mass extinctions to produce homo sapien. It was recently shown that we possess Neanderthal genes!

link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/8660940.stm)

There are 200 billion stars in our Galaxy alone! There are billions of Galaxy's. Did God create all that just for us?

Why were the dinosaurs created before man?

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/fe/Geologic_clock.jpg/606px-Geologic_clock.jpg

Q

LWW
05-15-2010, 06:20 AM
Do you believe in the big bang?

LWW

sack316
05-15-2010, 07:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">

We are an accident. Its taken billions of years and numerous mass extinctions to produce homo sapien. It was recently shown that we possess Neanderthal genes! </div></div>

Yeah. And if you think about it, and I know this isn't said very often nor would be a popular view considering the connotations of the word, but we are mutants. Plain and simple, we (and every creature for that matter) are no more than mutants. And that thought holds true whether you believe our creation was a scientific phenomenon or the big fella in the sky put us here.



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are 200 billion stars in our Galaxy alone! There are billions of Galaxy's. Did God create all that just for us? </div></div>

Nope. I believe there is something else out there. Perhaps where we cannot explore yet. Perhaps some parallel dimension. Who knows? I certainly don't. But I couldn't fathom our little breadcrumb sized existence in the proverbial buffet line of the universe being the only one.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why were the dinosaurs created before man?</div></div>

Well, that depends on what theory one subscribes to. Some would say dinosaurs existed long before man. Some would theorize that dinosaurs would have been wiped out during 40 days and 40 nights of rain. I believe they were here before us personally, but would have no answer as to why. Other than we are not as important as we like to think /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Qtec
05-15-2010, 07:42 AM
What's your point?
We are discussing the Earth which is a fact as opposed to a theory.
Everything we know shows that mankind today evolved and nothing was created as it is today. The idea that the Earth is 6,000 yrs old and that man was created in god's image has been debunked over and over again.

The Q is, did God create mankind and the Earth?
The answer is maybe to some in doubt but there is not one single piece of evidence that proves there is a God at all.



Q

Deeman3
05-15-2010, 07:51 AM
[quote=cushioncrawler
How shood i explain. Hmmmmmmm.

Ok. Lets change things around a little, say, and assume that life woznt sustained on earth for very long, and that everything died. Ok, then, i guess that u would be sitting there saying how u thort that there iznt a gods.
madMac.

[/quote]

<span style="color: #FF0000"> No. What I do say is that we, as somewhat rational beings, scientists included, will find a reason for our belief systems. We, as people who believe in some higher power or guiding influence, no matter how disassociated with our everyday lives, believe God, Buddah, of some other as yet to be defined intellegence, exerts control. We point to old books, the way the universe seems to "work out" when we see no real reason for the lack of randomness.

Scientists, by their nature, look at order and say, "Right, that's the way it should be. What we observe is all there is and we explain the order and lack of chaos as reality defined by the limits of our observations."

Both cases have merit and to dismiss any thought is prejudcicial to your own view, of course. The recent inability of science to resolve the conflict between large physics and quantum physics has now lead perfectly sane theorists to develop real and supported, (by their rational) theories of strings, alternate universes without limit, many of which rather than based on what they observe, based on what they can't measure or observe, just like that old fool holding a Bible on the corner of 3rd and Main!

I often pose the question that, given what we know vs. what we really observe, is the theory that everything, all in the physical universe, was from a point smaller than the head of a pin 14.7 billion years ago much less radical than the possibility that there is some greater force or intellegence with a hand (so to speak) on the wheel, if ever so slightly.

The rejection of any possibility that there may be a force greater than ourselves seem more egocentric than the faith itself.

You and I will both lay down and die one day. Does either of our views matter? Probably not. I accept my beliefs on faith. Is it certain? No, that is why it is called faith. I don't beleive our soul dies. Atheists believe it does. Agnositcs, which we all are at times, hedge their bets on the race ahead set. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

It is arrogant to be evangelical, which I have often said I am not. It is just as arrogant to sit back and claim science has the inside track. They always do thoughout history, even as they bled plague victims with leaches and told us the atom was the small bits of matter.

Physic can explain why we have tracked in our particular orbit and sustained a livable climate because it is observed we have and the math is built to sustain the observed evidence. This is a prejudical view based on observable physical laws that fit the equations. If it were not so, and, as you point out, we would not be "here" in space-time, all the math (that admittedly would not be "created" would fit the senerio.

If I ever start hurting others with my view of faith, I'll reconsider it. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

If science ever shows us why physical laws are the only ones that possibly count, I'll reconsider my faith.

I have never claimed evolution is not true of practical and do not base most of my decisions, aside from certain charitable events, on faith. I don't however, look to science to improve my possibilites of getting out of this life alive.</span>

Qtec
05-15-2010, 07:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Yeah. And if you think about it, and I know this isn't said very often nor would be a popular view considering the connotations of the word, but <u>we are mutants</u>. Plain and simple </div></div>

Exactly. There is one species destroying the world right now. Mankind is like a plague on the earth.

Q

sack316
05-15-2010, 07:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
The answer is maybe to some in doubt but there is not one single piece of evidence that proves there is a God at all.
Q </div></div>

Except for everything. Or, perhaps to be more accurate, those that see evidence of God in everything.

A very controversial thought a science professor I had once was something along these lines: "It is my thought, that while science is seeking all of the explanations and answers... one day, when they finally reach all of the final conclusions they will find what religion has had all along." Pretty radical, but also entirely possible.

Sack

Deeman3
05-15-2010, 08:03 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> </div></div>

Exactly. There is one species destroying the world right now. Mankind is like a plague on the earth.

Q [/quote]

<span style="color: #FF0000"> Then, by all means, do the world a favor and get off the wheel.

There is coming a time, no one wants to discuss it, where the world simply can't sustain the numbers we have thrown at it. 6 billion is just too many on the Ferris Wheel. It will come with war, famine, natural disasters and the earth will reset to sustain a few million, perhaps. Hey, I say we help the process out and start reducing the numbers now. It is said that only rats, crips and blood will be around in a few decades so why delay the thing?

We could have a lottery or better yet, let the erath tell us in her ouwn way, which, by the way, she will. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Most think we will wake up in 20 years with 10 billion on the planet. If fact, we are much more likly to wake up with a few hundred million and with the world economy gone, we will live in interesting time for sure. </span>

Qtec
05-15-2010, 08:07 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I often pose the question that, given what we know vs. what we really observe, is the theory that everything, all in the physical universe, was from a point smaller than the head of a pin 14.7 billion years ago much less radical than the possibility that there is some greater force or intellegence with a hand (so to speak) on the wheel, if ever so slightly. </div></div>

To believe that the universe was born from the big bang, ie something out of nothing, is basically what the Creationists believe. God said 'let there there be light' and the sun appeared! The main difference is that the BB believers have evidence to back up there conclusions.

God said,

" right I will make these Laws of physics, fill the universe with basic particles and in 13 billion years the Earth will be formed and inhabitable!

Then I will kill of 90% of the lifeforms on the planet, like 5 or 6 times and in the end I will have my chosen people in Israel!

You can have faith and still accept the scientific facts.

Q
Q

sack316
05-15-2010, 08:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
To believe that the universe was born from the big bang, ie something out of nothing, is basically what the Creationists believe.
</div></div>

That's about what everyone believes. Even non creationists. After all, where did that tiny tiny microscopic ball of gas and energy that went boom come from?

Sack

Deeman3
05-15-2010, 08:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
You can have faith and still accept the scientific facts.

Q </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">You can and I do. I don't say that evolution simply did not or is not happening. Very few Christians, I would guess are steady state, hard core, no science people.

The bigger question about the big bang, not referring to any Tiger Wood women either, is where did it all come from? After all, even if science say no time, matter or anything physical was anywhere before the big pow, there is no better rational theory about what, who, how all the mass, energy, etc., came from.

All my argument has been is that it is no more irrational to think some intellegence may have created, caused or started this all. The alternative is that it just happened and I know our brains are not large enough figure all that out, at least not in an explainable way. You can say, the Big bang happened because we see background radiation from the event. Fine, although I won't argue the point, the random distribution of noise/heat in the universe is not a trump card on anything. As I said before, science just like us primitives, use any cosmic fart to support their view, so it usually works out. It may be the best evidence but in reality only proves there is that distribution. Remember when the size of the universe was determined? When it was seen as bigger than the 14.7 billion years at which it should have unfolded, Hyper-Inflation was all of a suden the explaination with no supporting evidence. It had to be because there was no other solution. Fine, but don't pretend it is all unbiased scientific method.

How arrogant for any of us with any certainty to say we "know" anything other than here we are! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif</span>

LWW
05-15-2010, 08:53 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">What's your point?

Q </div></div>

I guess my point is that you will duck the question.

And, from your reply I can tell you don't even understand the meaning of the word "THEORY" and are confusing it with the word "HYPOTHESIS" ... although that confusion is common.

FWIW ... an hypothesis is something that somebody thought up and wondered if it might be true.

OTOH a theory is an hypothesis which, after research and examination, has been born out. Only when something provides a better and more accurate series of answer and predictions ... based on repeatable experiments ... does it become accepted as theory.

Now, back to the question ... do you believe in the big bang theory, which BTW is accepted scientific theory?

If you don't believe in it then simply explain what you believe is the origin of the universe.

I can state without hesitation that I accept the big bang theory.

LWW

LWW
05-15-2010, 09:01 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> To believe that the universe was born from the big bang, ie something out of nothing, is basically what the Creationists believe. God said 'let there there be light' and the sun appeared! The main difference is that the BB believers have evidence to back up there conclusions.
Q
Q </div></div>

They have plenty of evidence. And, all the evidence demands a Creator.

Do you know who came up with the big bang?

Are you aware that Einstein, among others, opposed the theory because it implied a Creator?

To be even more detailed, the big bang theory dictates that everything in the natural universe ... all matter ... even space and time itself ... sprang into existence from absolutely nothing.

Now, if that is not a supernatural event, please explain what it was? What banged if there was nothing at all to bang? Where did it bang from if there wasn't a single dimension of space? When did it bang if time itself was nonexistent? Why did it bang in the first place?

LWW

LWW
05-15-2010, 09:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">That's about what everyone believes. Even non creationists. After all, where did that tiny tiny microscopic ball of gas and energy that went boom come from?

Sack </div></div>

Sorry ... but it didn't. If even a microscopic ball existed then the BBT is wrong.

The "singularity" of the big bang is all the matter and energy of the natural universe occupying zero space and time.

Without a supernatural occurrence, by definition, our universe could not exist.

Our universe sprang into existence complete, space has been expanding ever since and is accelerating. Nothing new has been created nor destroyed since.

LWW

Gayle in MD
05-15-2010, 09:06 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I said before, science just like us primitives, use any cosmic fart to support their view, so it usually works out. </div></div>

I think you have that backwards. Most scientists I've known spend their time trying to DISPROVE their own theories.

While most people who are promoting religious theories, ask others to just accept what they're told, IOW, suspend critical thinking skills.

Big difference, but as I said, "Faith" isn't based on facts, but it is the business of science to find facts, facts they can prove, through trial and error, exhaustive trial and error...until they reach the highest leve of proof they can reach or prove.

I don't think, either, there will ever be more proof there is a God, as time goes on, just the opposite. But for those who can accept or choose to accept, without questioning, that there is a God, proof otherwise will just be denied.

Or, one could also say, proof otherwise, wouldn't be
allowed by them, or important enough to them, to influence their decision to believe, since the belief, itself, can only, ever, be based on faith.

G.

Deeman3
05-15-2010, 09:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I said before, science just like us primitives, use any cosmic fart to support their view, so it usually works out. </div></div>

I think you have that backwards. Most scientists I've known spend their time trying to DISPROVE their own theories.

While most people who are promoting religious theories, ask others to just accept what they're told, IOW, suspend critical thinking skills.

Big difference, but as I sid, "Faith" isn't based on facts, but it is the business of science to find facts, facts they can prove, through trial and error, exhaustive trial and error... </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">As you accept the nobility of science and discount any prejudice in conforming scientific explainations to explain the data, we can't even argue the point very easily. I never said faith was based on facts, only radical doctrinarians say this.

Labratory technicians certainly spend a considerable amount of time testing reactions to experiments. However, deep space science and especially origins theories are a bit dirrerent. You can only measure past cause and effect and that, at a distance of several billions years. The origin of Big Bang is most simply, it is this big, headed in this direction (all directions) therefore in the distant past, it must have been this. Again, I don't reject the Big Bang, never have. But if you think it and it's cause is known even on a good guess basis, you are not paying attention. The alternative opinion are at best, a good guess with very limited support, even the smartest scientists who are much smarter than we, admit this.

I am willing to take it on my faith that you and your soul are valid and have worth beyond the century or so you have here. I do no harm in that as some have. I don't want to cut off your head, nor to force your grandkids to have sex with a Priest. I don't ask that doctors, as scientists, inject blacks in Alabama with Syphlis to see how they function.

Religeon and science have both done their share of bad. I do not belong to a church or denomination, much because of some of the things you and I both dislike about them. I apply science, every day to building little automobiles but that is provable physical science, not "this is our best guess" science.

There is no great conflict between me and science and certainly not between most people of faith and the science we use every day in our lives. It is still not a crime, so far, to question authority, even scientific authority. It only bothers those who are insecure in their work. There are thousands of scientists who believe in God but do not let this destroy their good work in science.

Why is so hard to accept that science can't explain everything even as it attepts to do so? </span>

Gayle in MD
05-15-2010, 09:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Deeman3</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">As I said before, science just like us primitives, use any cosmic fart to support their view, so it usually works out. </div></div>

I think you have that backwards. Most scientists I've known spend their time trying to DISPROVE their own theories.

While most people who are promoting religious theories, ask others to just accept what they're told, IOW, suspend critical thinking skills.

Big difference, but as I sid, "Faith" isn't based on facts, but it is the business of science to find facts, facts they can prove, through trial and error, exhaustive trial and error... </div></div>

<span style="color: #FF0000">As you accept the nobility of science and discount any prejudice in conforming scientific explainations to explain the data, <span style="color: #000066"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>I said "Most Scientists I've known" Not every Scientist that exists. </span> </span> we can't even argue the point very easily. I never said faith was based on facts, only radical doctrinarians say this.

Labratory technicians certainly spend a considerable amount of time testing reactions to experiments. However, deep space science and especially origins theories are a bit dirrerent. You can only measure past cause and effect and that, at a distance of several billions years. The origin of Big Bang is most simply, it is this big, headed in this direction (all directions) therefore in the distant past, it must have been this. Again, I don't reject the Big Bang, never have. But if you think it and it's cause is known even on a good guess basis, you are not paying attention. The alternative opinion are at best, a good guess with very limited support, even the smartest scientists who are much smarter than we, admit this.

I am willing to take it on my faith that you and your soul are valid and have worth beyond the century or so you have here. I do no harm in that as some have. I don't want to cut off your head, nor to force your grandkids to have sex with a Priest. I don't ask that doctors, as scientists, inject blacks in Alabama with Syphlis to see how they function.

Religeon and science have both done their share of bad. I do not belong to a church or denomination, much because of some of the things you and I both dislike about them. I apply science, every day to building little automobiles but that is provable physical science, not "this is our best guess" science.

There is no great conflict between me and science and certainly not between most people of faith and the science we use every day in our lives. It is still not a crime, so far, to question authority, even scientific authority. It only bothers those who are insecure in their work. There are thousands of scientists who believe in God but do not let this destroy their good work in science.

Why is so hard to accept that science can't explain everything even as it attepts to do so? </span> </div></div>

<span style="color: #000066">It isn't hard to accept that Science can't explain everything. It's just hard to accept that whatever theories one believes in, that they can believe we will ever know for sure why we are here, or if there is a God, given the vast unknowables of the universe.

But there are many many things we can't explain, or understand. We still don't know why a bumble bee can fly. </span>

Deeman3
05-15-2010, 10:31 AM
Gayle,

Unfortunately, you are a little late as three years ago, with high speed cameras, science actually did show how flight of a bumble bee works! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif It has to do with an almost unique hinge at the wing/body connection that allows less loss on the return (up stroke) than we had previsously known. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I agree, in principal, that we may never know if there is a God, short of survival of death. However, some supernatural event, while unlikely, might show us there is a God in the future.

Of course, if there is no God and there is no purpose for us being here, as I said earlier, it just doesn't matter. All the pain, loss, joy and hope will just be a dying ember upon our death and the very best and worst of humanity will have just been a flicker, no one to remember, no one to care.

I hope and beleive, although I have never been silly enough to think I could prove it, that life is a woder, a gift from someone or something and that we do have a unique purpose, perhaps there are billions upon billions of other begins in the Omniverse that do as well. If we are a part of all this, one day, if time does exist, we will all see that. If not, we will rot like worms in a grave. Of course, I would not care then. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I am off to board a ship in Tampa for a week of romancing my beautiful lady for about 6 days and 7 nights? That and watching gay lovers stoll hand in hand while spoiled brats run amuck in the formal dining halls and women in plus sized bekinis fight for room in the pools and people with entirely too much to drink fall overboard and are eaten up by BP Oil! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

I'll have my one drink to everyone on the CCB!

cushioncrawler
05-15-2010, 06:31 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">....Actually, he wouldn't be sitting there or saying anything at all. Which was more or less the point.Sack</div></div>Sack -- Yes. Exaktly. Thats my point. There iz a little bit of sillyness underlaying any diskussions about the odds of life evolving here or there, or surviving here or there etc, when we who are doing the diskussing are life, and we hav survived.

The only thing i shood add iz that i see the question differently. What we are talking about iz intelligent life. And here i define intelligent az being able to ponder the probability of evolution and the existance of intelligent life.

By the way, madMac duznt beleev in the big bang theory.
madMac knows that einstein woz wrong.
madMac beleevs in an aether theory.

And re God, God iz an impossibility.
Re gods, yes, there might be some kind of gods out there.
madMac.

sack316
05-15-2010, 07:21 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: cushioncrawler</div><div class="ubbcode-body">
And re God, God iz an impossibility.
Re gods, yes, there might be some kind of gods out there.
madMac. </div></div>

Actually, in terms of Christianity, there is no doctrine that there must be only one God. (disclaimer: I am non-denominational, but would swing closer to a Methodist side if I had to pick... so I get to say stuff like that /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif ). But my interpretation of the word is to "worship no god before me", and NOT 'worship no god other than me'.

So there, in accepting that possibility, we are in agreement /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

cushioncrawler
05-15-2010, 08:43 PM
Sack -- Yes, i agree 100% with u and with the The Holey Bible, that the bible kleerly sez that jealous God wont tolerate any worship of other gods.

Its funny that the best that the old jews kood think of for a name iz God. Like calling your dog Dog. Hmmmm -- Dog iz God backwards. What iz old hebrew for dog. Mightbe they meant a dog-like god, and the scribe woz tired.
madMac.

sack316
05-15-2010, 10:23 PM
hmmm, indeed we can look into things as much as we wish. It is fun to theorize and speculate /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Such as the mocking image of Alexamenos, worshiping his God (a representation of the crucified Jesus) in which the head of the Christ is portrayed as a donkey. The early artist's intent is usually interpreted as a mocking portrait of Christianity.

Hmmmm... I see this image repeated today in the Democratic mascot /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif They may either be our saviors... or a symbol by which to mock those that look up to them /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

Sack

cushioncrawler
05-16-2010, 12:52 AM
If we knew for sure God woz doglike, then we kood hav lots and lots of decent statues and paintings of DoggoD or GoddoG.

Its not fair. Satan worshippers and devilworshippers hav good images, but Godworshippers dont.

So, what duz dog backwards look like.
madMac.
http://i47.photobucket.com/albums/f196/reedmillar/who-would-jesus-sniff.jpg

Qtec
05-16-2010, 03:33 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">You can say, the Big bang happened because we see background radiation from the event. Fine, although I won't argue the point, the random distribution of noise/heat in the universe is not a trump card on anything. </div></div>



<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The cosmic microwave background was predicted in <span style='font-size: 14pt'>1948</span> by George Gamow, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman.[ </div></div>

ie, No cosmic radiation, no Big bang.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The first published recognition of the CMB radiation as a detectable phenomenon appeared in a brief paper by Soviet astrophysicists A. G. Doroshkevich and Igor Novikov, in the spring of<span style='font-size: 14pt'> 1964</span>. </div></div>

A prediction was made and 20 yrs later it was confirmed.
The scientists and the astronomers etc can point to many facts that support their theories, all the ID guys have got is more questions.
This thread is about the claims made by the ID proponents and their lack of evidence to support their beliefs.

banana (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8057492025320348487#)

Q

Qtec
05-16-2010, 03:56 AM
I take it all back. After seeing this video, I am convinced.
proof there is a creator (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8057492025320348487#docid=59165464 68596799422)
Q

Stretch
05-16-2010, 04:21 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I take it all back. After seeing this video, I am convinced.
proof there is a creator (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8057492025320348487#docid=59165464 68596799422)
Q </div></div>

Compelling argument there Q, thanks for finding that. It was a timely view for a Sunday morning. St.

LWW
05-16-2010, 04:47 AM
The big bang is proof of a Creator.

That's why so many opposed it, it demands a moment of creation.

Ever since Hubbell demonstrated the BB to be accurate ... further confirmed by the CMB and many other experiments ... the atheist faith has been claiming that just because there was a moment of creation doesn't mean there was a moment of creation.

LWW &lt;--- Lacks the faith to be an atheist.