(Close Window)
Topic: Ben Stein interviewed on BNN
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 19, 2008 08:34PM)
Ben Stein, financial analyst, political pundit, and actor / movie maker, was interviewed on BNN's show SqueezePlay earlier today. BNN is the Business News Network t.v. station in Canada. The interview is archived on its website here:

[url]http://watch.bnn.ca/squeezeplay/june-2008/squeezeplay-june-19-2008/#clip61216[/url]

This might be of interest to some of you. I'm really not looking to start any debate, just wanted to make you aware of the interview.
Message: Posted by: Josh the Superfluous (Jun 19, 2008 08:42PM)
Oh yah. You're not trying to start something. Right. Why not post a link to Al Gore?

I'm pulling the pin off this hand grenade, and setting it on the edge of the table. I don't plan to blow anything up.
Message: Posted by: MagicSanta (Jun 19, 2008 08:53PM)
I know better than to even bother listening.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 19, 2008 09:00PM)
That was fun - thanks.

The limits of Darwinian theory etc are the way it probably needs to be taught anyway - including the limits of presuming that there are any extraordinary processes - especially external "intelligence" involved in the world.

That and a little basic grounding in philosophy could finish all "supernatural" approaches to looking at the material world for academic purposes and leave the way clear to the experimentalists to build models based upon what can be measured and quit fussing or hedging over matters of accustomed belief.

It may take some a while but in time I predict even the most ardent anthropencentrist will come to accept the True shape of existence as the will of a giant squidlike creature who's patient enough to dream about inferior creatures like us so we can enjoy the illusion of free will.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Jun 19, 2008 09:05PM)
I'm with Jonathan. That the debate even takes place is an indictment of modern science education.

John
Message: Posted by: gaddy (Jun 20, 2008 03:53AM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-19 22:00, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
That was fun - thanks.

The limits of Darwinian theory etc are the way it probably needs to be taught anyway - including the limits of presuming that there are any extraordinary processes - especially external "intelligence" involved in the world.

That and a little basic grounding in philosophy could finish all "supernatural" approaches to looking at the material world for academic purposes and leave the way clear to the experimentalists to build models based upon what can be measured and quit fussing or hedging over matters of accustomed belief.

It may take some a while but in time I predict even the most ardent anthropencentrist will come to [b]accept the True shape of existence as the will of a giant squidlike creature who's patient enough to dream about inferior creatures like us so we can enjoy the illusion of free will.[/b]
[/quote]

Oh, why don't you just come out and say it! [i]"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn!!![/i]
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 20, 2008 10:37AM)
Ben who?
Yes, I seem to recall hearing that name. Didn't he make a movie of some sort that no one saw and fewer still paid any attention to?

The funny thing is that this little piece of propaganda made around seven and a half million dollars. Which is half the amount of money Paul Allen has spent on a new 8 part mini series on evolution that will air on PBS this fall http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

It will also be seen by far more people than Mr. Stein's dismal flop of a movie,
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2008 11:10AM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 11:37, Payne wrote:
Ben who?
Yes, I seem to recall hearing that name. Didn't he make a movie of some sort that no one saw and fewer still paid any attention to?

The funny thing is that this little piece of propaganda made around seven and a half million dollars. Which is half the amount of money Paul Allen has spent on a new 8 part mini series on evolution that will air on PBS this fall http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

It will also be seen by far more people than Mr. Stein's dismal flop of a movie,
[/quote]

You crack me up with your agenda dude. You seem to equate money spent with being right LOL.

You could also be describing Al Gore's movie.

I am confused here why you are so adamant here. In the first 2 minutes Ben simply states that there is "some design, some accident/evolution. He is not saying that anyone is wrong, heck he is simply asking for debate.

Wow. It you misrepresent peoples positions pretty badly. He asks for debate, why not let it happen in a civil tone?
Message: Posted by: kregg (Jun 20, 2008 11:17AM)
This topic is so last April ... :smoke:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2008 11:22AM)
I just wonder what the over/under is on the thread being deleated because people can't be civil LOL.
Message: Posted by: Justin Style (Jun 20, 2008 11:30AM)
[i]Beuler?...Beuler?[/i]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2008 12:21PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 11:37, Payne wrote:
Ben who?
Yes, I seem to recall hearing that name. Didn't he make a movie of some sort that no one saw and fewer still paid any attention to?

The funny thing is that this little piece of propaganda made around seven and a half million dollars. Which is half the amount of money Paul Allen has spent on a new 8 part mini series on evolution that will air on PBS this fall http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/

It will also be seen by far more people than Mr. Stein's dismal flop of a movie,
[/quote]

Ah, legitimacy by popular acclaim. I guess Britney Spears is a tremendous musician and the best chefs in the world work at McDonalds.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2008 12:21PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 12:10, Dannydoyle wrote:
He asks for debate, why not let it happen in a civil tone?
[/quote]


Ummm...good luck with that, Danny.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2008 12:26PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 13:21, LobowolfXXX wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 12:10, Dannydoyle wrote:
He asks for debate, why not let it happen in a civil tone?
[/quote]


Ummm...good luck with that, Danny.
[/quote]

Guess I do have to remove my head from there don't I? Sorry your right LOL. Idiotic concept at best on my part. My bad.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 20, 2008 12:41PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 12:10, Dannydoyle wrote:

You crack me up with your agenda dude. You seem to equate money spent with being right LOL.

You could also be describing Al Gore's movie.

[/quote]

Which made nearly three times what Stiens little flicker made. It also won a Academy Award and brought the topic of Global Warming to the forefront for discussion and debate.

Expelled barely broke into the publics awareness and I'm sure the average person never even heard of the film.

[quote]

I am confused here why you are so adamant here. In the first 2 minutes Ben simply states that there is "some design, some accident/evolution. He is not saying that anyone is wrong, heck he is simply asking for debate.

[/quote]

The debate is over. It occured at the Dover Trial. ID lost as it had zero evidence to support it's claims. Even the much touted Discovery Institute ran away with its tail between its legs.

[quote]

Wow. It you misrepresent peoples positions pretty badly. He asks for debate, why not let it happen in a civil tone?

[/quote]


Because he was far from civil in his debate as he invoked Godwin's law.
Message: Posted by: Justin Style (Jun 20, 2008 12:47PM)
[i]Ding, ding[/i].
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 20, 2008 12:51PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 13:21, LobowolfXXX wrote:

Ah, legitimacy by popular acclaim. I guess Britney Spears is a tremendous musician and the best chefs in the world work at McDonalds.

[/quote]

I'm not making any claim to legitimacy here nor an argument from authority. Not saying that Mr. Stein is wrong or the other side is right (even though they are :) )

I was just making the statement that Expelled was a huge flop and did nothing to advance the debate of ID in the public arena. It pretty much just preached to the choir and remained under the radar for nearly everyone else.

Had they had some real evidence to support their claims then maybe a legitimate news agency might have picked up on the stories of scientists being persecuted. But since they never provided substantiated evidence to support their claims the media gave this film and its subject matter a big yawn.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2008 01:04PM)
Same arguements different day.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2008 01:23PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 13:41, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 12:10, Dannydoyle wrote:

You crack me up with your agenda dude. You seem to equate money spent with being right LOL.

You could also be describing Al Gore's movie.

[/quote]

Which made nearly three times what Stiens little flicker made. It also won a Academy Award and brought the topic of Global Warming to the forefront for discussion and debate.

[/quote]


Global Warming was being discussed and debated as a front-row issue well before Gore's movie came up. Many aspects of that movie have also been disavowed by people ON GORE'S SIDE, some of whom he cites/quotes. But I guess for people who think that Michael Moore make documentaries, it's all good.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2008 01:26PM)
Why let the facts get in the way of a good agenda?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 20, 2008 01:28PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 14:04, Dannydoyle wrote:
Same arguements different day.
[/quote]

Indeed, which is why this thread won't make it past the weekend. Especially if you know who comes in here and starts pushing you know what around. :)
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2008 01:31PM)
Btw, An Inconvenient Truth made its $24 million in over 5 months; Expelled has been out about 2 months.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2008 01:46PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 14:28, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 14:04, Dannydoyle wrote:
Same arguements different day.
[/quote]

Indeed, which is why this thread won't make it past the weekend. Especially if you know who comes in here and starts pushing you know what around. :)
[/quote]

I like the way you say that but you are just as adamant and just as unyeilding and just as agenda driven as "you know who". Your lack of religion IS A RELIGION and it is just as obvious an agenda LOL. Oh wait :) . There that fixes it.
Message: Posted by: Justin Style (Jun 20, 2008 02:34PM)
[i][b]POW[/b][/i]



[b]Oomph[/b]!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2008 03:16PM)
Justin I put a smiley face didn't I?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 20, 2008 03:33PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 14:31, LobowolfXXX wrote:
Btw, An Inconvenient Truth made its $24 million in over 5 months; Expelled has been out about 2 months.
[/quote]

And is now gone out of all theatres and has been now for several weeks. So it looks as if seven and a half million is all its going to make. At least until the DVD comes out.

They are talking about a Canadian and European release. But since none of these locals have any interest in degrading their science curriculum by allowing pseudo science to be taught I doubt there would be much of an audience for the picture.
Message: Posted by: Justin Style (Jun 20, 2008 03:38PM)
[i][b]ZOWIE![/b][/i]


[i]BONK![/i]
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 20, 2008 03:40PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 14:46, Dannydoyle wrote:

I like the way you say that but you are just as adamant and just as unyeilding and just as agenda driven as "you know who". Your lack of religion IS A RELIGION and it is just as obvious an agenda LOL. Oh wait :) . There that fixes it.

[/quote]

Quite true, the only difference being that I'm right :)

Remember, We have all the Fossils so we win :)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 20, 2008 03:43PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 16:38, Justin Style wrote:
[i][b]ZOWIE![/b][/i]


[i]BONK![/i]
[/quote]

Glad to see your giving all the commentary this lame, and soon to be deleted thread deserves.

Bob and Weave, Bob and Weave
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2008 03:45PM)
The earth was created last Tuesday, complete with fossils & memories.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2008 04:54PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 16:43, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 16:38, Justin Style wrote:
[i][b]ZOWIE![/b][/i]


[i]BONK![/i]
[/quote]

Glad to see your giving all the commentary this lame, and soon to be deleted thread deserves.

Bob and Weave, Bob and Weave
[/quote]

This is exactly what I mean. You just get mean for no reason dude? You can have an opinion that is divergent from others, and not be so smug superior and biggoted about it can't you?

Man you just call names, make accusations and come off really angry. Oddly enough pretty much like someone else we all know LOL. Then again religion gets people like that now doens't it?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 20, 2008 05:13PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 17:54, Dannydoyle wrote:

This is exactly what I mean. You just get mean for no reason dude? You can have an opinion that is divergent from others, and not be so smug superior and biggoted about it can't you?

Man you just call names, make accusations and come off really angry. Oddly enough pretty much like someone else we all know LOL. Then again religion gets people like that now doens't it?
[/quote]

Gee, I thought I was being acerbic, sarcastic and curmudgeonly. As for being mean, as I tell my co-workers "It's not if I treat you badly, it's if I treat anyone else better". As for superior, Well, when you're as smart as I am it's hard to be Humble :)

Also in case you don't understand the little smiley faces or :) means I"M KIDDING!!!

Unlike some others here who haven't a sense of humour and really believe the Flintstones are a documentary.

Besides the only person I was treating badly here was Mr. Stein -- Who I used to sort of like until he got talked into making a silly movie about a subject he knew nothing about.

And I wasn't even defaming Mr. Stein, just his poorly conceived and attended movie that made barely a ripple in the collective consciousness. So you've no reason to get so upset about it unless you're somehow related to him. Are you?

I'm really sort of surprised he is still giving interviews as the movie is long gone so it's not like it's going to help out the Bow Office any. Perhaps the DVD is coming out soon and he's trying to get the two people who saw the film to buy copies of it as well.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 20, 2008 05:16PM)
Yea bitter you are thanks for pointing that out.

I mean really why not just debate issues without name calling and bs? Oh wait Lobo reminded me, sorry. My bad.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2008 05:25PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 18:13, Payne wrote:
Also in case you don't understand the little smiley faces or :) means I"M KIDDING!!!

[/quote]

So when you followed up the comment that Mr. Stein is wrong with a smiley, that means you were kidding? I totally misinterpreted it to mean you actually thought it was wrong.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 20, 2008 05:27PM)
I thought smileys meant something more akin to "I absolutely believe what I just said, but I reserve the right to hedge, dance around, disavow, or back away from this statement if it offends someone, annoys someone, or I get called out for saying this." :)
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 20, 2008 05:30PM)
I wasn't going to post again in this thread, but then I saw this story and thought of you all:

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVT200&show_article=1[/url]
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 20, 2008 05:41PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 18:30, balducci wrote:
I wasn't going to post again in this thread, but then I saw this story and thought of you all:

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVT200&show_article=1[/url]
[/quote]

Gee we were all just having lots of fun playing with each other in here and now you got to get all serious by posting this.

Killjoy.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 21, 2008 12:46PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 18:41, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 18:30, balducci wrote:
I wasn't going to post again in this thread, but then I saw this story and thought of you all:

[url]http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D91DVT200&show_article=1[/url]
[/quote]

Gee we were all just having lots of fun playing with each other in here and now you got to get all serious by posting this.

Killjoy.
[/quote]

Dude you disapointe me! BUT for once I get to beat you to a joke! (take that) I bet more people have viewed this thread than Ben's movie! Cmon! CMON!
Message: Posted by: Payne (Jun 21, 2008 02:14PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 18:16, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yea bitter you are thanks for pointing that out.

I mean really why not just debate issues without name calling and bs? Oh wait Lobo reminded me, sorry. My bad.
[/quote]

You're still not paying attention. The Debate is over. It took place a few years back in Dover and the folks in Steins camp lost big time. Find out about it here

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/id/

Really you need to keep up with current affairs.

Now if the the losing side has found new data to support their claims they should submit them through the proper scientific channels for review. But so far all we can hear from the creationist camp is the chirping of crickets. Well that's not entirely true. Mostly what we hear is them whining because no one takes their claims unsubstantiated claims seriously.

BTW I'm not at all bitter. Just giving ID proponents all the respect their due :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 21, 2008 04:12PM)
What about my joke. CMAAANN!
Message: Posted by: Justin Style (Jun 22, 2008 12:57PM)
...I'm laughing!

[b]BANG! ZOOM![/b]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 22, 2008 04:04PM)
Good at least the joke got across LOL.
Message: Posted by: Josh the Superfluous (Jun 22, 2008 07:56PM)
Now we need to get Rosie O'Donel and Hillary Clinton's names into this.

BTW Wasn't intelligent design almost wiped out by Sadam's weapons of mass distruction?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 22, 2008 08:31PM)
A couple of minor comments.

The bald-headed guy interviewing Ben Stein, the one on-screen to the right of Ben, in the video at the link I posted is Kevin O'Leary.

I knew he was a rich guy, an angel investor, but I didn't realise just how rich until I looked him up this afternoon. Turns out the guy sold his software company 'The Learning Company' to Mattel for $3.7 billion a few years back.

If he's so successful and supposedly so smart, I wish he would have done a better job with the interview.

The other thing I learned today about Expelled was that it was financed by Walt Ruloff, an evangelical software millionaire from Vancouver. So it appears you can 'Blame Canada' for that movie.

:)

[url]http://sensuouscurmudgeon.wordpress.com/2008/06/22/ben-steins-expelled-a-canadian-conspiracy/[/url]

[url]http://www.canada.com/calgaryherald/news/theeditorialpage/story.html?id=21847d22-49ba-4316-b611-1263745ef9bd[/url]
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 22, 2008 09:32PM)
I blame folks who can't take a joke.
Message: Posted by: GlenD (Jun 24, 2008 04:53PM)
I don't blame anyone, I applaud them all however rich, successful or lucky they may be.
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Jun 24, 2008 05:05PM)
And in other news, a survey of over 30,000 people finds that 20% of self-identified atheists believe in God. Things that make you go...HUH?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/23/BATE11AKBJ.DTL
Message: Posted by: mud (Jun 25, 2008 07:50PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-24 18:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
And in other news, a survey of over 30,000 people finds that 20% of self-identified atheists believe in God. Things that make you go...HUH?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/23/BATE11AKBJ.DTL
[/quote]

There's either something way wrong with that survey, or more people than I thought have no idea what 'atheism' means (or a lot of people like lying on surveys, take your pick).

Either way, further proof that most surveys are useless.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 25, 2008 07:55PM)
Actually, if you want something really scary ... look at the premise that science can do without hypotheses, testing and even peer review as on could just as well let heuristics loose on the data and evolve rules which describe the data and predict new findings.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Jun 25, 2008 08:05PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-25 20:50, mud wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-24 18:05, LobowolfXXX wrote:
And in other news, a survey of over 30,000 people finds that 20% of self-identified atheists believe in God. Things that make you go...HUH?

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2008/06/23/BATE11AKBJ.DTL
[/quote]

There's either something way wrong with that survey, or more people than I thought have no idea what 'atheism' means (or a lot of people like lying on surveys, take your pick).

Either way, further proof that most surveys are useless.
[/quote]
How do you figure? Did you read the article? The fact that 21% of self-defined atheists believe in God DOES tell you something useful ... just not what you were expecting.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Jun 25, 2008 08:15PM)
It does indeed tell you something of value LOL.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Jun 25, 2008 08:24PM)
Of course I believe in God, just not the particular version some want me to.
*
I'm happy God is sleeping and I hope the stars don't line up during my lifetime but I've been faithful so I expect to be eaten first.
*
Message: Posted by: Illucifer (Sep 20, 2008 11:39AM)
Payne, the debate is far from over. Darwinists are, quite frankly, on shaky ground, and they know it. And many freely admit it. The fossil record is a very weak support to fall back on for Darwinists. In fact, it hurts them more than it helps them.

Darwin himself said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

This has been demonstrated in the microbiological world. A world that Darwin himself could not observe.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Sep 20, 2008 11:59AM)
I'm THRILLED to have this thread resurrected. Thanks! Illucifer, have a beer:

:coffee:
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 20, 2008 12:12PM)
I would not know about "Darwinists". I do feel however that a "designer" who's designed and set loose so many species which have gone extinct seems remarkably cruel or worse - incompetent. And so on this matter I have to side with a preference for the random over the willful bordering on evil.

This of course does not in any way invalidate a claim that the world came into existence just last tuesday with all the things and people and their memories brought in by design... or just a moment ago.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 20, 2008 01:05PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-20 12:39, Illucifer wrote:

Darwin himself said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

This has been demonstrated in the microbiological world.
[/quote]
I've yet to hear or read of any verifiable examples of this. Indeed, every such 'example' that has ever been brought to my attention appears to have been either inconclusive or later verified as false.

So if you have a good example, please share it.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 20, 2008 09:23PM)
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 14:28, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-06-20 14:04, Dannydoyle wrote:
Same arguements different day.
[/quote]

Indeed, which is why this thread won't make it past the weekend. Especially if you know who comes in here and starts pushing you know what around. :)
[/quote]

Yes, I know what you mean about Payne.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 20, 2008 09:40PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-20 12:39, Illucifer wrote:
Payne, the debate is far from over. Darwinists are, quite frankly, on shaky ground, and they know it. And many freely admit it. The fossil record is a very weak support to fall back on for Darwinists. In fact, it hurts them more than it helps them.
[/quote]

Citations please. Or is this just your opinion? Please direct me to the references you have that show that the fossil record is looked upon by "Darwinists" (whatever those are) as being weak or that it hurts them more than it helps.
Just because you read something on a Fundy website doesn't make it true.
The fundamentals of evolutionary theory have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

[quote]
Darwin himself said "If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."


This has been demonstrated in the microbiological world. A world that Darwin himself could not observe.
[/quote]

Ahh, the old canard of irreducible complexity. Pretty much has been proven to be false. See the Dover Trial transcripts for a complete refutation of it. It's really important to keep up with the journals.

Here, look at this as it explains modern evolutionary theory quite nicely

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 20, 2008 09:45PM)
Link don't work.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 20, 2008 09:58PM)
Try this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 20, 2008 10:37PM)
Explain how the eye evolved Payne. Please.

Same arguements different day LOL. Funny how the arguements never seem to "evolve" though isn't it?

I love to see religion on both sides of the arguement here argued. Payne has his religion. Make no mistake Payne it is a religion with you. The belief that you believe nothing SO vehemently is really quite remarkable to behold.

At least those who profess religion as a belief are honest about it.

I think both sides are on shaky ground. I don't personally think the Darwiniacs believe evolution to be a connundrum, quite the opposite. They explain away anything you can imagine with another story to fill in the gaps. Much like the religions I might add LOL.

Though an interesting debate at times, it is quite stalled. Payne will never change his religion and his lack of belief and neither will anyone on the other side. Nobody will ever know for sure, but everyone will claim to have the answers. Pretty ironic really.

I vote for the last Tuesday explination really. But I don't claim to know for a fact this is true.

Seems a nice compromise though.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 20, 2008 10:54PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-20 23:37, Dannydoyle wrote:
Explain how the eye evolved Payne. Please.
[/quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zI_oGu-2clE


[quote]
I love to see religion on both sides of the arguement here argued. Payne has his religion. Make no mistake Payne it is a religion with you. The belief that you believe nothing SO vehemently is really quite remarkable to behold.
[/quote]

re·li·gion

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

sci·ence

1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws:

Nope, not a Religion as I don't believe in any supernatural entities. But thanks for playing.


[quote]
At least those who profess religion as a belief are honest about it.
[/quote]

Not always

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind

[quote]
I think both sides are on shaky ground. I don't personally think the Darwiniacs believe evolution to be a connundrum, quite the opposite. They explain away anything you can imagine with another story to fill in the gaps. Much like the religions I might add LOL.
[/quote]

Your Nobel Prize awaits if you can prove this hypothesis. Good luck with that

[quote]
Though an interesting debate at times, it is quite stalled. Payne will never change his religion and his lack of belief and neither will anyone on the other side. Nobody will ever know for sure, but everyone will claim to have the answers. Pretty ironic really.
[/quote]

I don't need to change my belief as it is the correct one :) We have all the fossils and DNA evidence so we win!

[quote]
I vote for the last Tuesday explination really. But I don't claim to know for a fact this is true.
[/quote]

This is heresie as we all know it was last Wednesday not Tuesday that the world was created.

Seems a nice compromise though.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 20, 2008 11:02PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-20 22:40, Payne wrote:

The fundamentals of evolutionary theory have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

[/quote]

Payne, you have just lost whatever credibility you may have had. This is "Robert W. Funk bad".
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 20, 2008 11:34PM)
Naw, come on now if you say it enough people start to believe it. Look at Al Gore LOL. (Thought I could bring up another pointless debate LOL. At least the Darwiniacs don't want to tax me for their belief though so it is a bit more tolerable LOL) Ok now debate global warming, followed by abortion, and we can all end up with a debate on republicans vs democrats!


GO!
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 21, 2008 12:27AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 00:02, Chessmann wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-20 22:40, Payne wrote:

The fundamentals of evolutionary theory have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

[/quote]

Payne, you have just lost whatever credibility you may have had. This is "Robert W. Funk bad".
[/quote]

So prove me wrong. What evidence do you have to support that evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? It is the most widely accepted explanation by serious scientists as to how life developed on this planet. So far no viable alternative theory has been put forward that fits with the evidence we have.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Sep 21, 2008 03:03AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 01:27, Payne wrote:
It is the most widely accepted explanation by serious scientists as to how life developed on this planet.
[/quote]

Serious scientists are...uh...scientists. They are restricted by their discipline.

[quote]So far no viable alternative theory has been put forward that fits with the evidence we have.[/quote]

You left out a word here. No "scientifically" viable alternative theory....

The funny thing about this debate is that I find evolutionary theory convincing and beautiful, but I find "science" arrogant, pretentious, and limited. So I find myself debating things I actually believe.

Strange.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 21, 2008 07:36AM)
Blind adherance to things Payne is how YOU are LOL. It is funny to watch you fall apart though.

Keep going I find it entertaining. Right or wrong, man you lose credability with every post.

Even science strays away from posting absoluts.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 21, 2008 12:38PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 04:03, stoneunhinged wrote:

. . . but I find "science" arrogant, pretentious, and limited.

[/quote]

Funny, I say the exact same things about philosophers :)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 21, 2008 01:11PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 08:36, Dannydoyle wrote:
Blind adherance to things Payne is how YOU are LOL. It is funny to watch you fall apart though.
[/quote]

I don't appear to be the one falling apart here. You've yet to present a single compelling argument to discount the acceptance of the theory of evolution.

Nice case of projection there though.

Also I do not have a "Blind Adherence" to the theory of evolution. If someday, someone postulates a better explanation that fits with the known or yet to be known facts then I'll have to abandon my old beliefs in favour of the new. That's how science works. Unlike other belief systems who blindly adhere to ancient and outdated dogma irregardless of what new discoveries might have been made since their theory was postulated.

[quote]
Keep going I find it entertaining. Right or wrong, man you lose credability with every post.
[/quote]

Funny I'm not the one who seems to have lost credibility here. You've yet to put forth a single valid argument to show my position to be the one lacking in credibility.

[quote]
Even science strays away from posting absoluts.
[/quote]

Which is why I've never stated that evolution is absolutely true. It is the best explanation we have and has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I've never once stated that it is absolutely true as science (apart from mathematics) does not work in absolutes.
Message: Posted by: kregg (Sep 21, 2008 01:18PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 13:38, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 04:03, stoneunhinged wrote:

. . . but I find "science" arrogant, pretentious, and limited.

[/quote]

Funny, I say the exact same things about philosophers :)
[/quote]

I don't think science or philosophy are arrogant or pretentious. I do however think some men of science, some philosophers, some clergymen, many professors, most politicians, and all comic book store clerks arrogant & pretentious beyond the pale of reason or pay grade.
Message: Posted by: stoneunhinged (Sep 21, 2008 01:44PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 13:38, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 04:03, stoneunhinged wrote:

. . . but I find "science" arrogant, pretentious, and limited.

[/quote]

Funny, I say the exact same things about philosophers :)
[/quote]

LOL!

Hey Kregg, what do comic book store clerks have to say about Ben Stein?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 21, 2008 02:01PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 14:44, stoneunhinged wrote:

. . . what do comic book store clerks have to say about Ben Stein?

[/quote]

"Intelligent Design? Worst Theory Ever!"
Message: Posted by: kregg (Sep 21, 2008 02:18PM)
What ever do you mean? Comic books and graphic novels are intelligent design at its best. :idea:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 21, 2008 02:37PM)
Payne you are funny to watch I will give you that.

You have a "theory" which is your BEST GUESS and you look down upon others. Man you are definatly religious man. Way to go.

As long as you tout science so highly let me help you. Most of the evolution crowd give the nonsensical answer of "Einstein" and his "Theory" and compare it to evolution.

Well when ol Al also offered a series of empirical tests that would prove it false. That was what made it a "scientific theory" and not, say, "an astrological profile." If light had not appeared to bend away from the Sun during the 1919 solar eclipse or if his equasions could not account for Mercury's orbit around the Sun, Einstein would have abandoned the theory. In the end , of course, his theory accounted for both phenemena and has been repeatedly retested and proved true.

By contrast, Darwin imagined a mechanism that would account for how life in its infinite variety might have arisen and offered a nondisprovable standard to test its theory. The great philosopher of science Karl Popper said any theory that cannot conceivably be refuted is not science. The very fact that it is nondisprovable is an "Immunizing stratagem", distinguishing pseudoscience from real science. Either there is no evidence that could possibly disprove Darwin's theory of evolution-or it has been dissproved for half a century.

Ask yourself this question. If this is the standard of proof which you are happy with, and if in fact this constitutes hard science, then why in the world do you say God does not exist? As I said, organized religion has met the EXACT SAME standard of proof Darwin and his cult have. So why the difference?

The only difference is your need to deny God and His existance.

Notice how I am not a member of the flat earth society? Notice how all I have given are rational arguements, now lets see you post something that is not just some story about evolution and try to justify the gaps in the record. Well the gaps really ARE the record now arren't they?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 21, 2008 02:38PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 15:18, kregg wrote:
What ever do you mean? Comic books and graphic novels are intelligent design at its best. :idea:
[/quote]

Someone obviously doesn't watch the Simpson's :)

It was a "popular culture" reference to that programs Comic Book Guy.

Am I going to have to start putting footnotes on my posts?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 21, 2008 02:40PM)
Oh and let me address for just a second the idiotic statement "we have fossils we win". Ok let's use that theory and take it to the logical conclusion. You like science and logic so much Payne.

Since this is the cornerstone of your arguement, "we have fossils and we win" then when your fossils are proved to be an outright haox, you then by extension lose, and lose badly.

See it is not about winning or about losing. It is simply about trying to get by in life.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 21, 2008 02:43PM)
Sorry to interupt your hate spewing biggotry Payne. Usually it is easier to watch you just tire yourself and everyone else out with your blather LOL. Go on I won't bother you any more I was just having fun.

Turns out that just this morning they proved God and Evolution both exist. Sorry to tell each side LOL.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 21, 2008 03:12PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 15:37, Dannydoyle wrote:

By contrast, Darwin imagined a mechanism that would account for how life in its infinite variety might have arisen and offered a nondisprovable standard to test its theory. The great philosopher of science Karl Popper said any theory that cannot conceivably be refuted is not science. The very fact that it is nondisprovable is an "Immunizing stratagem", distinguishing pseudoscience from real science. Either there is no evidence that could possibly disprove Darwin's theory of evolution-or it has been dissproved for half a century.

[/quote]

Where do you come up with this stuff? Evolution is just as falsifiable as any of Einsteins Theories. All it would take is a single fossil out of place in the geological column to prove evolution wrong.

Some more on this topic here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability#Evolution

Creationism on the other hand is not falsifiable as any inconsistencies are just magically explained away as "God did it". Thus making it a pseudo science


[quote]
Ask yourself this question. If this is the standard of proof which you are happy with, and if in fact this constitutes hard science, then why in the world do you say God does not exist? As I said, organized religion has met the EXACT SAME standard of proof Darwin and his cult have. So why the difference?
[/quote]

Simply because I have yet to be presented with any compelling physical evidence for the existence of the supernatural. Evolution has mountains of physical evidence to support its claims. Fossils, DNA, observable specialization etc.
God? Not a jot of evidence. Just a lot of hearsay and specultion. No mechanism has ever been put forth by its supporters as to how the whole god thing would actually work.
I'd rather be true to myself and say "I don't know how the universe started. but we're looking into it" than to be satisfied with the intellectually lazy argument of "God did it"

[quote]
The only difference is your need to deny God and His existance.
[/quote]

I don't need to deny its existence. It does a great job of denying it own existence by not providing any evidence for its existence.

[quote]
Notice how I am not a member of the flat earth society? Notice how all I have given are rational arguements, now lets see you post something that is not just some story about evolution and try to justify the gaps in the record. Well the gaps really ARE the record now arren't they?
[/quote]

Argument? You've yet to present a single argument that isn't that same old tired creationist mumbo jumbo that has been shown false time and time again. You guys had your big chance at the Dover Trial but the evolution proponants pretty much mopped the floor with the creationist\intelligent design crowd as they simply could produce no evidence to support their claims.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 21, 2008 03:12PM)
Whatever happened to the 'smiley face eating popcorn' smiley?

I'd love to type one in about here, but can't seem to find the right code on offer any longer in the list of smileys available at the Café.

:(
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 21, 2008 03:16PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 15:43, Dannydoyle wrote:

Turns out that just this morning they proved God and Evolution both exist. Sorry to tell each side LOL.

[/quote]

Wow I missed that in the papers. Which God did they find? I hope it's Zeus.

Hey, I'm just playing too. don't take it so seriously.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 21, 2008 03:27PM)
Payne you are actually making my point for me. Zeus, Buddah, God, Jehova, science, Darwin, however you get through the day. But oddlly enough YOU do more judging of anyone than any "religious" person I have ever seen. Pretty funny to watch really so please don't stop.
Message: Posted by: Daniel Santos (Sep 21, 2008 04:23PM)
As a matter of fact, you're all wrong.

As a Pastafarian, I must admit that The Flying Spaghetti Monster is the one true creator of all. Unfortunately, He was intoxicated at the time of creation, thus making all things flawed. Additionally, global warming is the result of a huge decrease in number of pirates since the 1800s.

RAmen

(Yes, this is a joke. :D)
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 21, 2008 04:35PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 01:27, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 00:02, Chessmann wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-20 22:40, Payne wrote:

The fundamentals of evolutionary theory have been proven beyond any reasonable doubt.

[/quote]

Payne, you have just lost whatever credibility you may have had. This is "Robert W. Funk bad".
[/quote]

So prove me wrong. What evidence do you have to support that evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt? It is the most widely accepted explanation by serious scientists as to how life developed on this planet. So far no viable alternative theory has been put forward that fits with the evidence we have.
[/quote]

Payne, you have GOT to be kidding me? Prove you wrong? How about proving your position RIGHT before making the incredible claim that evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt! The whole world knows that evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (and not just that, it simply crumbles under the weight of its own - many - unanswered questions!). But then, in your next sentence, you then claim only that it is the "most widely accepted explanation". Had you stuck with that, you would have no argument from me.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 21, 2008 04:40PM)
[quote]
Payne wrote:
I don't need to deny its (God's) existence. It does a great job of denying it own existence by not providing any evidence for its existence.
[/quote]

An interesting quote from one whose worldview can give an account for....nothing.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 21, 2008 04:54PM)
This argument between the realm of the sentimental (feelings) and the rational (measurable) is entertaining even if sad.

Of course it's more comforting to put a benevolent sentience behind the measurably random events we find in the world. No disputing the basic tastes on that one. For matters of predicting outcomes of measurable things it has yet to be shown that any experimental outcome is affected by the personally held beliefs of those doing the experiments as regards there being any particular benevolent sentience (or plethora therof) or even a malevolent sentience (well if you put in the second law of thermodynamics you might get some leeway on that one) behind the measurable world.

To be blunt, that's what distinguishes science from religion. Science looks for patterns in what one can experience which don't depend upon one's personal beliefs. Religion offers a model by which one can sentimentally relate to and find a positive value in what one experiences. The hose pulls the cart down the road. The cart holds the food for the horse. Why are we trying to argue one is in conflict with the other?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 21, 2008 05:18PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 17:35, Chessmann wrote:

Payne, you have GOT to be kidding me? Prove you wrong? How about proving your position RIGHT before making the incredible claim that evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt! The whole world knows that evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (and not just that, it simply crumbles under the weight of its own - many - unanswered questions!). But then, in your next sentence, you then claim only that it is the "most widely accepted explanation". Had you stuck with that, you would have no argument from me.
[/quote]

Start with this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

then move along to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

then this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

and then this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

in fact watch all of this guys videos as they are quite informative and very well produced

after you've worked through these then go through this series

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=related
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 21, 2008 05:25PM)
[img]http://www.improvresourcecenter.com/mb/images/smilies/popcorn.gif[/img]

:)
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 21, 2008 05:45PM)
Glad you found it ^


[quote]
On 2008-09-21 15:40, Dannydoyle wrote:

Since this is the cornerstone of your arguement, "we have fossils and we win" then when your fossils are proved to be an outright haox, you then by extension lose, and lose badly.

.
[/quote]

"when your fossils.." How long have these fossils been around? How many types of dating procedures have been done on them? I think the Hoax thing is a little bit out of reach. Its not like its bigfoot or anything. it would be the biggest conspiracy ever put forth-and it would be evolutionists who did it, always a devious group.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 21, 2008 06:21PM)
If the fossils are some kind of hoax - don't you think there would be all sorts of "counter hoax" findings to make it obvious - like ... well why give these sad people ideas.

Yes - if it's not what you want to find it's a hoax...
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 21, 2008 06:51PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 18:18, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 17:35, Chessmann wrote:

Payne, you have GOT to be kidding me? Prove you wrong? How about proving your position RIGHT before making the incredible claim that evolution has been proven beyond reasonable doubt! The whole world knows that evolution has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt (and not just that, it simply crumbles under the weight of its own - many - unanswered questions!). But then, in your next sentence, you then claim only that it is the "most widely accepted explanation". Had you stuck with that, you would have no argument from me.
[/quote]

Start with this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ozbFerzjkz4

then move along to this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_RXX7pntr8

then this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7w57_P9DZJ4

and then this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MCayG4IIOEQ

in fact watch all of this guys videos as they are quite informative and very well produced

after you've worked through these then go through this series

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BS5vid4GkEY&feature=related
[/quote]

Payne, I clicked on the first video, and within 2 minutes it was clear that we were going to be treated to a very biased, inconsistent and illogical presentation, talking about the creation of matter, and then starting its own presentation AFTER matter was already present!

Who produced these videos? I didn't notice any claim to ownership, etc....
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 21, 2008 06:58PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 19:21, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
If the fossils are some kind of hoax - don't you think there would be all sorts of "counter hoax" findings to make it obvious - like ... well why give these sad people ideas.

Yes - if it's not what you want to find it's a hoax...
[/quote]

If one wants to be taken seriously, one needs to argue vs. the best arguments that the other side has to offer. Likewise, one's own arguments have to be on as high a level as possible. Otherwise, the result is embarassment.

In an earlier post, someone posted info about Kent Hovind, a fairly prominent creationist. He has done some work in other areas that is quite frankly, bad. If he cannot be trusted to do competent research in one area, why should one believe his info on creationism (or vs. evolution) is going to be worth a crap? Likewise, it is not very expedient for someone to present negative info on Kent Hovind in an attempt to further a pro-evolution point of view.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 21, 2008 07:53PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 19:51, Chessmann wrote:

Payne, I clicked on the first video, and within 2 minutes it was clear that we were going to be treated to a very biased, inconsistent and illogical presentation, talking about the creation of matter, and then starting its own presentation AFTER matter was already present!

Who produced these videos? I didn't notice any claim to ownership, etc....

[/quote]

It's on the left hand side of the screen

"The 'Made Easy' series is designed to explain the evidence that shows how we got here, from the Big bang to human migration out of Africa, and to counter the unsupported idea that this somehow happened through the power of an invisible being.

A better quality version will soon be available for free download from a website -- details to be announced. I will be happy to send DVDs free of charge to schools after the series is finished

The 'Made Easy' series of videos can be freely copied and distributed for educational purposes, but cannot be used for commercial gain in whole or in part. They cannot be altered, transformed or added to. If you use repost these videos you must attribute them to on YouTube.

I've been a journalist for 20 years, 14 years as a science correspondent. My degree is in geology, but while working for a science magazine and several science programs I had to tackle a number of different fields, from quantum physics to microbiology.

Anyone is free to post on the fora, and ALL views are welcome. You won't find that on most fundamentalist channels, but I have nothing to fear from open discussion or criticism."

If you have any questions as to the information contained of these excellent videos you should direct them to him via his YouTube account.

As for your statement that "talking about the creation of matter, and then starting its own presentation AFTER matter was already present!"

That is not what he is saying. He is presenting a hypothesis of how organic molocules formed out of inorganic ones. Not about the creation of matter itself.

That would be touched on here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=0
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 21, 2008 08:04PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 18:45, kcg5 wrote:
Glad you found it ^


[quote]
On 2008-09-21 15:40, Dannydoyle wrote:

Since this is the cornerstone of your arguement, "we have fossils and we win" then when your fossils are proved to be an outright haox, you then by extension lose, and lose badly.

.
[/quote]

"when your fossils.." How long have these fossils been around? How many types of dating procedures have been done on them? I think the Hoax thing is a little bit out of reach. Its not like its bigfoot or anything. it would be the biggest conspiracy ever put forth-and it would be evolutionists who did it, always a devious group.
[/quote]

But speaking of hoaxes what about the evolution hoaxes? Piltdown man for example. In 1912 I think it was He miraculaously appeared in a gravel pit in Sussex England. Charles Dawson claimed to have discovered a skull with a human cranium and an apelike jaw in Piltdown Quarry. It was a creature not quite ape, not quite man, a TRANSITIONAL SPECIES. Big headlines EVOLUTION PROVEN TRUE. It was peer reviewed, and dated and so forth. Yep true as can be.

Then in 1953, bam radiocarbon dating proved it a tremendous hoax. A thousand year old human and the jaw of a modern orangutan. OOPS. If this "theory" is so real, why does it need so much help?

But if you read a book by paleontologist and evolutionary biologist Robert Carroll, "Patters and processes of Vertebrate Evolution, pp 2-4 even HE ADMITS "very few intermediates between groups are known from the fossil record". This is a huge defender of evolution who has to take as a tennent of FAITH most of the fossil record.

Leaving aside some of the issues such as opposable thumbs, moral sense and consciousness of morality you believe that random mutation of desirable attributes happens. Natureal selection weeds out those less fit, and that leads to the creation of new species.

My favorite Darwin quote really says it all. Now rember he knew nothing of DNA. Nothing of cells and so forth. All the evolutionists seem to miss this quote for some reason, it must not be on WIKI. "If it could be demonstrated that ant complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive , slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

So lets get to the idea that a bacterial moror, called a flagellum, depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The removal of any almost any ONE of them renders the flagellum useless. An animal cells whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Michael Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap. Though there are only a few parts to a mouse trap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve a usefull function. If one is missing, Behe says, you don't get a mousetrap that only catches a mouse half the time, you don't get a mousetrap at all. Then went on to prove the mathematical impossability of evolving with 30 parts of the flagellum or 200 protein parts.

Even evolutionists like Tom Cavalier-Smith were forced to concede the point. He is at the University of British Columbia. "For none of the cases mentioned by Behe is there yet a comprehensive and detailed explination of the probable steps in the evolution of the observed complexity." Many others have no choice but to admit it, but don't worry Payne, don't let your heart sink, they have FAITH they will prove it some day.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 21, 2008 08:12PM)
Payne, I have no desire for this to be some sort of debate. You post as if things are fact, and they are far from it. You are a biggot when it comes to things like this plain and simple. Maybe it is possible you come across harsh when you are trying to be more funny, but either way you are a biggot against the religious.

You claim debates are over, when they are hardly begun. I find the whole debate pointless as you will never admit that you have no darn idea where things came from. You have an "opinion" which is far less optomistic than the reilgious viewpoint. You are despirate to be the smartest guy in the room and you are crazy to prove the non existance of God. Funny proving a negative is not possible, and someone with such a scientific background should know it LOL.

You have your beliefs and your religion, why not just allow others theirs?
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 21, 2008 09:12PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 20:53, Payne wrote:
As for your statement that "talking about the creation of matter, and then starting its own presentation AFTER matter was already present!"

That is not what he is saying. He is presenting a hypothesis of how organic molocules formed out of inorganic ones. Not about the creation of matter itself.

That would be touched on here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wg1fs6vp9Ok&feature=PlayList&p=DB23537556D7AADB&index=0
[/quote]

Thanks, Payne. I see your point - I was getting ahead of myself. I'm tempted to ask you another question, re: the inorganic molecules (where did they come from), but I think I'll first watch the rest of the series - and then ask again if this thead is still here.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 21, 2008 09:18PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 21:04, Dannydoyle wrote:

So lets get to the idea that a bacterial moror, called a flagellum, depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The removal of any almost any ONE of them renders the flagellum useless. An animal cells whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Michael Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap. Though there are only a few parts to a mouse trap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve a usefull function. If one is missing, Behe says, you don't get a mousetrap that only catches a mouse half the time, you don't get a mousetrap at all. Then went on to prove the mathematical impossability of evolving with 30 parts of the flagellum or 200 protein parts.
[/quote]
That was debunked a while back. This video goes into it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko

You can skip ahead to 2:40 to get to the meat of it.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 21, 2008 09:33PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 21:12, Dannydoyle wrote:

You have your beliefs and your religion, why not just allow others theirs?

[/quote]

Because unfortunately there are those who want their belief system to be mine. Social conservatives who want to legislate my beliefs and behaviours because they feel it violates the precepts of their bronze age deity.
We live in a secular state and sometimes the only way to keep it that way is to push back at those who would like to see this country become a "Christian" Nation.

Sneaking Creationism into the schools under the guise of Intelligent Design is just one of the ways the religious right is trying to inflict their belief system on others.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 21, 2008 10:54PM)
Payne, what belief(s) of yours do you think these "social conservatives" want to legislate? You state that they "want to legislate" your beliefs. Do you believe that they wish to *enforce* your belief in the Chistian God?
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 21, 2008 11:23PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 22:18, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 21:04, Dannydoyle wrote:

So lets get to the idea that a bacterial moror, called a flagellum, depends on the coordinated interaction of 30-40 complex protein parts. The removal of any almost any ONE of them renders the flagellum useless. An animal cells whiplike oar, called a cilium, is composed of about 200 protein parts. Michael Behe compared these cell parts to a simple mousetrap. Though there are only a few parts to a mouse trap, all of them have to be working together at one time for the contraption to serve a usefull function. If one is missing, Behe says, you don't get a mousetrap that only catches a mouse half the time, you don't get a mousetrap at all. Then went on to prove the mathematical impossability of evolving with 30 parts of the flagellum or 200 protein parts.
[/quote]
That was debunked a while back. This video goes into it:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0hW7ddJOWko

You can skip ahead to 2:40 to get to the meat of it.
[/quote]

After watching the video, unfortunately all we are able to really get is Miller's assertions (he was speaking before a group of unknown people). Not "the proof, and here's why". I see also that Behe has taken Miller to task in print. I'll be interested to scrounge up more from these two.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 21, 2008 11:51PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 00:23, Chessmann wrote:

After watching the video, unfortunately all we are able to really get is Miller's assertions (he was speaking before a group of unknown people). Not "the proof, and here's why".
[/quote]
It does give you the information you need, if you wanted to research this further in the scientific literature. That's really all you can ask of such a short video, isn't it? I mean, do you or I have the scientific training to understand the answer even if he spelled it out clearly? I certainly do not. I was already lost when he started naming chemical compounds.

However, even if you or I do not have the scientific training to understand the details, the video does give a reasonable explanation as to how these so-called 'irreducibly complex' structures can come about. Specifically, some of the parts changed their function along the way (e.g., imagine a stinger becoming a propeller) and / or some intermediate parts fell away as the structure developed.

The end result only appears 'irreducibly complex' because we were not there to witness the process from start to finish.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 22, 2008 01:01AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 23:54, Chessmann wrote:
Payne, what belief(s) of yours do you think these "social conservatives" want to legislate? You state that they "want to legislate" your beliefs. Do you believe that they wish to *enforce* your belief in the Chistian God?
[/quote]

The Short List

State Sanctioned Prayer in Schools
The Suppression of Gay Rights
The Suppression of Reproductive Choice
The Suppression of Free Speech

To name just a few.

The same religious and faux moral zealotry that issued in the disaster of prohibition are the same people folk who have kept the useless war on drugs going all these years, try to get magazines like Playboy and Hustler banned and want to decide what is "morally" appropriate behaviour for society.

I am a classic conservative in the sense that I feel the government has no business deciding what should or shouldn't take place behind closed door between consenting adults.

And yes, there is a segment of our population who would very much like to enforce a belief in a Christian God. These are the same loons who believe that this nation was founded on "Christian" values. Put the slogan In god We Trust on our money and One Nation under god in our pledge. They want to put the 10 commandments on display in public spaces and on our courtroom walls and want christian prayers to be said before public gatherings.

I know they are a small and misguided minority and that most people see the dangers in this country becoming a theocracy. But they are out there and very, very vocal in their displeasure at seeing other people express the rights guaranteed them in the constitution that they might not agree with. They are the type of people who wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat because they know someone, somewhere is doing something that they think they ought not to be doing.

All in all most religious people are quite content to let others worship the way they see fit and keep their faith, or lack thereof to themselves.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 22, 2008 02:59AM)
[quote]They are the type of people who wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat because they know someone, somewhere is doing something that they think they ought not to be doing.[/quote]

I do my best to confirm their suspicions.

Destiny
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2008 09:08AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 02:01, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-21 23:54, Chessmann wrote:
Payne, what belief(s) of yours do you think these "social conservatives" want to legislate? You state that they "want to legislate" your beliefs. Do you believe that they wish to *enforce* your belief in the Chistian God?
[/quote]

The Short List

State Sanctioned Prayer in Schools
The Suppression of Gay Rights
The Suppression of Reproductive Choice
The Suppression of Free Speech

To name just a few.

The same religious and faux moral zealotry that issued in the disaster of prohibition are the same people folk who have kept the useless war on drugs going all these years, try to get magazines like Playboy and Hustler banned and want to decide what is "morally" appropriate behaviour for society.

I am a classic conservative in the sense that I feel the government has no business deciding what should or shouldn't take place behind closed door between consenting adults.

And yes, there is a segment of our population who would very much like to enforce a belief in a Christian God. These are the same loons who believe that this nation was founded on "Christian" values. Put the slogan In god We Trust on our money and One Nation under god in our pledge. They want to put the 10 commandments on display in public spaces and on our courtroom walls and want christian prayers to be said before public gatherings.

I know they are a small and misguided minority and that most people see the dangers in this country becoming a theocracy. But they are out there and very, very vocal in their displeasure at seeing other people express the rights guaranteed them in the constitution that they might not agree with. They are the type of people who wake up in the middle of the night in a cold sweat because they know someone, somewhere is doing something that they think they ought not to be doing.

All in all most religious people are quite content to let others worship the way they see fit and keep their faith, or lack thereof to themselves.
[/quote]

Spoken like a true biggot. LOL.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 22, 2008 09:41AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 10:08, Dannydoyle wrote:

Spoken like a true biggot. LOL.

[/quote]

So you support the foundation of a theocracy in our constitutional republic then?

Best hope it is your particular flavour of christianity that gets chosen as the state religion otherwise you too could face persecution at the hands of religious zealots.

Our founders saw the inherent dangers of a state sponsored church and so were wise enough to create a nation where all were free to worship as they chose, or not at all. Thus the establishment clause in our constitution.

I'd rather be a bigot who stands up for the freedoms of all than one who wishes their religious ideology inflicted upon the citizens of this nation.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 22, 2008 10:00AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 10:41, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 10:08, Dannydoyle wrote:

Spoken like a true biggot. LOL.

[/quote]

So you support the foundation of a theocracy in our constitutional republic then?

Best hope it is your particular flavour of christianity that gets chosen as the state religion otherwise you too could face persecution at the hands of religious zealots.

Our founders saw the inherent dangers of a state sponsored church and so were wise enough to create a nation where all were free to worship as they chose, or not at all. Thus the establishment clause in our constitution.

I'd rather be a bigot who stands up for the freedoms of all than one who wishes their religious ideology inflicted upon the citizens of this nation.
[/quote]

But you do want your religious ideology inflicted upon the citizens of this nation; it is the religion of evolutionism and atheism.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 22, 2008 10:06AM)
That's two - surely he can only inflict one?

Or is Payne trying to make you all bi-religious?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 22, 2008 10:18AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 11:00, Tom Bartlett wrote:

But you do want your religious ideology inflicted upon the citizens of this nation; it is the religion of evolutionism and atheism.

[/quote]

A: Evolution is not a religion but a science. Last time I checked it was generally accepted to teach science in schools.

B: I do not wish atheism to become the state religion anymore than I want christianity, islam or hindu. I strive to for the secular status of our government to be protected and upheld so that all faiths can worship as they choose. I am not anti-religion I am anti-state sponsored or sanctioned religion.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Sep 22, 2008 10:21AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 11:06, plasticdestiny wrote:
That's two - surely he can only inflict one?

Or is Payne trying to make you all bi-religious?
[/quote]
Payne's strategy must have worked.
I believe in God, and I believe in the theory of evolution.

Hey, folks- you know, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive.

-Erik
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 22, 2008 10:28AM)
[quote]I believe in God, and I believe in the theory of evolution.

Hey, folks- you know, the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. [/quote]

Brave man - you're going to be burnt at the cyber-stake - I can already hear the rumblings as the villagers gather.

Destiny
Message: Posted by: thorndyke (Sep 22, 2008 11:25AM)
Actually he's not brave, the Pope said something to that effect a few years ago.
In my junior high school years, the school speaker system started playing a recording of the Lords prayer every morning to start the school day. I never was annoyed by it, but I wonder now how many of my fellow students were more worked up over it. Of course, back then we still got strapped (which happened to me on several occasions) for misbehaving - a practice now banned.
Religious freedom to me means don't shove your religion in my face.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Sep 22, 2008 11:38AM)
[quote]the school speaker system started playing a recording of the Lords prayer every morning to start the school day.[/quote]

We had to sing 'God Save The Queen' under the beating sun.

I never really appreciated the song till the Sex Pistols version came out though at a later date.

Destiny
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2008 11:43AM)
You can believe in God and believe in Superman, it does not make Superman any more real LOL. (or God for that matter, or evolution if you take my point)

Payne you DO have a religious viewpoint. You have your own BELIEF. You yourself say you do not have FACTS! This is a religion buddy. You are simply biggoted against other religious flavors as you call them.

Try to hide it all you want Payne, but you should be more honest about it.

I still say the world came into existance last Tuesday fully formed and will go out of existance tomorrow and noone will know the difference.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2008 11:51AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 10:41, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 10:08, Dannydoyle wrote:

Spoken like a true biggot. LOL.

[/quote]

So you support the foundation of a theocracy in our constitutional republic then?


I'd rather be a bigot who stands up for the freedoms of all than one who wishes their religious ideology inflicted upon the citizens of this nation.
[/quote]

Never said the first sentence here now did I? But thank you for trying to put words in my mouth.

As for your second statement, well I think every biggot thinks the same thing of themself now don't they? A biggot in a lab coat is still mostly covered in white now are they not?

You want YOUR viewpoint put forth and no other. You ahve no tolerance for other viewpoints. You want YOUR ideology put forth, even though it is just the most commonly accepted THEORY, not fact. Payne you spew forth hate on a regular basis, but just because the group you spew it against does not protest you, you pretend it is not hate. Well hate is hate and is wrong. A biggot is a biggot and it is wrong.
Message: Posted by: Doug Higley (Sep 22, 2008 12:48PM)
The great sage Popeye said "I yam what I yam and that's all that I yam".

My old Sunday school teacher, never got the irony when he told me "If you don't believe what I'm teaching you, you might as well believe in Popeye."

So I did just that. The fact that Popeye only ever had that one intelligent thing to say was very convienient to facillitate my understanding and not complicate things. I envision Christopher Walken delivering the line sometimes, in multiple ways.

I addded it to my Golden Rule as brought forth by Confusious and then condenced the New Testiment down to jut two words "Be Nice."

My religion is thus solid as a rock...anything else being superfluous.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 22, 2008 12:52PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 12:51, Dannydoyle wrote:

You want YOUR viewpoint put forth and no other. You ahve no tolerance for other viewpoints. You want YOUR ideology put forth, even though it is just the most commonly accepted THEORY, not fact. Payne you spew forth hate on a regular basis, but just because the group you spew it against does not protest you, you pretend it is not hate. Well hate is hate and is wrong. A biggot is a biggot and it is wrong.

[/quote]

Boy talk about putting words in peoples mouths.

All this vehemence directed toward little ol' me simply because I would like science to be taught in science class. Like it or not evolution is the accepted theory of how life developed on this planet which is why it is taught in science classes around the world.

If you can come up with an alternative theory that can stand up to the scrutiny of the scientific method then by all means put forth your hypothesis with all of is required documentation for peer review and let your theory sink or swim on its merits.

So far creationism just keeps sinking. But that shouldn't stop you from trying. Many now accepted theories were laughed at when first postulated by their creators. But through dedication, perseverance and compelling evidence they eventually were accepted by the scientific community.

Science however isn't going to respond to your childish foot-stamping and shrill cries of "It's not Fair" nor threats of "I'm going to hold my breath till I turn blue unless you accept creationism as a viable scientific theory". That's not how the discipline of science works. Learn the methodology and work within the framework of the system if you wish your ideas to be on equal footing and taken seriously.

This is what Behe did. He had a new and novel idea, which if true would be as ground breaking as Darwin's theory. He gathered his data and published his findings. So far his evidence doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny but maybe someday he will find the proofs he needs to validate his theories.

Two things before I go.

First: Look up the definition of THEORY as it pertains to science. You'll find it has a different meaning than the one you are currently using. Hint: Gravity is still a theory

Second: Learn to spell. The word is bigot not biggot. If you're going to insult me at least learn how to spell the word so you don't look as ignorant and uneducated as you are :)

BTW I don't hate you. To hate someone you have to care.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 22, 2008 12:59PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 11:18, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 11:00, Tom Bartlett wrote:

But you do want your religious ideology inflicted upon the citizens of this nation; it is the religion of evolutionism and atheism.

[/quote]

A: Evolution is not a religion but a science.

B: I am not anti-religion
[/quote]

Regarding A: But to many, it is the "opiate of the atheistic masses", to coin a phrase.

Regarding B: Payne, after reading your posts over the last few years, I have the impression that you have a very clearly defined anti-religious part of you. Something that goes well beyond simply sticking up for your worldview and the separation of church and state. My opinion, though.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2008 01:26PM)
So evolution stands up to scientific methodology? Don't make me laugh.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 22, 2008 02:13PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 14:26, Dannydoyle wrote:
So evolution stands up to scientific methodology? Don't make me laugh.
[/quote]

Yup afraid so. 99.9% of all scientist agree. Evolution stands up to scientific scrutiny. That's wht we teach it in science class.

So I guess we're all laughing at you, not with you :)
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2008 05:01PM)
Show me where you got that statistic please. 99.9% of scientists agree on almost NO THEORY Payne. Thus the use of the word THEORY.

For someone with such vaunted scientific credentials I am shocked at some of the idiotic utterances which come from your mouth.

This may help. Not my survey but I do trust the original poster.

1997 Gallup Poll Results[114] US Group

Young Earth Creationism ||Belief in God-guided Evolution ||Belief in Evolution without God
Public 44% ||39% ||10%
Scientists 5% ||40% ||55%

Belief in creationism is inversely correlated to education; only 22% of those with post-graduate degrees believe in strict creationism.[117] A 2000 poll for People for the American Way found 70% of the American public felt that evolution was compatible with a belief in God.[118]

Best case scenario Payne, not 99.9%. So show me your poll which proves 99.9% of scientists believe this way.

You do lose credability with every post.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 22, 2008 05:11PM)
Intelligent design - it's all true - really - love the way those road is paved with good thinking. :)

Uncle Screwtape just sent a PM to say he's enjoying every post and hopes you are up for raising the despair levels. Most remarkable even when the Catholic Church as published it's position on the matter. Keep up the good work he says.

What do I say? W. U. S. S. (what uncle screwtape says)
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 22, 2008 05:35PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 18:01, Dannydoyle wrote:

Best case scenario Payne, not 99.9%. So show me your poll which proves 99.9% of scientists believe this way.

[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

Warning the video uses big words, large numbers and advanced concepts and mathematics so you might not understand it :)

Really this is becoming ever so tiresome and redundant so I'm going away now. I really couldn't care less if you accept the fact of evolution or not. I'm just glad your not in a position to decide what gets taught in school curriculum's.
Have fun living in the dark ages.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 22, 2008 06:04PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 18:35, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 18:01, Dannydoyle wrote:

Best case scenario Payne, not 99.9%. So show me your poll which proves 99.9% of scientists believe this way.

[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

Warning the video uses big words, large numbers and advanced concepts and mathematics so you might not understand it :)

Really this is becoming ever so tiresome and redundant so I'm going away now. I really couldn't care less if you accept the fact of evolution or not. I'm just glad your not in a position to decide what gets taught in school curriculum's.
Have fun living in the dark ages.
[/quote]

Mob rule does not make it true or science!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 22, 2008 06:24PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 18:35, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-22 18:01, Dannydoyle wrote:

Best case scenario Payne, not 99.9%. So show me your poll which proves 99.9% of scientists believe this way.

[/quote]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM

Warning the video uses big words, large numbers and advanced concepts and mathematics so you might not understand it :)

Really this is becoming ever so tiresome and redundant so I'm going away now. I really couldn't care less if you accept the fact of evolution or not. I'm just glad your not in a position to decide what gets taught in school curriculum's.
Have fun living in the dark ages.
[/quote]

You are going nowhere, your biggotry and hate won't allow you to keep quiet.

Yea 99.9% huh? Sorry but that number is not achievable in a THEORY. Thus the word THEORY.

Sorry this post uses common sense.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Sep 23, 2008 09:26AM)
Gravity is a theory, but there's a 99.9999999999999% chance we will [i]not[/i] go flying off the world and out into space at any given moment.

Just like the word "gimmick" has a different meaning when used by salesmen than when used by magicians, the word "theory" has a specific scientific meaning, and another meaning that is different when non-scientists use it.

Productive debates are impossible until specific meanings of terminology are established- otherwise you're debating whether to buy a car or eat breakfast- you're not even discussing the same thing.

-Erik
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 23, 2008 10:23AM)
IF gravity is a "theory" why is it referd to as Newton's thrid law again?

I bet a productive debate would be had if we could explain this as well.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 23, 2008 10:37AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-23 11:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
IF gravity is a "theory" why is it referd to as Newton's thrid law again?

I bet a productive debate would be had if we could explain this as well.
[/quote]

that last sentence implies that there has been a productive debate here...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 23, 2008 11:04AM)
Actually that last sentence only underscores my inability to put together a sentence properly LOL.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 23, 2008 12:32PM)
A preponderance (or mob) of scientist, prejudice in their belief there is no God, which are bound and determined to prove it, ignoring anything that might support an alternate perspective, violate the basic principle of science. If it can not be proved or disproved it still remains part of the equation. It is only because of their elitism, arrogance and narcissism that these scientists eliminate the possibility of Intelligent Design.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 23, 2008 03:04PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-23 11:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
IF gravity is a "theory" why is it referd to as Newton's thrid law again?
[/quote]
It seems you like to play with words.

Gravity (or something we perceive as gravity) exists, no one is arguing that.

But there have been various explanations for it. Newton's. Einstein's. Etc. The explanation for gravity is a theory, and it keeps getting revised / improved upon.

Even though people talk about Newton's "Law of Gravity" it was / is still just a theory. It was replaced by Einstein's "Law". And then Einstein's was replaced. And so on.

(Besides which, you seem to be confusing Newton's Third Law (of motion) with his Law of Gravity.)

Regardless, all of them are theories. You can call them "laws" if you like, but they are not absolute or immutable. Any more than the law for shop-lifting or murder or anything else is immutable. They have all changed / evolved over time, and are still changing from time to time.
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Sep 23, 2008 04:45PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-23 13:32, Tom Bartlett wrote:
A preponderance (or mob) of scientist, prejudice in their belief there is no God, which are bound and determined to prove it, ignoring anything that might support an alternate perspective, violate the basic principle of science. If it can not be proved or disproved it still remains part of the equation. It is only because of their elitism, arrogance and narcissism that these scientists eliminate the possibility of Intelligent Design.
[/quote]

Many believers in evolution also hold a belief in God. They see evolution as the mechanism that God uses to create the abundance of life in the world. A belief in evolution and God is not mutually exclusive. Ken Miller, the man who dismantled Behe's argument for Intelligent Design is a Theist, a Catholic I believe.
There is no "Mob Rule" which is ignoring alternative perspectives or evidence. They have examined the alternative perspectives and evidence and found that they do not ring true under the ever watchful eye of science.
Science is not trying to disprove God as God and any other supernatural entity or force is outside the realm of science. Science attempts to explain the world around us in a naturalistic way. Science tries to explain thhe WHAT. The WHY is left for philosophers and religion.

It is not because of their elitism, arrogance and narcissism that science has not accepted the possibility of Intelligent Design. It is because there is simply no compelling evidence to back up their claims.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 23, 2008 05:17PM)
Actually there is just as much compelling evidence to back up the claim. The problem is in the word "compelling" as it is subjective.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 23, 2008 05:51PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-23 17:45, Thetruthteller wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-23 13:32, Tom Bartlett wrote:
A preponderance (or mob) of scientist, prejudice in their belief there is no God, which are bound and determined to prove it, ignoring anything that might support an alternate perspective, violate the basic principle of science. If it can not be proved or disproved it still remains part of the equation. It is only because of their elitism, arrogance and narcissism that these scientists eliminate the possibility of Intelligent Design.
[/quote]

Many believers in evolution also hold a belief in God. They see evolution as the mechanism that God uses to create the abundance of life in the world. A belief in evolution and God is not mutually exclusive. Ken Miller, the man who dismantled Behe's argument for Intelligent Design is a Theist, a Catholic I believe.
There is no "Mob Rule" which is ignoring alternative perspectives or evidence. They have examined the alternative perspectives and evidence and found that they do not ring true under the ever watchful eye of science.
Science is not trying to disprove God as God and any other supernatural entity or force is outside the realm of science. Science attempts to explain the world around us in a naturalistic way. Science tries to explain thhe WHAT. The WHY is left for philosophers and religion.

It is not because of their elitism, arrogance and narcissism that science has not accepted the possibility of Intelligent Design. It is because there is simply no compelling evidence to back up their claims.
[/quote]

You are right! I to believe in God and that all things evolve that is what Intelligent Design is. Things that cannot adapt or change die off and the ones that can, become stronger and more dominant. I also know there are people that believe in God that dismiss this as being a possibility and everything was created in seven of our days but it is no more ridiculous than those who completely dismiss Intelligent Design.

There are radical groups that point to the most radical opinions of the opposing side, to make the other side look ignorant or just plain ridiculous and the rational ones in middle get associated with the fringe. The bad part is that the fringe is usually the only ones that get the attention of the masses by aid of the media.

I do not have a problem with evolution being taught along with Intelligent Design but you would have to say the atheist do not and will not except it. What are they afraid of?
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Sep 23, 2008 09:44PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-23 18:51, Tom Bartlett wrote:

I do not have a problem with evolution being taught along with Intelligent Design but you would have to say the atheist do not and will not except it. What are they afraid of?

[/quote]

So let us teach panspermia along side intelligent design then. It is just as valid a theory and has the same amount of data to support it.

Some people believe they have evidence to support the hollow earth theory. Should we teach that in geology class?

Lamarckism still has some ardent supporters. Let us teach that along side Darwin’s theory.

Where do we draw the line in what is deemed to be science and what gets to be taught in school. If we allow creationism to be taught as a science then why not any other theory that comes along that has a handful of vocal supporters.

So far creationism has not been able to meet the criteria established by the scientific method so it cannot be called a science. All other hypotheses must meet these requirements before being accepted as science. Whys chould creationism be given a free pass?

It can be taught in history, philosophy or comparative religion classes but not science class as it is not a science.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 23, 2008 10:55PM)
Thetruthteller quote: So let us teach panspermia along side intelligent design then. It is just as valid a theory and has the same amount of data to support it.

Tom’s reply: No it does not!

Thetruthteller quote: Some people believe they have evidence to support the hollow earth theory. Should we teach that in geology class?

Tom’s reply: You know the can be disproved!

Thetruthteller you have shown by this post: There are radical groups or in this case an individual that point to the most radical examples, to make the other side look ignorant or just plain ridiculous and the rational ones in middle get associated with the fringe.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Sep 24, 2008 12:25AM)
:)
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Sep 24, 2008 12:31AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-23 23:55, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Thetruthteller quote: So let us teach panspermia along side intelligent design then. It is just as valid a theory and has the same amount of data to support it.

Tom’s reply: No it does not!
[/quote]

They are the exact same hypothesis. The only difference is that on claims that the intelligent agency is extraterrestrial in nature while the other claims it to be Supernatural.

What does it matter what the intelligent agency is. Intelligent design is supposedly religion neutral so under its own precepts life on this planet could be the work of aliens from another planet.

[quote]
Thetruthteller quote: Some people believe they have evidence to support the hollow earth theory. Should we teach that in geology class?
Thetruthteller you have shown by this post: There are radical groups or in this case an

Tom’s reply: You know the can be disproved!
[/quote]

As has Creationism and Intelligent design

[quote]
Thetruthteller you have shown by this post: There are radical groups or in this case an individual that point to the most radical examples, to make the other side look ignorant or just plain ridiculous and the rational ones in middle get associated with the fringe.
[/quote]

The other side does not need any help in looking ignorant or just plain ridiculous.

Kirk Cameron with his the banana is the evolutionists nightmare argument. Chuck Missler’s inept Peanut Butter argument against evolution and Kent Hovnid’s total lack of understanding of even the most basic tenants of science as well as tax law has done much to undermine the validity of Creationism in the eyes of the public as well as the scientific community.

If you wish for ID to be taken seriously the proponants of ID need to stop putting forth such insipid arguments.

Granted there is a more rational side coming forward. Stephen Meyer, William Dempski and Micheal Behe are all doing very good work in the UD arena. Unfortunately as of yet it has not survived peer review and their hypotheses have been dismantled. But at least they are working through the correct channels and submitting their work for review.

Perhaps someday they will find the evidence they need to prove their theory.

Until that time however Creationism and Intelligent design must be relegated as a non working hypothesis and thus should not be taught is science classes as it has yet to pass muster.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 24, 2008 12:41AM)
There you go pointing out the fringe, proving my point.

There is also a great difference teaching the “Origin of the Species” and that things evolve. It has been pointed out that Darwin was wrong in much of his thinking because of tainted if not completely manufactured evidence which has now been debunked trough modern scientific analyses.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 24, 2008 09:57AM)
It is just a battleground of ideology and it does not matter one wit about the evidence.

Liberals are despirate for there to be NO god! No matter how stupid the idea, no matter how many hoaxes NO GOD and that is that.

So they cling to ideology. Which Payne and Thetruthteller do. No problem, the religious cling to their story and belief as well. Each despirate to be "more right" when really all that means is they know .01% of the story.

Go figure.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 24, 2008 10:20AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-24 10:57, Dannydoyle wrote:
It is just a battleground of ideology and it does not matter one wit about the evidence.

Liberals are despirate for there to be NO god! No matter how stupid the idea, no matter how many hoaxes NO GOD and that is that.
[/quote]
I guess that is why the Catholic Church (along with other mainstream religions) has spoken in support of evolution and also why representatives of the Vatican have said Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and should not be taught in a science class. I guess Catholics do not believe in God either. :rolleyes:
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 24, 2008 10:46AM)
Yea more quote mining huh?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 24, 2008 11:04AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-24 11:46, Dannydoyle wrote:
Yea more quote mining huh?
[/quote]
What quote mining? The stance of the Catholic Church on the issues of evolution and intelligent design has been widely publicized in recent years and is pretty much common knowledge.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 24, 2008 12:51PM)
Link? Not that I don't trust your inturpretation of it but would love to see it in context is all.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 24, 2008 01:21PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-24 13:51, Dannydoyle wrote:
Link? Not that I don't trust your inturpretation of it but would love to see it in context is all.
[/quote]
Contrary to what you might think, I don't have a link ready. But I googled just now and found these. If you do your own research you should be able to find more. These are just a sample.

http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=18503

http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0600273.htm

http://www.livescience.com/blogs/2008/09/16/vatican-evolution-is-fine/

[url]http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,424942,00.html[/url]
Message: Posted by: LobowolfXXX (Sep 25, 2008 04:45PM)
It took until 1992 for the Catholic Church to publicly claim that yes, the earth does revolve around the sun, so I'd hesitate to cite to their opinion on anything scientific. For either side.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 25, 2008 05:40PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-25 17:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It took until 1992 for the Catholic Church to publicly claim that yes, the earth does revolve around the sun, so I'd hesitate to cite to their opinion on anything scientific. For either side.
[/quote]
I was not claiming that the Catholic Church is necessarily correct (although it may well be).

I posted those links to put to rest the claim some others have made here, that only atheist liberal scientists are pushing evolution over intelligent design. In fact, many mainstream religions (like the Catholic Church) have taken the same position as these atheist liberal scientists. Namely, that evolution is science and intelligent design is not.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 25, 2008 07:10PM)
So now the Catholic church endorses evolution?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 25, 2008 07:14PM)
Then explain this for me.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

Cut and pasted from here.

http://www.catholic.com/library/adam_eve_and_evolution.asp

Seems to say that evolution is guided by the hand of God. And the ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Or did I read that wrong?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 25, 2008 07:29PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-25 17:45, LobowolfXXX wrote:
It took until 1992 for the Catholic Church to publicly claim that yes, the earth does revolve around the sun, so I'd hesitate to cite to their opinion on anything scientific. For either side.
[/quote]
I don't know if "endorse" is the applicable word here but, yes, the Vatican has recognized the scientific value of evolution for a number of years.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 25, 2008 07:31PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-25 20:14, Dannydoyle wrote:
Then explain this for me.

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.
[/quote]
Yes, that is correct.

Yes, evolution is perfectly compatible with a Creator.

Yes, if there is an ultimate Creator then it also ultimately created evolution.

Yes, if there is a "soul" then perhaps the Creator put that in each and every one of us.

But, again, none of that does makes intelligent design a science! Which is why the Catholic Church (and many other mainstream religions) have denounced the Intelligent Design movement.

Obviously, this does not mean that they do not believe in a Creator. Rather, it shows that the RC Church and some other religions can actually appreciate and understand a logical argument and appreciate the difference between science and religion.

Which is more than can be said for many others in the world (e.g., outside of the Café) today, sadly.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 25, 2008 07:53PM)
Where exactly did they denouce ID again? It says that IF evolution exists, it is GUIDED BY GOD. PLUS the ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Is this not just an explination of ID?

Oh and incidently YOU put those words in my mouth.

So where did the Roman Catholic Church denounce Intelligent Design, while still saying that this is the explination above? If they denounce it and still say that evolution is guided by God, and the ultimate creation must be ascribed to him, I see no way that can be possible.

I think you have misrepresented the Roman Catholic position a little bit. I can be wrong, I am not arguing, I am trying to see the difference is all.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 25, 2008 08:28PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-25 20:53, Dannydoyle wrote:

Where exactly did they denouce ID again? It says that IF evolution exists, it is GUIDED BY GOD. PLUS the ultimate creation must be ascribed to him. Is this not just an explination of ID?
[/quote]
What words did I put in your mouth? I don't see where I did anything of the sort. If indeed I did, I did not mean to.

I already provided you with links, in which various representatives of the Vatican have stated that Intelligent Design is NOT a science.

Yes, they still believe in a Creator.

But that is not the same as believing that Intelligent Design is a science.
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Sep 26, 2008 03:00PM)
Dannydoyle-

You may misunderstand what the Theory of Intelligent Design states- and what the theory of evolution states. ID does not state that evolution is directed by a Creator. It states that a Creator causes new species to spring into being from nowhere.

Evolution, on the other hand, makes no attempt to determine the "why"- why did genetic mutations occur that created eyeballs, hands, or humans? It also does not attempt to determine the Origin of Life itself. The origin of separate species from the initial bit of life, yes, but not where that first life came from.

There is definately room for a Creator in the Theory of Evolution. But I'm not sure there's room for evolution in the Theory of Intelligent Design.

-Erik
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 26, 2008 03:33PM)
I see, like this.

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/4/l_034_02.html
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Sep 26, 2008 03:53PM)
Dannydoyle,
Sort of, yes, I guess. But since we weren't around 600 million years ago, no one really knows for certain what exactly happened.

As for today- I, personally, doubt that new species suddenly appear from behind a leaf or under a rock while a biologist is looking the other direction. "Huh? What was that noise?- Oh hey! It's a new type of frog! I shall name it [i]Leptopelis preposterous[/i]!"

-Erik
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 26, 2008 05:31PM)
Oh so you are saying nobody knows for sure?

It is really just everyone looking for answers. Why is it one has to be elevated over another when in the end, right where the rubber meets the road, NOBODY KNOWS?

So why not search, and let others search? Why the venom and name calling?
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Sep 26, 2008 05:40PM)
I didn't call anyone names.

My opinion is that science explains the "how", and religion explains the "why". Neither one should need to step on the other one's toes... but nobody teaches evolution in a theology class, so why teach Intelligent Design in biology class?

-Erik
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 26, 2008 06:44PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-24 11:20, balducci wrote:
I guess that is why the Catholic Church (along with other mainstream religions) has spoken in support of evolution and also why representatives of the Vatican have said Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and should not be taught in a science class. I guess Catholics do not believe in God either. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

So, mob rule works both ways? :)

Which other "mainstream religions" have officially adopted evolution as their basis for creation? Not saying none have, just wondering which.

Your last statement demonstrates nor adds anything to the debate.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 26, 2008 06:46PM)
It's a very strange discussion here. The theory of natural selection as method of originating new species seems on pretty solid ground. Whether or not that theory suffices for describing how things got to be the way they are here is - as has been noted - hardly a closed case.

Science is not about explaining so much as describing. The goal in science is to have an elegant model which accurately predicts what one will find when one goes looking - a useful map - not to be confused with the territory.

If you want explanations ... that's a different sort of institution... one which concerns itself with the sentimental rather than the predictive - stories about people for people to be kept in sync with the needs of people by people.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 26, 2008 06:57PM)
(balducci, sorry, I meant to add more of an explanation to my last sentence, but Jonathan's post did not allow me to edit. I didn't mean it to sound as harsh as it may look).

"Evolution", to state it generally, represents the best effort of many in the scientific world to explain how it was we got here in the form are today. While I can applaud their diligence, there are HUGE gaps and impossibilities that prevent me from giving it credibility (I have stated these in other threads, and won't rehash them here).

It has been said (by one poster) that ID / Creationism has been disproved. That is not correct. Certain aspects that have been once held as fact by ID's have been - apparently - refuted. That does not mean that ID has been disproven. Using this thinking, each time a position in evolution has been disproven (there have been many such times), evolutionists should have given up! Not a good way of being scientific!

But like Balducci well put it, most all of us (on this board, anyway) must trust the testimony of experts. And even experts have their biases, emotions, etc.... This goes for both sides. We try the best we can....
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 26, 2008 09:54PM)
If every thing evolved from the first one cell organism why there are not skeletal remains of each transition or even something close just in one species? There are more huge gapes evolution than there opinions about what is the truth.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 26, 2008 10:03PM)
Jonathan, I think you give sentamentality a much bigger role than it actually plays (well, in things other than debates, anyway :) )
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 26, 2008 11:12PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-26 22:54, Tom Bartlett wrote:
If every thing evolved from the first one cell organism why there are not skeletal remains of each transition or even something close just in one species? There are more huge gapes evolution than there opinions about what is the truth.
[/quote]

You know, fossils are not easy to form. They are even more difficult to find. Based on that, we have quite an extensive fossil record that all points to evolution.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 26, 2008 11:24PM)
I have never seen this evidence presented only rumors and many that were supposed to support man has descended from apes, have been debunked like the human skull mated with the jaw of an orangutan. Because of the circumstances, it had to have been perpetrated with the intent to falsely prove the origin of the species. How much of the other alleged evidence was manufactured to support the theory? Science may not be so infallible but obviously scientists are.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 26, 2008 11:41PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-27 00:24, Tom Bartlett wrote:
I have never seen this evidence presented only rumors and many that were supposed to support man has descended from apes, have been debunked like the human skull mated with the jaw of an orangutan. Because of the circumstances, it had to have been perpetrated with the intent to falsely prove the origin of the species. How much of the other alleged evidence was manufactured to support the theory? Science may not be so infallible but obviously scientists are.
[/quote]

Wait... what? I've never even heard of these human/orangutan hybrid skulls, plus that paragraph is quite fallacy-laden.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 26, 2008 11:48PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-26 19:57, Chessmann wrote:

Certain aspects that have been once held as fact by ID's have been - apparently - refuted. That does not mean that ID has been disproven. Using this thinking, each time a position in evolution has been disproven (there have been many such times), evolutionists should have given up! Not a good way of being scientific!
[/quote]

You don't seem to have an understanding of the scientific method. In an experiment, if the results do not match the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is revised and retested to account for that. However, even with this, nothing has ever "disproven" evolution as a whole, hence the theory still holds strong as the cornerstone of modern biology and one of the most important scientific theories ever.
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Sep 26, 2008 11:57PM)
Watch this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xO7IT81h200

It explains quite well why Creationism should not be taught in science class

This one explains how ideas become scientific theories

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zcavPAFiG14

So far Creationism has yet to meet the criteria of being recognised as a science
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 27, 2008 12:02AM)
Jut Google it, it is easy to find. The scientific method, only works when, the evidence is not tainted and all the evidence including that which does not support what the scientists want to prove.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 27, 2008 12:10AM)
I really don't care if Creationism is taught in science classes or not. I do think we should not be teaching that humans evolved from apes; there is no conclusive evidence to support it.
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Sep 27, 2008 01:21AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-27 01:10, Tom Bartlett wrote:
I really don't care if Creationism is taught in science classes or not. I do think we should not be teaching that humans evolved from apes; there is no conclusive evidence to support it.
[/quote]

If your science teacher is teaching that humans evolved from apes then they need to go back to school and educate themselves on the basic tenants of evolutionary theory.

Evolution does not maintain that humans evolved from apes. We share a common ancestor but we did not evolve from them.

The evidence of this is rather conclusive due to the discovery of matching retro viruses in our DNA

So yes the evidence is conclusive that apes and humans share a common ancestor but we did not evolve from them
Message: Posted by: abc (Sep 27, 2008 04:17AM)
Could you please define "rather conclusive"
I understand conclusive and I understand rather but "rather conclusive" is a very smart way of saying it isn't conclusive.
Conclusive would mean that there is no oher feasible explanation of why something happened. I will believe that when we have cured HIV/Aids. Until then I think we need to be rather careful when we use words like "conclusive".
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 27, 2008 12:05PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-27 00:48, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-26 19:57, Chessmann wrote:

Certain aspects that have been once held as fact by ID's have been - apparently - refuted. That does not mean that ID has been disproven. Using this thinking, each time a position in evolution has been disproven (there have been many such times), evolutionists should have given up! Not a good way of being scientific!
[/quote]

You don't seem to have an understanding of the scientific method. In an experiment, if the results do not match the hypothesis, then the hypothesis is revised and retested to account for that. However, even with this, nothing has ever "disproven" evolution as a whole, hence the theory still holds strong as the cornerstone of modern biology and one of the most important scientific theories ever.
[/quote]

I'm afraid that you did not understand the point of my paragraph, as your own did not address it.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 27, 2008 05:35PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-27 13:05, Chessmann wrote:

I'm afraid that you did not understand the point of my paragraph, as your own did not address it.
[/quote]

Well, when has evolution ever been disproven?
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 28, 2008 01:01AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-27 02:21, Thetruthteller wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-27 01:10, Tom Bartlett wrote:
I really don't care if Creationism is taught in science classes or not. I do think we should not be teaching that humans evolved from apes; there is no conclusive evidence to support it.
[/quote]

If your science teacher is teaching that humans evolved from apes then they need to go back to school and educate themselves on the basic tenants of evolutionary theory.

Evolution does not maintain that humans evolved from apes. We share a common ancestor but we did not evolve from them.

The evidence of this is rather conclusive due to the discovery of matching retro viruses in our DNA

So yes the evidence is conclusive that apes and humans share a common ancestor but we did not evolve from them
[/quote]

So no, the evidence is not conclusive that apes and humans share a common ancestor.

It is conclusive that apes and humans share some common DNA, but so do most mammals. After all, DNA is the building blocks of all things great and small.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2008 12:28PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-27 00:41, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-27 00:24, Tom Bartlett wrote:
I have never seen this evidence presented only rumors and many that were supposed to support man has descended from apes, have been debunked like the human skull mated with the jaw of an orangutan. Because of the circumstances, it had to have been perpetrated with the intent to falsely prove the origin of the species. How much of the other alleged evidence was manufactured to support the theory? Science may not be so infallible but obviously scientists are.
[/quote]

Wait... what? I've never even heard of these human/orangutan hybrid skulls, plus that paragraph is quite fallacy-laden.
[/quote]

Then you did not read my post on Piltdown man. Read it and research it before you come to a conclusion.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 28, 2008 01:10PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 02:01, Tom Bartlett wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-27 02:21, Thetruthteller wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-27 01:10, Tom Bartlett wrote:
I really don't care if Creationism is taught in science classes or not. I do think we should not be teaching that humans evolved from apes; there is no conclusive evidence to support it.
[/quote]

If your science teacher is teaching that humans evolved from apes then they need to go back to school and educate themselves on the basic tenants of evolutionary theory.

Evolution does not maintain that humans evolved from apes. We share a common ancestor but we did not evolve from them.

The evidence of this is rather conclusive due to the discovery of matching retro viruses in our DNA

So yes the evidence is conclusive that apes and humans share a common ancestor but we did not evolve from them
[/quote]

So no, the evidence is not conclusive that apes and humans share a common ancestor.

It is conclusive that apes and humans share some common DNA, but so do most mammals. After all, DNA is the building blocks of all things great and small.
[/quote]

Yea, they share DNA because they are related...
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 28, 2008 01:14PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 13:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Then you did not read my post on Piltdown man. Read it and research it before you come to a conclusion.
[/quote]

I looked it up. It was an archaeological hoax. However, that doesn't disprove evolution at all. It's not like our entire knowledge of human evolution relies on that single piece of evidence.
Message: Posted by: Chessmann (Sep 28, 2008 01:34PM)
Magicman, you have just hit upon what I was saying earlier, regarding BOTH sides. Disproving 1 piece/portion of a position does not necessarily demolish it as a whole.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 28, 2008 01:44PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 14:34, Chessmann wrote:
Magicman, you have just hit upon what I was saying earlier, regarding BOTH sides. Disproving 1 piece/portion of a position does not necessarily demolish it as a whole.
[/quote]

ID does not have any scientific grounding at all to demolish. Have they even done any experimentation?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2008 03:57PM)
Hey kid, they can not show parrental relationship.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 28, 2008 05:01PM)
If you wanted to see evidence for some sort of willful manipulation of matter as regards life - seek something living which is not carbon based and using RNA/DNA as it's basis of replication. Failing that - what's to rationalize but a lack of imagination or worse - the obvious implications of the fossil record which strongly suggests a great deal of entire races of creatures which came to be were destroyed.

The bird is cruel! ( look up that story )
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2008 05:13PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 14:14, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 13:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Then you did not read my post on Piltdown man. Read it and research it before you come to a conclusion.
[/quote]

I looked it up. It was an archaeological hoax. However, that doesn't disprove evolution at all. It's not like our entire knowledge of human evolution relies on that single piece of evidence.
[/quote]
You said you had not heard of a hoax, I showed you just one. I am telling you to do research beore you jump and believe things.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 28, 2008 05:15PM)
For those who can't comfortably bridge the rational/scientific with the story popularity side of religion/politics- here's an analogy for the story minded:

Look carefully at some zip file archives on your pc with wordpad or a similar editor. If you see the same thing at the start of the file...I hope we can agree that each archive was put there for some purpose by an intelligent creature. And I hope we can agree that each archive shares common descent and design with other archives and we can thank Bill Gates and Philip Katz for that.

BTW - has anyone carefully checked the DNA from the fragments of the piltdown man item?
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 28, 2008 07:11PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 18:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 14:14, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 13:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Then you did not read my post on Piltdown man. Read it and research it before you come to a conclusion.
[/quote]

I looked it up. It was an archaeological hoax. However, that doesn't disprove evolution at all. It's not like our entire knowledge of human evolution relies on that single piece of evidence.
[/quote]
You said you had not heard of a hoax, I showed you just one. I am telling you to do research beore you jump and believe things.
[/quote]

Alright, and I looked at it, and I researched.

"The hoax was devised to create belief in human evolution

This claim is often made by creationists. It is highly unlikely. We do not know for certain who the hoaxer(s) was and hence cannot speak with certainty about the motive for the hoax. However the motive almost certainly was not to convince people that men evolved from apes.

To be accepted the hoax had to convince the scientific community that the find was genuine. The hoax was not needed, however, to convince the scientific community that men had evolved from apes. It already was the consensus in the scientific community at the time that man had evolved from a pre-human ape ancestor, the line of argument being two-fold, (a) the anatomical evidence and (b) the existence of pre-human fossils (Neanderthal Man, Heidelberg Man, et al).

The effect of the hoax was to supply support for a particular theory about the course of human evolution, i.e., that large brains appeared early. Support for this theory may possibly have been part of the motive."

http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html#devised


The Piltdown Man was a terrible hoax and embarrassed the paleontology community. However, it was not forged in order to prove human evolution as a whole, but merely if anything certain aspects of it. It holds no basis as a claim against the theory.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 28, 2008 07:57PM)
You Claim in one sentence we can not speak for certain who the hoaxers were, and therefore what their motives were.

THEN in a fantastic 180 degree turn you say "However it was NOT (emphasis mine for ironic purposes) forged in order to prove human evolution as a whole, but merly if anything certain aspects of it".

Come on now buddy you MUST see how this is a contradiction right? PLEASE oh please tell me you are at least chuckling to yourself for writing this.

A tip on research. A very smart man once wrote that "it is tough to discover the truth, when you know ahead of time what that truth is supposed to be". (I may have one or 2 words out of place, but that is the idea)

MEANING that when you already have an idea of what you are supposed to find, all the evidence you find, will point you to that conclusion, and it will disprove other theories for you. This is a trap many cops fall into.

With SO much of the evolutionary evidence not presant, tough to find, tough to make, this trap is particularly dangerous. Now even at your age you have been indoctrinated into this way of thinking of evolution as a fact, as opposed to a "nondisprovable theory".

I am not telling you science is bad, I am not saying evolution is necessarily bad, but the arguements you make, and the contradictions you use are NOT science. They are hardly a fair representation of the theory anyhow.

Also incidently as a side note, CONCENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE. For a long time "science" told us the earth was the center of the universe. It told us things that have been later discovered to be wrong, but concensus told you different. So "scientific concensus" does in no way make anything true. It may very well be a representation of what those men think. I am in no way saying it makes them wrong about everything, but you can NOT make claims like "concensus makes things right". It is not science.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 28, 2008 08:25PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 20:11, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 18:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 14:14, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 13:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Then you did not read my post on Piltdown man. Read it and research it before you come to a conclusion.
[/quote]

I looked it up. It was an archaeological hoax. However, that doesn't disprove evolution at all. It's not like our entire knowledge of human evolution relies on that single piece of evidence.
[/quote]
You said you had not heard of a hoax, I showed you just one. I am telling you to do research beore you jump and believe things.
[/quote]

Alright, and I looked at it, and I researched.

"The hoax was devised to create belief in human evolution

This claim is often made by creationists. It is highly unlikely. We do not know for certain who the hoaxer(s) was and hence cannot speak with certainty about the motive for the hoax. However the motive almost certainly was not to convince people that men evolved from apes.

To be accepted the hoax had to convince the scientific community that the find was genuine. The hoax was not needed, however, to convince the scientific community that men had evolved from apes. It already was the consensus in the scientific community at the time that man had evolved from a pre-human ape ancestor, the line of argument being two-fold, (a) the anatomical evidence and (b) the existence of pre-human fossils (Neanderthal Man, Heidelberg Man, et al).

The effect of the hoax was to supply support for a particular theory about the course of human evolution, i.e., that large brains appeared early. Support for this theory may possibly have been part of the motive."

http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html#devised


The Piltdown Man was a terrible hoax and embarrassed the paleontology community. However, it was not forged in order to prove human evolution as a whole, but merely if anything certain aspects of it. It holds no basis as a claim against the theory.
[/quote]

This is a typical response of the pseudo intellectuals, which can not come to grips with the thought of an afterlife, and there being consequences for their choices.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 28, 2008 09:04PM)
[quote]
This is a typical response of the pseudo intellectuals, which can not come to grips with the thought of an afterlife, and there being consequences for their choices.
[/quote]
I often wonder something along similar lines about religious leaders (of various faiths) who misrepresent what scientists say, misstate what the theory of evolution says (what it claims and what it does not claim), and so forth.

Are they truly that ignorant of what they are railing against? Or are they intentionally and willfully misrepresenting these things with no thought given to the consequences of their actions?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 28, 2008 09:06PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-26 19:44, Chessmann wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-24 11:20, balducci wrote:
I guess that is why the Catholic Church (along with other mainstream religions) has spoken in support of evolution and also why representatives of the Vatican have said Intelligent Design is not a scientific theory and should not be taught in a science class. I guess Catholics do not believe in God either. :rolleyes:
[/quote]

Your last statement demonstrates nor adds anything to the debate.
[/quote]
The last line was an ironic comment relating to outlandish claims that several people made previously in this thread. I assumed people would recognize it as such.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 28, 2008 09:55PM)
Balducci - I'm still astonished at the implicit claim that there's only one intelligent designer acting as opposed to an indeterminate number. If one considers an indeterminate number of designers acting it occurs that there is no measurable difference between the effects of a random number of designers acting on a thing and pure random accident since one cannot know the intent or aesthetics of the designers and so... the conflict goes away.

On the other side - some people want just one designer yet won't also state that preference as being a personal and entirely sentimental issue - which would put the matter into the realm of "matters of taste" which again puts the matter beyond dispute.

I Get the feeling that some folks still want to be both right and correct while remaining irresponsible and unaccountable.

Okay, someone's Freudian slip is showing. Let's say it's mine - and you can go on as you were. :) Jon's up way too late tonight - gnite folks.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 28, 2008 10:00PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 20:57, Dannydoyle wrote:
You Claim in one sentence we can not speak for certain who the hoaxers were, and therefore what their motives were.

THEN in a fantastic 180 degree turn you say "However it was NOT (emphasis mine for ironic purposes) forged in order to prove human evolution as a whole, but merly if anything certain aspects of it".

Come on now buddy you MUST see how this is a contradiction right? PLEASE oh please tell me you are at least chuckling to yourself for writing this.

A tip on research. A very smart man once wrote that "it is tough to discover the truth, when you know ahead of time what that truth is supposed to be". (I may have one or 2 words out of place, but that is the idea)

MEANING that when you already have an idea of what you are supposed to find, all the evidence you find, will point you to that conclusion, and it will disprove other theories for you. This is a trap many cops fall into.

With SO much of the evolutionary evidence not presant, tough to find, tough to make, this trap is particularly dangerous. Now even at your age you have been indoctrinated into this way of thinking of evolution as a fact, as opposed to a "nondisprovable theory".

I am not telling you science is bad, I am not saying evolution is necessarily bad, but the arguements you make, and the contradictions you use are NOT science. They are hardly a fair representation of the theory anyhow.

Also incidently as a side note, CONCENSUS IS NOT SCIENCE. For a long time "science" told us the earth was the center of the universe. It told us things that have been later discovered to be wrong, but concensus told you different. So "scientific concensus" does in no way make anything true. It may very well be a representation of what those men think. I am in no way saying it makes them wrong about everything, but you can NOT make claims like "concensus makes things right". It is not science.
[/quote]

Ok, I had never heard of the hoax. I looked it up. I read a couple different articles on it. It was indeed a major hoax, but that has no effect on the current knowledge of human evolution. Remember, this hoax was from quite a while ago and wasn't exposed until 1953. Our knowledge of biology and paleontology has progressed quite a bit since then. That hoax does not change the firm grounding evolution has. It really is not much of a case against the evolution as a whole, but merely some jerk not doing his job.

Evolution is not "nondisprovable". It is completely falsifiable. That's what makes it scientific as opposed to ID.

I was skeptical about this Piltdown Man before I researched it. That's what was a catalyst for me even bothering to look it up. Don't turn that into a crime, especially when the research shows that it's a silly argument against the theory.

No, consensus is not science. However, the well proven theories are usually held as pretty truthful by the majority of a scientific consensus. Either way, I never said nonsenses is science. If you thought I said that, I must have worded something wrong, and I apologize.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 28, 2008 10:05PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 21:25, Tom Bartlett wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 20:11, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 18:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 14:14, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 13:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Then you did not read my post on Piltdown man. Read it and research it before you come to a conclusion.
[/quote]

I looked it up. It was an archaeological hoax. However, that doesn't disprove evolution at all. It's not like our entire knowledge of human evolution relies on that single piece of evidence.
[/quote]
You said you had not heard of a hoax, I showed you just one. I am telling you to do research beore you jump and believe things.
[/quote]

Alright, and I looked at it, and I researched.

"The hoax was devised to create belief in human evolution

This claim is often made by creationists. It is highly unlikely. We do not know for certain who the hoaxer(s) was and hence cannot speak with certainty about the motive for the hoax. However the motive almost certainly was not to convince people that men evolved from apes.

To be accepted the hoax had to convince the scientific community that the find was genuine. The hoax was not needed, however, to convince the scientific community that men had evolved from apes. It already was the consensus in the scientific community at the time that man had evolved from a pre-human ape ancestor, the line of argument being two-fold, (a) the anatomical evidence and (b) the existence of pre-human fossils (Neanderthal Man, Heidelberg Man, et al).

The effect of the hoax was to supply support for a particular theory about the course of human evolution, i.e., that large brains appeared early. Support for this theory may possibly have been part of the motive."

http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html#devised


The Piltdown Man was a terrible hoax and embarrassed the paleontology community. However, it was not forged in order to prove human evolution as a whole, but merely if anything certain aspects of it. It holds no basis as a claim against the theory.
[/quote]

This is a typical response of the pseudo intellectuals, which can not come to grips with the thought of an afterlife, and there being consequences for their choices.
[/quote]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounded like you implied all people who do not believe in an afterlife are not intellectuals.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Sep 28, 2008 10:34PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 23:00, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]


Evolution is not "nondisprovable". It is completely falsifiable. That's what makes it scientific as opposed to ID.


[/quote]

and by extension, is "ID" scientific?
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Sep 28, 2008 11:05PM)
I think religion, and atheism, are just the same old methods of making life make sense that mankind have been using since the beginning of history. Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason.


There, you are all wrong. One day you will look back at this and realize how foolish you have been.
Message: Posted by: abc (Sep 29, 2008 12:00AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 23:05, magicman226 wrote:

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounded like you implied all people who do not believe in an afterlife are not intellectuals.
[/quote]
No, I think it should be seen as an annoyed response to those who seem to believe that those who may believe in a god or afterlife or who quesiton the merits of evolution are somehow not as smart as those who blondly belive in evolution when it is clear that we do not have all the facts and details yet.
Evolution has been proven "beyond reasonable doubt". Should I post the figure of how many people have spent time in prison or worse got executed because the legal system coudn't be 100% but it was proven "beyond reasonable doubt"?
As humans we have not even had an in depth look at our nearets planet and we are discussing the origin of the universe. We are all pretty stupid and it is highly unlikely that our 3 dimensional system would be able to predict anything useful anout a universe we know very little about. But why accept that? We are all stupid and I am perfectly willing to accept the fact that I am probably the most stupid of all but I don't really care. All I know is that there are too many things we don't know and therefor can not be certain or at least as certain as some claim to be.
Message: Posted by: MR2Guy (Sep 29, 2008 12:03AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 00:05, Josh Riel wrote:
I think religion, and atheism, are just the same old methods of making life make sense that mankind have been using since the beginning of history.[/quote]

What same old mathods does religion and atheism have in common to make life make sense?

[quote] Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason.[/quote]

What same reason are you referring to?
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 29, 2008 12:28AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 23:05, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 21:25, Tom Bartlett wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 20:11, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 18:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 14:14, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-28 13:28, Dannydoyle wrote:

Then you did not read my post on Piltdown man. Read it and research it before you come to a conclusion.
[/quote]

I looked it up. It was an archaeological hoax. However, that doesn't disprove evolution at all. It's not like our entire knowledge of human evolution relies on that single piece of evidence.
[/quote]
You said you had not heard of a hoax, I showed you just one. I am telling you to do research beore you jump and believe things.
[/quote]

Alright, and I looked at it, and I researched.

"The hoax was devised to create belief in human evolution

This claim is often made by creationists. It is highly unlikely. We do not know for certain who the hoaxer(s) was and hence cannot speak with certainty about the motive for the hoax. However the motive almost certainly was not to convince people that men evolved from apes.

To be accepted the hoax had to convince the scientific community that the find was genuine. The hoax was not needed, however, to convince the scientific community that men had evolved from apes. It already was the consensus in the scientific community at the time that man had evolved from a pre-human ape ancestor, the line of argument being two-fold, (a) the anatomical evidence and (b) the existence of pre-human fossils (Neanderthal Man, Heidelberg Man, et al).

The effect of the hoax was to supply support for a particular theory about the course of human evolution, i.e., that large brains appeared early. Support for this theory may possibly have been part of the motive."

http://home.tiac.net/~cri_a/piltdown/piltdown.html#devised


The Piltdown Man was a terrible hoax and embarrassed the paleontology community. However, it was not forged in order to prove human evolution as a whole, but merely if anything certain aspects of it. It holds no basis as a claim against the theory.
[/quote]

This is a typical response of the pseudo intellectuals, which can not come to grips with the thought of an afterlife, and there being consequences for their choices.
[/quote]

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but it sounded like you implied all people who do not believe in an afterlife are not intellectuals.
[/quote]

No I did not imply that all people who do not believe in an afterlife are not intellectuals only those that respond like you have.
Message: Posted by: MR2Guy (Sep 29, 2008 01:24AM)
Tom
How do you know by macicman's responses that he cannot come to grips with the thought of an afterlife, and there being consequences for their choices?
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 29, 2008 07:19AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 01:28, Tom Bartlett wrote:

No I did not imply that all people who do not believe in an afterlife are not intellectuals only those that respond like you have.
[/quote]

How so? I don't see how my responses make me a "pseudo-intellectual". Please enlighten me.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 29, 2008 07:32AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 02:24, MR2Guy wrote:
Tom
How do you know by macicman's responses that he cannot come to grips with the thought of an afterlife, and there being consequences for their choices?
[/quote]

I ascertained it from reading all of his post. Remember this whole tread is about the question: What are the nonbelievers afraid of?
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 29, 2008 07:41AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 08:19, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 01:28, Tom Bartlett wrote:

No I did not imply that all people who do not believe in an afterlife are not intellectuals only those that respond like you have.
[/quote]

How so? I don't see how my responses make me a "pseudo-intellectual". Please enlighten me.
[/quote]
Because you are uninformed about much of the evidence which has been debunked by modern scientific methods such as DNA and choose to ignore it.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 29, 2008 08:34AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 08:19, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 01:28, Tom Bartlett wrote:

No I did not imply that all people who do not believe in an afterlife are not intellectuals only those that respond like you have.
[/quote]

How so? I don't see how my responses make me a "pseudo-intellectual". Please enlighten me.
[/quote]

I was beaten to the punch LOL. But in a less harsh tone than Tom used, you don't quite have all the evidence. You only seem to bother to research your own opinion or spout what you are told in class from one source. Not knowing about the "hoax" of Piltdown man means you have done a very small if any amount of research into your ideas and CONVICTIONS. This is sad. To beleive something so vehemently and not really do much research sounds a lot more like religion than science does it not?

All this tends to point to being a "pseudo intellectiual" on your part. (though you probably spell 10x better than myself)

The point is research, research, research. (at least I read that somewhere)

You have your mind made up and nobody is going to change that no matter WHAT happens. This also is not science. Like I said the tendency is to fit all evidence into that box, rather than looking at the evidence and finding a box it fits into naturally.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 29, 2008 08:39AM)
I also see nothing in your posts which suggest you have a problem comming to grips with an afterlife, or religion, or any sort of faith. I see a kid who is only taught one thing in school, and is simply not qualified to talk about the other side of the arguement. THIS IS NOT A BIG DEAL, it is what it is. When confronted with evidence of the other point of view, you simply do not know how to deal with it so you ignore it. You are simply showing everyone what you are taught in school.

Oh and evolution is a "nondisprovable theory" and that is all it is. Nothing more. I have a theory that spiderman started the universe. It is also similarly nondisprovable.

You keep touting science and scientific method and yet the methodology used in evolution science is flawed. Is that the standard of scientific proof you use for other diciplines of science?

It is the certainty with which you write, and claims of certainty that are made where my problem lies.
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Sep 29, 2008 10:08AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 08:41, Tom Bartlett wrote:

Because you are uninformed about much of the evidence which has been debunked by modern scientific methods such as DNA and choose to ignore it.

[/quote]

You're not saying that Evolution has been disproven by DNA evidence are you? If you are would you please cite your sources.

So far the DNA evidence has proven far beyond a reasonable doubt that we and apes have a common ancient ancestor due to identical retro virus markers in both species.

If you have a source that can explain how these perfectly matching markers might have been formed in another way other than common descent I'd really like to read the reaserch on it.
Message: Posted by: abc (Sep 29, 2008 10:15AM)
Scientific method says that you can only say the evidence is conclusive if you can proof that these matching markers in retro viruses could not have been formed in any other way. It is not upon the rest of us to prove another way.
Since you can't and we are still battling with Aids (which happens to be retro virus of which we know fairly little) I suggest these comments be re-evaluated.
Until then , please stop wasting our time with rubbish proof.
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Sep 29, 2008 10:29AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 09:39, Dannydoyle wrote:

Oh and evolution is a "nondisprovable theory" and that is all it is. Nothing more. I have a theory that spiderman started the universe. It is also similarly nondisprovable.

[/quote]

Nothing outside of mathematics is "provable". We form theories based on the evidence at hand and so far all of the evidence strongly favors the theory of evolution.

There is no evidence that I know of that supports your idea that Spiderman (or any other straw man) created the universe.

[quote]

You keep touting science and scientific method and yet the methodology used in evolution science is flawed. Is that the standard of scientific proof you use for other disciplines of science?

[/quote]

Source please. You keep saying that Evolution is wrong and the method flawed but you've not posted a single piece of evidence to support your claim.

Well outside of Piltdown Man. Yes Piltdown man was a hoax. But do you know how it was proven a hoax? Through science and the scientific method you keep saying is somehow flawed.

So why are you so adamantly against evolution? Is it because it doesn't make sense to you or you don't understand it?

If so please view the excellent educational videos I and others here have posted links to.

Is it because you think it seeks to prove the non-existence of God?

This has been shown to you time and again to be a faulty argument. Many proponents of Evolution are Religious and Spiritual people. Even the Catholic Church accepts it as fact.

So what is the reason for your refusing to accept the Theory of Evolution as Fact?

Is it because you think it disagrees with a literal interpretation of an ancient book written by unknown authors thousands of years ago?


If so they why throw out just evolution? You'll need to discount much of what we know about Biology, Geology, and Cosmology as well. You'll need to live on a flat earth that is geocentric where disease is caused by bad air or evil spirits.

So why do you just single out evolution as a bad theory and leave these other theories alone?
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Sep 29, 2008 11:03AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 11:15, abc wrote:
Scientific method says that you can only say the evidence is conclusive if you can proof that these matching markers in retro viruses could not have been formed in any other way.
[/quote]

So far no other theories have been put forth as to how these matching retro virus markers could have been formed. So until someone can present an opposing thesis with evidence to support it the retrovirus theory stads.

That is how the scientific method works.

[quote]
It is not upon the rest of us to prove another way.
[/quote]

Well, actually it is.

[quote]
Since you can't and we are still battling with Aids (which happens to be retro virus of which we know fairly little) I suggest these comments be re-evaluated.
Until then , please stop wasting our time with rubbish proof.
[/quote]

This has nothing to do with the argument as to if the retrovirus markers demonstrate a strong proof in favor of evolution.

This video shows why they are accepted by science as proof

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i1fGkFuHIu0
Message: Posted by: EsnRedshirt (Sep 29, 2008 11:20AM)
Woah guys, wait a second. I think we have another semantic misunderstanding here. The term "falsifiable" has a specific scientific meaning when used to describe a scientific theory- it means, "There is a possibility that new evidence or testing might show my theory to be wrong."

For example, if, tomorrow, a paleontologist discovered a fossilized human skeleton on the same geological strata as a trilobite, it would mean that humans and trilobites existed at the same time- which is contrary to predictions made by evolutionary theory. It would thus prove that parts of evolutionary theory are wrong, and need serious revision.

There is nothing falsifiable about Intelligent Design. No matter what evidence is discovered, the theory still states, "it was made that way." The "human-trilobites coexisting" example I stated above would not change ID theory. If the fossil record suddenly turns up five-legged mammals with radial symmetry (i.e. a starfish-like mammal), it would throw current evolutionary theory into total disarray. ID proponents would still say, "it was made that way." There is nothing that can disprove the existance of an Intelligent Designer. According to scientific method, a scientific theory must be able to be disproven. This means that even if Intelligent Design is 100% correct, it is still useless as a theory from a scientific point of view. If ID turned out to be true, scientists would still go and theorize about what the designer would do next, and what rules the designer used in making creation. That's just how scientific method (and the minds of scientists) works.

-Erik
Message: Posted by: abc (Sep 29, 2008 11:58AM)
We still know too little about retrovirusses to say they offer conclusive proof. Which part of that is so hard to understand?
How can we use theory and fact in same sentence. "The theory stands until someone can offer other evidence therefore it is fact" Rubbish.

And this isn't a tennis match. You don't make one statement and then all of us have to find falsifying proof. If that was the case then we can say God did everything and you have to proof that he didn't. Only difference is you are saying evolution did it and we have to find the falsifying proof. Such nonsense. It is up to the scientific community to rule out all other possibilities, not us.
I guess it is your turn to hit the ball.
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Sep 29, 2008 12:59PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 12:58, abc wrote:
We still know too little about retrovirusses to say they offer conclusive proof. Which part of that is so hard to understand?
[/quote]

But we do know that retroviruses attach their signature onto the hosts DNA, If the DNA strand that is attacked is in a reproductive cell, either an egg or a sperm then this "signature" is passed along to descendent's of that organism. It becomes part of their permanent DNA from that point forward.

We share 7 of these markers with chimpanzees. this is conclusive proof of common descent. Which part of that is so hard for you to understand?

[quote]
How can we use theory and fact in same sentence. "The theory stands until someone can offer other evidence therefore it is fact" Rubbish.
[/quote]

As has been pointed out many times before in this thread the word Theory as used in the scientific commmunity is the same way as fact. We have Gravitational Theory and Wave Theory, boith of which have been proven as fact but still are reffered to as Theories. And yes, theories stand until someone comes along and proves them false with new evidence.

[quote]
And this isn't a tennis match. You don't make one statement and then all of us have to find falsifying proof. If that was the case then we can say God did everything and you have to proof that he didn't.
[/quote]

No, you have to prove that he did and establish a mechanism by which he did it.

You can say anything you wish but without corroborating evidence or falsifiability it is just so much hot air.

[quote]
Only difference is you are saying evolution did it and we have to find the falsifying proof. Such nonsense. It is up to the scientific community to rule out all other possibilities, not us.
I guess it is your turn to hit the ball.
[/quote]

And so far no one has. They have had 150 years to prove evolution wrong and so far it still holds true. It's predictions have been met and every new peice of evidence that has been discoverd since Darwin's time fits into those predictions.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 29, 2008 02:26PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 11:29, Thetruthteller wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 09:39, Dannydoyle wrote:

Oh and evolution is a "nondisprovable theory" and that is all it is. Nothing more. I have a theory that spiderman started the universe. It is also similarly nondisprovable.

[/quote]

Nothing outside of mathematics is "provable". We form theories based on the evidence at hand and so far all of the evidence strongly favors the theory of evolution.

There is no evidence that I know of that supports your idea that Spiderman (or any other straw man) created the universe.

[quote]

You keep touting science and scientific method and yet the methodology used in evolution science is flawed. Is that the standard of scientific proof you use for other disciplines of science?

[/quote]

Source please. You keep saying that Evolution is wrong and the method flawed but you've not posted a single piece of evidence to support your claim.

Well outside of Piltdown Man. Yes Piltdown man was a hoax. But do you know how it was proven a hoax? Through science and the scientific method you keep saying is somehow flawed.

So why are you so adamantly against evolution? Is it because it doesn't make sense to you or you don't understand it?

If so please view the excellent educational videos I and others here have posted links to.

Is it because you think it seeks to prove the non-existence of God?

This has been shown to you time and again to be a faulty argument. Many proponents of Evolution are Religious and Spiritual people. Even the Catholic Church accepts it as fact.

So what is the reason for your refusing to accept the Theory of Evolution as Fact?

Is it because you think it disagrees with a literal interpretation of an ancient book written by unknown authors thousands of years ago?


If so they why throw out just evolution? You'll need to discount much of what we know about Biology, Geology, and Cosmology as well. You'll need to live on a flat earth that is geocentric where disease is caused by bad air or evil spirits.

So why do you just single out evolution as a bad theory and leave these other theories alone?
[/quote]

It is a NONDISPROVABLE theory. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. Concensus in not in any way science. These are my problems.

Evolution? It is a FACT that we have way less than 95% of the fossil record am I right? So with less than 5% of EVIDENCE we come to conclusions. Conclusions I may hasten to add which seem to change regularly. That is the problem I have.

Then when you add to this the fact that it is taught as FACT, (yea when I was in school it was HOW WE EVOLVED,) I have a problem. When things which simply show it can not be proven wrong are touted as fact as if they were mathematics, I have a problem.

As for the existance of God, here is what I find interesting about the debates. First off neither side will ever give an inch. No matter how many fossils you find and have PROOF of, the religious will believe what they want. That is what is great about faith.

No matter how many hoaxes exist, how many wrong inturpretations of evidence come to light, no matter what happens, the Darwiniacs will not budge an inch. That is the great thing about faith.

As for what I believe? Well I think there is VERY clear and conclusive evidence the world, universe did not come into existance only 6,000 years ago. I think it is pretty clear and conclusive that it is many billions of years old. As for the universe, who knows maybe older.

I think it is pretty clear giant lizzards inhabited the world at one point WAY more than 6,000 years ago. I think other forms of "man" existed, collectivly in sociatal groups without doubt had SOME form of intelligence as we have come to understand it.

I do not think they have found a "transitional species" to speak of. I mean they have a great "idea" that this may have evolved from that, but can in no way prove it. Many stories and theories masquarading as facts out there. And ONE hoax to help the fact along.

None of this discounts the idea of a supreme being, a god, Zeus, Buddah, or my Spiderman theory. It can be compatable.

I think that those of faith, (supposed faith) who can have that shaken by a few bones are not to faithful in the first place. That is the beauty of faith. Faith is when you believe in something that nobody in their right mind would believe in! (For the record I am Catholic, so the whole Virgin Birth thingie is WAY less plausable than a few bones LOL and FAR LESS proven lets say.)

I am realistic that science can be wonderful. My lord if you use faith right, you can actually claim that God gave man the intellignce on purpose to find the miracle drugs, and procedures and guided surgens hands LOL.

You attack faith as if it is a bad thing. Well when it is not PUSHED on others, it can be a great thing. (see the difference?) Well I am saying YOU take things on faith and stories and dress them up as fact because a SCIENTIST told you. Then you claim concensus, and say it is science, when in the end it is simply a nondisprovable theory.

So have your faith, but why not let others have theirs? Is that such a horrible request?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 29, 2008 02:32PM)
[/quote]

And so far no one has. They have had 150 years to prove evolution wrong and so far it still holds true. It's predictions have been met and every new peice of evidence that has been discoverd since Darwin's time fits into those predictions.
[/quote]

See now you make the point for me thank you.

IT IS TRUE? Then help us with the gaps in evolution. You know the other better than 95% of things we DON'T know but guess at?

So you tell me the guy with the best story wins? Again sounds like religion to me LOL.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 29, 2008 02:50PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 15:26, Dannydoyle wrote:

So have your faith, but why not let others have theirs? Is that such a horrible request?
[/quote]
No reasonable person suggests taking people's faith away from them.

That is really not what the discussion should be about.

The question should be whether or not Intelligent Design or any branch of Creationism should be taught in a science class.

The FACT remains that as a theory and as a line of research various aspects of evolutionary theory have led to scientific advances. For these reasons, it should be taught in science class.

The "Intelligent Design Theory" has never demonstrated any value in the field of science. Nor does it even fit in the field of science, due to its lack of falsifiability etc.

That doesn't mean it is wrong or incorrect to believe in a Creator or study the consequences of such a belief. Just that this doesn't belong in a science class.

The study of French literature is also a valid field of study, but it does not belong in a science class either.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 29, 2008 02:58PM)
I do not thing creationism, or Intelligent design are science.

I do not think they should be taught ALONG SIDE evolution, I do think they should be presented in some fashion though. PRESENTED, not taught as fact.

I also do not think that chemestry should be taught in gym class.

Oh and by the way, many many on BOTH sides DO want to take away what the other has faith in. This is what causes SO much animosity.
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Sep 29, 2008 04:01PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 15:26, Dannydoyle wrote:

It is a NONDISPROVABLE theory. THAT IS NOT SCIENCE. Concensus in not in any way science. These are my problems.

Evolution? It is a FACT that we have way less than 95% of the fossil record am I right? So with less than 5% of EVIDENCE we come to conclusions. Conclusions I may hasten to add which seem to change regularly. That is the problem I have.

[/quote]

If evolution was supported solely on the fossil record then yes, this might prove to be a problem. Science however has much more evidence in support of evolution than the fossil record alone.

[quote]
Then when you add to this the fact that it is taught as FACT, (yea when I was in school it was HOW WE EVOLVED,) I have a problem. When things which simply show it can not be proven wrong are touted as fact as if they were mathematics, I have a problem.
[/quote]

Your problem is of little concern to our educational system. Evolution is taught the wa it is because it is the accepted scientific theory (or fact) as to how life arose on this planet.

I am curious. How do you yourself determine fact from fiction? If something cannot be proven wrong through an examination evidence is it not generally reguarded as a fact?

[quote]

As for the existance of God, here is what I find interesting about the debates. First off neither side will ever give an inch. No matter how many fossils you find and have PROOF of, the religious will believe what they want. That is what is great about faith.

[/quote]

I wouldn't call denying something simply because it conflicts with your faith an admirable quality.

[quote]
No matter how many hoaxes exist, how many wrong inturpretations of evidence come to light, no matter what happens, the Darwiniacs will not budge an inch. That is the great thing about faith.
[/quote]

But science isn't faith based. Faith is believing in something that there is no evidence for. Science can only believe in that which there is evidence for.

We don't hold evolution to be true because it sounds like a nifty idea. We hold it true because the evidence we have fits the theory.

Science is full of nifty ideas that got left by the wayside because there wasn't evidence to support the claims.

[quote]
As for what I believe? Well I think there is VERY clear and conclusive evidence the world, universe did not come into existance only 6,000 years ago. I think it is pretty clear and conclusive that it is many billions of years old. As for the universe, who knows maybe older.
[/quote]

So why do you accept this evidence for an old earth but deny the equally compelling evidence for evolution?

How do you see the people who only believe the earth is 6000 years old? Do you ask them why they deny the evidence that is right in front of them and try to show them the errors of their ways or do you allow them to revel in their ignorance?


[quote]
I think it is pretty clear giant lizzards inhabited the world at one point WAY more than 6,000 years ago. I think other forms of "man" existed, collectivly in sociatal groups without doubt had SOME form of intelligence as we have come to understand it.
[/quote]

Well they weren't lizards, they were reptiles. But either way how do you suppose they and the other forms of man got here? Did they just pop into existence fully formed?

[quote]
I do not think they have found a "transitional species" to speak of. I mean they have a great "idea" that this may have evolved from that, but can in no way prove it. Many stories and theories masquarading as facts out there. And ONE hoax to help the fact along.
[/quote]

Well you think incorrectly. Scores of transitional fossils have been disovered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

There also has been more hoaxes and fradulent speculation than Piltdown Man

http://www.conservapedia.com/Theory_of_Evolution_and_Cases_of_Fraud,_Hoaxes_and_Speculation

However none of these frauds invalidated the theory and were all exposed by scientists re-examining the data.

[quote]

None of this discounts the idea of a supreme being, a god, Zeus, Buddah, or my Spiderman theory. It can be compatable.

[/quote]

And is. Science is by it's own admisson neutral on matters of the supernatural. they deal strictly with the material world and leave God to the Philosophers.

[quote]
I think that those of faith, (supposed faith) who can have that shaken by a few bones are not to faithful in the first place. That is the beauty of faith. Faith is when you believe in something that nobody in their right mind would believe in! (For the record I am Catholic, so the whole Virgin Birth thingie is WAY less plausable than a few bones LOL and FAR LESS proven lets say.)
[/quote]

But faith alone is a very dangerous thing. It needs to be metered with logic and common sense otherwise you just wander off into the middle of traffic thinking that your faith in God is enough to protect you from all harm.

[quote]

I am realistic that science can be wonderful. My lord if you use faith right, you can actually claim that God gave man the intellignce on purpose to find the miracle drugs, and procedures and guided surgens hands LOL.


[/quote]

You can claim that but science cannot as there is no evidence to support it. Again that separation of science from philosophy

[quote]
You attack faith as if it is a bad thing. Well when it is not PUSHED on others, it can be a great thing. (see the difference?) Well I am saying YOU take things on faith and stories and dress them up as fact because a SCIENTIST told you. Then you claim concensus, and say it is science, when in the end it is simply a nondisprovable theory.
[/quote]

And what do we generally call non-disprovable theories?

[quote]
So have your faith, but why not let others have theirs? Is that such a horrible request?
[/quote]

I am not denying any one their faith. I am just against teaching their faith as science. Creationism\ID simply has failed to meet the criteria of being accepted as science. Until it can it must be remain a philosophy. Teach it in comparative religion of current events not science class
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 29, 2008 04:20PM)
There ya go. I said from start that it is not SCIENCE.

I think you have to look at each individually. ID is NOT science. Creationism is absolutly not even near science.

We can have a debate about what you are taking on faith as far as evolution goes, but I am happy to say that simply put, those first 2 are not sciences and do not belong in science class any more than the search for Noah's ark does. There are those who do not think they should be mentioned ANYWHERE, and that is where my problem lies.

I think part of the problem you have is that in general the only people of faith who ever speak up are those on the fringe. I think that a reasonable position does not often get articulated, on either side to be truthful.

But to make things more fun, since you tried to post about transitional species, try this for me.

While they have found fish with strange appendages and pronounced them the missing link between mamals and fish it is only true if you assume that evolution is true in the first place. Is this your "scientific method"? Assume you are right, and then futz the evidence to make it fit?

There is no evidence to assume evolution is true, until you produce a whole lot more of those "transitional species". The successive appearance of more simple species to more complex ones does resemble progress. But there is nothing to suggest that this is a result of natural selection. We have more sophisticated computers now, airplanes, and everything. None of which were come about by natural selection, but rather by some clean well organized sequence.

This is exactly why Stephen Jay Gould refered to the absence of transitional species in the fossil record as the "trade secret of paleontology".

Remember that fossils do NOT show a parent/decendent relationship. As a matter of fact the progress from simple animals to more sophisticated looks a lot more like planned, deliberate progress than a series of random mutations. (Just seeing if you are paying attention still LOL)

So since you are so evolutionally up to date just do me a favor.

Perhaps you can explain the following for me.

What is the truth about the entire fossil record, which shows a very nonDarwinian progression, noticiably lacking the vast number of transitional species? (if it is a dog eat dog struggle for attributes, should we not have species with eyes on their feet, or does nature always get it right?)

What is the truth about the Cambrain explosion, in which virtually all the animal phyla suddenly appeared, with no Darwinian ancestors.

Why the Galapagos finch population has not changed one bit since Darwin first observed it over 170 years ago?

The truth of the peppered moth experiment.

What is the truth about the Haeckel's embryos being a fraud perpetrated by a leading German eugenicist?

Why is the Miller-Urey experiment still accepted when it is based on a premis not accepted any more?

Why are there no computer simulations of the evolution of the human eye?


Seems as if the "theory" has a few problems LOL.

I am not saying mind you it does not happen. I am saying that proof is a bit lacking is all.
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Sep 29, 2008 06:12PM)
[quote]

So since you are so evolutionally up to date just do me a favor.

Perhaps you can explain the following for me.

What is the truth about the entire fossil record, which shows a very nonDarwinian progression, noticiably lacking the vast number of transitional species? (if it is a dog eat dog struggle for attributes, should we not have species with eyes on their feet, or does nature always get it right?)

[/quote]

So which part of the fossil record shows a non-Darwinian progression? We clearly see simple life forms evolving into more complex ones. Which fits the predictions made by the theory.

And yes, nature doesn’t always get it right and there are evolutionary blunders and dead ends.

Here is one

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/25371869/


[quote]
What is the truth about the Cambrian explosion, in which virtually all the animal phyla suddenly appeared, with no Darwinian ancestors.
[/quote]

Explained here

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC300.html


[quote]
Why the Galapagos finch population has not changed one bit since Darwin first observed it over 170 years ago?
[/quote]

First it’s only been 170 years. Evolution generally is a slow process and takes a long time to produce visible change. Second the Finch’s environment hasn’t changed radically either in the last 170 years so favorable mutations are not passed on as readily.

[quote]
The truth of the peppered moth experiment.
[/quote]

Was a too simplistic and inaccurate way to show natural selection. Hopefully it has been removed from the texts by now.

[quote]
What is the truth about the Haeckel's embryos being a fraud perpetrated by a leading German eugenicist?
[/quote]

I don’t know if fraud is the right word. He was wrong in his beliefs. But I think he himself believed that his drawings were accurate. Again this line of reasoning was proven wrong and replaced with a more accurate understanding by further embryonic research.

[quote]
Why is the Miller-Urey experiment still accepted when it is based on a premis not accepted any more?
[/quote]

As far as I know the premise of abiogenists that Miller-Urey were working on is still an accepted premise in the scientific community. Several current experiments are still being done in this branch of science.

[quote]
Why are there no computer simulations of the evolution of the human eye?
[/quote]

There are.

Here is one

http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/ridley/a-z/Evolution_of_the_eye_b.asp

And one for evolution in general

http://www.uncommondescent.com/evolution/computer-simulation-finally-proves-evolution/

[quote]
Seems as if the "theory" has a few problems LOL.
[/quote]

Not if you read

[/quote]
I am not saying mind you it does not happen. I am saying that proof is a bit lacking is all.
[/quote]

Plenty of proof around
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 29, 2008 06:37PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 08:41, Tom Bartlett wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 08:19, magicman226 wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 01:28, Tom Bartlett wrote:

No I did not imply that all people who do not believe in an afterlife are not intellectuals only those that respond like you have.
[/quote]

How so? I don't see how my responses make me a "pseudo-intellectual". Please enlighten me.
[/quote]
Because you are uninformed about much of the evidence which has been debunked by modern scientific methods such as DNA and choose to ignore it.
[/quote]

I don't like your diction. Your use of "much" makes it sound like there's a whole hidden world of evidence against the theory. I've seen plenty of claims against it, and nothing seems to have held up well. To be frank, I'm glad I was not informed, because knowing people actually use things such as the Piltdown Man as evidence against evolution does not make me excited about humanity. The Piltdown Man was found to not be evidence for evolution, not evidence against evolution. There is a big difference.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 29, 2008 06:41PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 15:58, Dannydoyle wrote:
I do not thing creationism, or Intelligent design are science.

I do not think they should be taught ALONG SIDE evolution, I do think they should be presented in some fashion though. PRESENTED, not taught as fact.

I also do not think that chemestry should be taught in gym class.

Oh and by the way, many many on BOTH sides DO want to take away what the other has faith in. This is what causes SO much animosity.
[/quote]

What about all the other creation myths man has thought to be true in history? Do we want to spend time presenting Greek, Norse, Mayan, Aztec, etc. mythology during science class instead of presenting to the youth such as myself the current scientific understanding of the natural world? Had I gotten to my AP biology class this year to find I was learning about Gaea instead of learning how cells work and how they came to be, I would be utterly infuriated. There is barely enough time to learn science itself in science class. There is no time to waste on the mythologies of cultures. Save that for a classical literature class.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 29, 2008 06:54PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 17:20, Dannydoyle wrote:
There ya go. I said from start that it is not SCIENCE.

I think you have to look at each individually. ID is NOT science. Creationism is absolutly not even near science.

We can have a debate about what you are taking on faith as far as evolution goes, but I am happy to say that simply put, those first 2 are not sciences and do not belong in science class any more than the search for Noah's ark does. There are those who do not think they should be mentioned ANYWHERE, and that is where my problem lies.

I think part of the problem you have is that in general the only people of faith who ever speak up are those on the fringe. I think that a reasonable position does not often get articulated, on either side to be truthful.

But to make things more fun, since you tried to post about transitional species, try this for me.

While they have found fish with strange appendages and pronounced them the missing link between mamals and fish it is only true if you assume that evolution is true in the first place. Is this your "scientific method"? Assume you are right, and then futz the evidence to make it fit?

There is no evidence to assume evolution is true, until you produce a whole lot more of those "transitional species". The successive appearance of more simple species to more complex ones does resemble progress. But there is nothing to suggest that this is a result of natural selection. We have more sophisticated computers now, airplanes, and everything. None of which were come about by natural selection, but rather by some clean well organized sequence.

This is exactly why Stephen Jay Gould refered to the absence of transitional species in the fossil record as the "trade secret of paleontology".

Remember that fossils do NOT show a parent/decendent relationship. As a matter of fact the progress from simple animals to more sophisticated looks a lot more like planned, deliberate progress than a series of random mutations. (Just seeing if you are paying attention still LOL)

So since you are so evolutionally up to date just do me a favor.

Perhaps you can explain the following for me.

What is the truth about the entire fossil record, which shows a very nonDarwinian progression, noticiably lacking the vast number of transitional species? (if it is a dog eat dog struggle for attributes, should we not have species with eyes on their feet, or does nature always get it right?)

What is the truth about the Cambrain explosion, in which virtually all the animal phyla suddenly appeared, with no Darwinian ancestors.

Why the Galapagos finch population has not changed one bit since Darwin first observed it over 170 years ago?

The truth of the peppered moth experiment.

What is the truth about the Haeckel's embryos being a fraud perpetrated by a leading German eugenicist?

Why is the Miller-Urey experiment still accepted when it is based on a premis not accepted any more?

Why are there no computer simulations of the evolution of the human eye?


Seems as if the "theory" has a few problems LOL.

I am not saying mind you it does not happen. I am saying that proof is a bit lacking is all.
[/quote]

Fossils have not really contradicted the overall process of evolution.

Eyes on feet? How does that fit in with the process of natural selection? I mean sure, if organisms that develop eyes on their feet survive better, then sure, that could happen. However, natural selection doesn't design the creatures. Mutations happen by chance, survival does not.

I have not studied much on the Cambrian explosion. However, if you would like I can ask around to well-informed biologists and learn more to share with you.

The Galapagos finches haven't changed ONE BIT? I highly doubt that, and I don't know where you got that information.

What about the peppered moth experiment?

It was a fake, sure. However, that doesn't disprove evolution. It merely means those particular things are not to be used as support for the theory, not necessarily against. Eugenics.... social darwinism is not darwinism. It's a perversion of the theory to go beyond simply explaining the natural world.

I don't know enough about the Miller-Urey experiments to give you an answer. Once again, I can learn more and share information with you if you would like.

No computer simulations for the evolution of the eye? Nonsense!
I don't have time to find a perfect video, but here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QM-LcQZHg1M&feature=related

While it may not necessarily match up perfect with current knowledge, the point is it shows how simply the eye can evolve. It is not too complex to be describe naturally.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 29, 2008 08:20PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 17:20, Dannydoyle wrote:


This is exactly why Stephen Jay Gould refered to the absence of transitional species in the fossil record as the "trade secret of paleontology". [/quote]

Have you read the source of the Gould quotation? Here it is in context:

""In short, Darwin argued that the geological record was exceedingly imperfect—a book with few remaining pages, few lines on each page, and few words on each line. We do not see slow evolutionary change in the fossil record because we study only one step in thousands. Change seems to be abrupt because the intermediate steps are missing.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...

[Three paragraphs about Darwin’s argument of gradualism]

...For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution of this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution—little more than a contemporary restatement of basic Darwinism—does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.
Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. If all evolutionary change occurred in this mode, life would not persist long. Phyletic evolution yields no increase in diversity, only a transformation of one thing into another. Since extinction (by extirpation, not by evolution into something else) is so common, a biota with no mechanism for increasing diversity would soon be wiped out. The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from the persisting parental stock." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Erratic Pace", Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, 1977, p. 14]
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 29, 2008 08:46PM)
Magicman226 qoute:
What about all the other creation myths man has thought to be true in history? Do we want to spend time presenting Greek, Norse, Mayan, Aztec, etc. mythology during science class instead of presenting to the youth such as myself the current scientific understanding of the natural world? Had I gotten to my AP biology class this year to find I was learning about Gaea instead of learning how cells work and how they came to be, I would be utterly infuriated. There is barely enough time to learn science itself in science class. There is no time to waste on the mythologies of cultures. Save that for a classical literature class.
[/quote]



I have no problem if evolution is taught a scientific theory, but many, if not the greater majority of teachers, teach it as an absolute, without any other possibility. They still display the poster of the ape evolving many till it is a man. That is what I have a problem with. What they should be teaching is science, instead of focusing on evolution.

Many of you that have posted have been openly passionate about what you believe. It is one thing to passionate about science but it is not scientific passionately against what other believe, when it does not harm you and is not detrimental.
Message: Posted by: abc (Sep 29, 2008 08:56PM)
We are reasoning in circles.
I don't recall anyone saying we should teach creationism or ID in science class. I question the logic of saying that ID or creationism is nonsense based on the little science we know.
I don't question the fact that humans are closely related to other primate species, I question that this is absolute proof of evolution.
Message: Posted by: spatlind (Sep 29, 2008 09:20PM)
I imagine that for something other than evolution to be taught in science class, there would need to be an accepted "idea" to be taught. Surely should proponents of another "idea" want such "idea" to be taught, they need to put forward a proposed syllabus to be taught. Does one exist? What exactly is it that they desired to be taught, or put forward?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 29, 2008 09:24PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 21:56, abc wrote:
...
I don't recall anyone saying we should teach creationism or ID in science class...
[/quote]

I wish I had such a perfect memory.

Now is it "two legs good - four legs bad" today or are we into "feathers fine - fur warmer" ... being that it's Tuesday and the moon is full.

Stories are about "how you feel". Science is about what you can measure regardless of what you feel or want to believe. Kindly respect that distinction.

Again as things stand one cannot know the intent of even one "creator" (unless you really have that much hubris or want to be called out as a false prophet) and when more than one is acting - say many - one could not tell their actions apart from random chance - and so for all practical purposes in science it seems simpler to use "random" till someone clever invents a way to reliably communicate with the creator(s) who are present at the moment and give sufficient reason to expect some constancy in their findings.

Pax
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 29, 2008 09:30PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 22:20, spatlind wrote:
I imagine that for something other than evolution to be taught in science class, there would need to be an accepted "idea" to be taught. Surely should proponents of another "idea" want such "idea" to be taught, they need to put forward a proposed syllabus to be taught. Does one exist? What exactly is it that they desired to be taught, or put forward?
[/quote]

As I recall back in 74, the BSCS book had mention of several explanations for the origin of life from panspermia to divine creation to random chance acting upon the local raw material under the conditions present. The first merely moves the questions. The second begs other questions. The third suggests a possibility of experimental verification and so is used as a starting point for purely utilitarian purposes. Now if someone gets a radio signal from elsewhere asking how their DNA test program worked out, or a working ark of the covenant that gets in touch with a god willing to answer questions... it still seems sensible to expect the most useful data from exploring option three.
Message: Posted by: magicman226 (Sep 29, 2008 10:50PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 21:46, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Magicman226 qoute:
What about all the other creation myths man has thought to be true in history? Do we want to spend time presenting Greek, Norse, Mayan, Aztec, etc. mythology during science class instead of presenting to the youth such as myself the current scientific understanding of the natural world? Had I gotten to my AP biology class this year to find I was learning about Gaea instead of learning how cells work and how they came to be, I would be utterly infuriated. There is barely enough time to learn science itself in science class. There is no time to waste on the mythologies of cultures. Save that for a classical literature class.
[/quote]



I have no problem if evolution is taught a scientific theory, but many, if not the greater majority of teachers, teach it as an absolute, without any other possibility. They still display the poster of the ape evolving many till it is a man. That is what I have a problem with. What they should be teaching is science, instead of focusing on evolution.

Many of you that have posted have been openly passionate about what you believe. It is one thing to passionate about science but it is not scientific passionately against what other believe, when it does not harm you and is not detrimental.
[/quote]

Given the theory is evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology, I don't see why it is seen as such a problem that it is taught assertively. They are teaching biology, and evolution is extremely crucial in biology. Is that such a hard concept? I find it strange that you would ask them to teach not as an absolute. I don't recall anyone really doing that. You don't know what tomorrow's evidence will bring. However, from all the knowledge we have gathered thus far, evolution is the most prominent and most well-proven theory for how life came to its current state. THAT is why it is taught in science class. Heck, two years ago I was taught a totally different system of taxonomy than I did this year. It went from 5 kingdoms to focusing on 3 domains that include the 5 kingdoms. Science is always changing. It is not as close-minded as you like to believe. Close-mindedness is poison to the scientific process. Every time a new fossil comes in or something new is learned about genetics, evolution is put up to the test. So far, it has not failed in a way that would deem the theory false. It is science. That is why that's what is taught in science class. Plus, there are in fact gaps to the theory. Not gaps that question whether it is true or not, but gaps that have holes in our knowledge on how evolution works. The theory is always changing, filling in holes and finding new holes that lead to more scientific endeavor.

Sorry the paragraph doesn't have much structure.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 29, 2008 11:04PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 21:20, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 17:20, Dannydoyle wrote:


This is exactly why Stephen Jay Gould refered to the absence of transitional species in the fossil record as the "trade secret of paleontology". [/quote]

Have you read the source of the Gould quotation? Here it is in context:

""In short, Darwin argued that the geological record was exceedingly imperfect—a book with few remaining pages, few lines on each page, and few words on each line. We do not see slow evolutionary change in the fossil record because we study only one step in thousands. Change seems to be abrupt because the intermediate steps are missing.
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology. The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils...

[Three paragraphs about Darwin’s argument of gradualism]

...For several years, Niles Eldredge of the American Museum of Natural History and I have been advocating a resolution of this uncomfortable paradox. We believe that Huxley was right in his warning. The modern theory of evolution—little more than a contemporary restatement of basic Darwinism—does not require gradual change. In fact, the operation of Darwinian processes should yield exactly what we see in the fossil record.
The history of most fossil species includes two features particularly inconsistent with gradualism:
1. Stasis. Most species exhibit no directional change during their tenure on earth. They appear in the fossil record looking much the same as when they disappear; morphological change is usually limited and directionless.
2. Sudden appearance. In any local area, a species does not arise gradually by the steady transformation of its ancestors; it appears all at once and ‘fully formed’.
Evolution proceeds in two major modes. In the first, phyletic transformation, an entire population changes from one state to another. If all evolutionary change occurred in this mode, life would not persist long. Phyletic evolution yields no increase in diversity, only a transformation of one thing into another. Since extinction (by extirpation, not by evolution into something else) is so common, a biota with no mechanism for increasing diversity would soon be wiped out. The second mode, speciation, replenishes the earth. New species branch off from the persisting parental stock." [Stephen Jay Gould, "Evolution’s Erratic Pace", Natural History, Vol. 86, No. 5, 1977, p. 14]
[/quote]
Of course I have read it in context. I particularly enjoy the word "infrence". Oddly enough the word "reasonable" is hardly scientific now is it?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 30, 2008 11:22AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 00:04, Dannydoyle wrote:

Of course I have read it in context. I particularly enjoy the word "infrence". Oddly enough the word "reasonable" is hardly scientific now is it?
[/quote]

Are you serious? Both "inference" and "reasonable" are key words in any scientific enterprise. How could you do any serious inquiry without making inferences from observation and theory? How could you distinguish electromagnetic theory from random quessing without appeals to reasonableness?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Sep 30, 2008 12:10PM)
Each word is subjective is it not?

I mean that what is "reasonable" to the creationists is God created the world period as is. What is reasonable to the Darwiniacs is Darwin no matter what. I think the word reasonable and infer, are the two main problems LOL.

I get that they are a part of all scientific inquiry, but you have to admit they are less than definate words. I simply find it ironic that very non spacific words are used for any scientific enterprise don't you?
Message: Posted by: abc (Sep 30, 2008 12:24PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 22:24, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 21:56, abc wrote:
...
I don't recall anyone saying we should teach creationism or ID in science class...
[/quote]

I wish I had such a perfect memory.

[/quote]
On this thread. That was only half of what I said in any case.

As for the rest of it, what is the point of discussing why there is a possibility of incorrect inferences if the prophets of evolution and there folowers fail to consider any of our doubts and purely make it of as stupid babble.
Who cares?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Sep 30, 2008 01:02PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 13:10, Dannydoyle wrote:
Each word is subjective is it not?

I mean that what is "reasonable" to the creationists is God created the world period as is. What is reasonable to the Darwiniacs is Darwin no matter what. I think the word reasonable and infer, are the two main problems LOL.

I get that they are a part of all scientific inquiry, but you have to admit they are less than definate words. I simply find it ironic that very non spacific words are used for any scientific enterprise don't you?
[/quote]

This is a crucial matter, exploited by many. In science the words have quite precise meanings; in common discourse they do not. Snake-oil salesmen count on the public not knowing the difference.

John
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 30, 2008 02:16PM)
Come on, every one here that agrees that man evolved from ape trough random selection and was not deliberately created, thinks anyone who believes in a god is just suppositious and lacks the intelligent of the ape in question and our opinions should be silenced.
Message: Posted by: abc (Sep 30, 2008 08:32PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 15:16, Tom Bartlett wrote:
Come on, every one here that agrees that man evolved from ape trough random selection and was not deliberately created, thinks anyone who believes in a god is just suppositious and lacks the intelligent of the ape in question and our opinions should be silenced.
[/quote]
Thank you!! and that is what annoys me. Especially since the proof seeems pretty vague.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 30, 2008 08:40PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 15:16, Tom Bartlett wrote:

Come on, every one here that agrees that man evolved from ape trough random selection and was not deliberately created, thinks anyone who believes in a god is just suppositious and lacks the intelligent of the ape in question and our opinions should be silenced.
[/quote]
I don't really believe that to be the case but I guess there is no way to prove it to you.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Sep 30, 2008 08:41PM)
English is a very precise language filled with words taken from all over the planet over a long time. Someone at work asked me today about the words dumb and stupid. I suggested they find a dictionary which explains the distinctions between right, correct, appropriate, true and valid.

Now about this very sad attempt to argue for storytime in science... it's quite ironic to find this happening among magicians who are supposed to know that people believe whatever stories that are reinforced and constantly treated as utilitarian. This is quite the opposite of what science is supposed to be about - ... yet still folks want to argue. No idea why - and I promise this is not being set up as a psychology experiment even when I wonder if the expressed vehemence might correlate to other external social factors such as doubts about other aspects of our shared social reality.

Okay - now back to bickering - and somehow staying out of the fun of having more than one intelligent designer or finding an experiment which would put us in touch with one (or more) intelligent designers so we can ask questions. :)

We're all right.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Sep 30, 2008 08:49PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 21:40, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 15:16, Tom Bartlett wrote:

Come on, every one here that agrees that man evolved from ape trough random selection and was not deliberately created, thinks anyone who believes in a god is just suppositious and lacks the intelligent of the ape in question and our opinions should be silenced.
[/quote]
I don't really believe that to be the case but I guess there is no way to prove it to you.
[/quote]

Are you speaking for everyone or just your self?
Message: Posted by: balducci (Sep 30, 2008 08:58PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 21:49, Tom Bartlett wrote:

Are you speaking for everyone or just your self?
[/quote]
Naturally, I can't speak for everyone. Just saying what I think.
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Sep 30, 2008 10:47PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 01:03, MR2Guy wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 00:05, Josh Riel wrote:
I think religion, and atheism, are just the same old methods of making life make sense that mankind have been using since the beginning of history.[/quote]

What same old mathods does religion and atheism have in common to make life make sense?

[quote] Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason.[/quote]

What same reason are you referring to?
[/quote]

I must apologize. I did not point out where the point was made. I will do so now with bbcode

On 2008-09-29 00:05, Josh Riel wrote:
I think religion, and atheism, [b]are[/b] [url]just the same old methods[/url] of making life make sense that mankind have been using since the beginning of history. Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason... [i]the reason as stated much earlier in my treatise; "making life make sense"[/i].

The point is: You're worried about the afterlife because you don't understand it. You must make that discovery eventually, but the process is final. So what do you have but rumor? Nothing.

How humanity has compensated is to make facts out of rumor... by inventing belief systems. We believe the ones that make us feel better.
If you want to feel like there will be an afterlife of perfection and happiness, you will believe whoever makes you feels the best. If you don't like the idea of a singular consciousness making decisions based on some 2-6000 year old morality that is based on questionable literature, you won't. If you want to scare people into tithing, you come up with penalties visa-a-vis hell.

If you want to make your life, in your death to have a greater meaning, you might have wanted to kill friends and family when you die. I don't see much intelligence in any one of those options.

Anyway, I've never been much for gambling, and since there are thousands of religions, insisting that without their particular religious beliefs (Which are many times mutually exclusive with other religions), adding on the belief that there is nothing, and a big bang did it all... I'm sure I'd pick the wrong one.

Since so many of you are choosing to do the god gamble, I'd like to point out that the odds are not on your side. So more than likely I will see you in wherever I end up after I die.

However, if you want me to to clarify, I must apologize. These conversations give me gas, too much ridiculous all gathered into one thread hurts my head. I'll leave this to all you who really think you know.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Oct 1, 2008 11:29AM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 23:47, Josh Riel wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 01:03, MR2Guy wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-29 00:05, Josh Riel wrote:
I think religion, and atheism, are just the same old methods of making life make sense that mankind have been using since the beginning of history.[/quote]

What same old mathods does religion and atheism have in common to make life make sense?

[quote] Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason.[/quote]

What same reason are you referring to?
[/quote]

I must apologize. I did not point out where the point was made. I will do so now with bbcode

On 2008-09-29 00:05, Josh Riel wrote:
I think religion, and atheism, [b]are[/b] [url]just the same old methods[/url] of making life make sense that mankind have been using since the beginning of history. Some rulers would kill their families and servants to give their own life's/deaths meaning. Some people have to believe in god, some simply cannot... for the same reason... [i]the reason as stated much earlier in my treatise; "making life make sense"[/i].

The point is: You're worried about the afterlife because you don't understand it. You must make that discovery eventually, but the process is final. So what do you have but rumor? Nothing.

How humanity has compensated is to make facts out of rumor... by inventing belief systems. We believe the ones that make us feel better.
If you want to feel like there will be an afterlife of perfection and happiness, you will believe whoever makes you feels the best. If you don't like the idea of a singular consciousness making decisions based on some 2-6000 year old morality that is based on questionable literature, you won't. If you want to scare people into tithing, you come up with penalties visa-a-vis hell.

If you want to make your life, in your death to have a greater meaning, you might have wanted to kill friends and family when you die. I don't see much intelligence in any one of those options.

Anyway, I've never been much for gambling, and since there are thousands of religions, insisting that without their particular religious beliefs (Which are many times mutually exclusive with other religions), adding on the belief that there is nothing, and a big bang did it all... I'm sure I'd pick the wrong one.

Since so many of you are choosing to do the god gamble, I'd like to point out that the odds are not on your side. So more than likely I will see you in wherever I end up after I die.

However, if you want me to to clarify, I must apologize. These conversations give me gas, too much ridiculous all gathered into one thread hurts my head. I'll leave this to all you who really think you know.
[/quote]

Josh,

This is just some information to dissolve the uninformed perspective some may have. In Christianity tithing is not necessary and does not get anyone to heaven, the thither is rewarded here on earth. Also in Christianity there is afterlife or afterdeath that last for all eternity no mater what anyone believes in.

If you’re not much of a gambler then Christianity is for you! If the Christians are right they will have heaven and all its glory for all eternity. If all the other religions are right, they will most certainly fell short of keeping their law and will not get to heaven. If the scientists are right and life ends when you die and that is it, you have lost nothing except living a good life without doing a lot of damage.

I know you will now bring up that religion has been the root of all wars and I will just say Christianity and other religion have been used, by man for personal gain the same way politics and science have been throughout history.

Again, this post is only to clarify some misconceptions people may have.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 1, 2008 11:36AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 12:29, Tom Bartlett wrote:

This is just some information to dissolve the uninformed perspective some may have. In Christianity tithing is not necessary and does not get anyone to heaven, the thither is rewarded here on earth. Also in Christianity there is afterlife or afterdeath that last for all eternity no mater what anyone believes in.
[/quote]
A little off topic perhaps, but I would just like to note that some Christians consider tithing to be very necessary ... some are willing to lose their homes over it:

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-09-23-tithing-housing_N.htm[/url]
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Oct 1, 2008 12:21PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 12:36, balducci wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 12:29, Tom Bartlett wrote:

This is just some information to dissolve the uninformed perspective some may have. In Christianity tithing is not necessary and does not get anyone to heaven, the thither is rewarded here on earth. Also in Christianity there is afterlife or afterdeath that last for all eternity no mater what anyone believes in.
[/quote]
A little off topic perhaps, but I would just like to note that some Christians consider tithing to be very necessary ... some are willing to lose their homes over it:

[url]http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2008-09-23-tithing-housing_N.htm[/url]
[/quote]

Yes this thread has been highjacked, I should not have responded to Josh's post.

These people made a personal choice in accordance with their faith, but to say “necessary” would be the wrong choice of words and tithing is absolutely not mandatory.

There are people that chose to lose there home so they can keep their car, they paid little or no down payment on their home and will just move to an apartment.

Which of the two reasons are nobler?
Message: Posted by: Carrie Sue (Oct 1, 2008 12:33PM)
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 14:02, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 13:10, Dannydoyle wrote:
Each word is subjective is it not?

I mean that what is "reasonable" to the creationists is God created the world period as is. What is reasonable to the Darwiniacs is Darwin no matter what. I think the word reasonable and infer, are the two main problems LOL.

I get that they are a part of all scientific inquiry, but you have to admit they are less than definate words. I simply find it ironic that very non spacific words are used for any scientific enterprise don't you?
[/quote]

This is a crucial matter, exploited by many. In science the words have quite precise meanings; in common discourse they do not. Snake-oil salesmen count on the public not knowing the difference.

John
[/quote]

Jumping into the thread here because this kind of talk fascinates me. Evolution is one of the least specific terms out there. To one person it can mean pests becoming resistant to pesticides (which no Creationist worth his salt would disbelieve), and to another it can mean an amoeba (or something similar) becoming a man over billions of supposed years of time.

Intelligent Design is really an inference from the available data -- that you don't get complex machines by accident. They have to be designed. Life itself is a complex mechanical process, and all we're saying is that a scientist should not be ridiculed if he follows the data to the conclusion that there had to be an Ultimate Designer for everything we see here.

Carrie
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 1, 2008 02:59PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 13:33, Carrie Sue wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 14:02, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-09-30 13:10, Dannydoyle wrote:
Each word is subjective is it not?

I mean that what is "reasonable" to the creationists is God created the world period as is. What is reasonable to the Darwiniacs is Darwin no matter what. I think the word reasonable and infer, are the two main problems LOL.

I get that they are a part of all scientific inquiry, but you have to admit they are less than definate words. I simply find it ironic that very non spacific words are used for any scientific enterprise don't you?
[/quote]

This is a crucial matter, exploited by many. In science the words have quite precise meanings; in common discourse they do not. Snake-oil salesmen count on the public not knowing the difference.

John
[/quote]

Jumping into the thread here because this kind of talk fascinates me. Evolution is one of the least specific terms out there. To one person it can mean pests becoming resistant to pesticides (which no Creationist worth his salt would disbelieve), and to another it can mean an amoeba (or something similar) becoming a man over billions of supposed years of time.

Intelligent Design is really an inference from the available data -- that you don't get complex machines by accident. They have to be designed. Life itself is a complex mechanical process, and all we're saying is that a scientist should not be ridiculed if he follows the data to the conclusion that there had to be an Ultimate Designer for everything we see here.

Carrie
[/quote]

Hello Carrie.

Evolution is not vague at all in the scientific literature. Please note that the phrase "an amoeba becoming a man" is clearly in contradiction to evolutionary theory. Precision is much more important in science than it is in day-to-day discourse.

As for intelligent design, we are nowhere near the point of having evidence that a creator is necessary. Do note, though, that if we were, the creator would also require explanation. If it were impossible for complex life to form without a creator, then it would also be impossible for the creator to exist without a creator, and so on.

John
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Oct 1, 2008 04:35PM)
This is where science is fallible; they put hypothetical perimeters up to work within: “If it were impossible for complex life to form without a creator, then it would also be impossible for the creator to exist without a creator, and so on."

Try this sentence instead: "If it is impossible for complex life to form as we know it to form without a creator, it does not mean that other forms of life that we know nothing about did not exists without a beginning or an end for eternity.”

I think the thought of eternity is the one thing man has the hardest time comprehending. In fact it my not even be possible for us to understand, after all everything in our short life here has a beginning and an end.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 1, 2008 05:23PM)
If you are a gambler look up Pascal's Wager.

I always said I was hedging a bet with religion. What do I lose if I am wrong in the end? Nothing. What do I gain if I am right? Wow lots.

And if I am right about religion what happens? Again a lot, but if those without it are wrong what happens? Eternity is a LONG time.

Funny how those who claim they live life by LOGIC and SCIENCE have not figured this out LOL.
Message: Posted by: balducci (Oct 1, 2008 05:34PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 18:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
If you are a gambler look up Pascal's Wager.

I always said I was hedging a bet with religion. What do I lose if I am wrong in the end? Nothing. What do I gain if I am right? Wow lots.

And if I am right about religion what happens? Again a lot, but if those without it are wrong what happens? Eternity is a LONG time.

Funny how those who claim they live life by LOGIC and SCIENCE have not figured this out LOL.
[/quote]
Actually, the many flaws in the logic behind Pascal's Wager were figured out a long time ago.
Message: Posted by: Thetruthteller (Oct 1, 2008 05:39PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 18:23, Dannydoyle wrote:
If you are a gambler look up Pascal's Wager.

I always said I was hedging a bet with religion. What do I lose if I am wrong in the end? Nothing. What do I gain if I am right? Wow lots.

And if I am right about religion what happens? Again a lot, but if those without it are wrong what happens? Eternity is a LONG time.

Funny how those who claim they live life by LOGIC and SCIENCE have not figured this out LOL.
[/quote]

So what are you going to tell Odin when he asks you why you spent your whole life worshipping the wrong God?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 1, 2008 05:39PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 18:23, Dannydoyle wrote:...
Funny how those who claim they live life by LOGIC and SCIENCE have not figured this out LOL.
[/quote]

Yes, very funny if you actually apply that reasoning and look at what follows from that wager. Here's a start for those who want to look down that path... what if you are betting on the wrong god? What have you already bet on that one? Or to continue: what if what you've been pretending to have faith in for all those years was just a test to see how much evil you are willing to perform and condone by inaction while under the impression that your "good" works (actions) are noticed much less interpreted the way you want them to be? Come on - you know you lie to others (ever told a child there's a santa?) so why can't "the creator" be lying to you just a little? You step on bugs and eat lower life forms - and so who's going to wager there can't be life of a different sort that feeds upon pain and despair? Now wager away as to just what gamble you want to take and what actions you wish to condone or perform... ;)

Once you see where Pascal's wager leads you - let's call it Pascal's Casino... you might just find you have one more addiction to face.

Instead I stand by my suggestion of treating the sentimental as its own place and encourage you to believe whatever it is that helps you get along with others and find some joy in the world. If I want horror stories I can always turn on the news or contemplate entropy.

What do you want to bet that "The Screwtape Letters" are not a work of fiction?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 1, 2008 06:16PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 17:35, Tom Bartlett wrote:
This is where science is fallible; they put hypothetical perimeters up to work within: “If it were impossible for complex life to form without a creator, then it would also be impossible for the creator to exist without a creator, and so on."[/quote]

My argument on this point has nothing to do with science; it's pure philosophy.

[quote]
Try this sentence instead: "If it is impossible for complex life to form as we know it to form without a creator, it does not mean that other forms of life that we know nothing about did not exists without a beginning or an end for eternity.” [/quote]

I can go along with you on this provided that the original claim is modified to constrain itself to "complex life as we know it". This is probably an even more difficult argument to make than the other because it would have to catalog the relevant features of all known complex life. The argument is usually given that [b]all[/b] complex life could not exist without a creator. The arguments given for this (so far as I have seen) are hopelessly weak. Certainly, though, we can safely grant each other the possibility that someone may some day show that only some kinds of complex existence are contingent upon a creator. Do you think that this has been shown?


[quote]
I think the thought of eternity is the one thing man has the hardest time comprehending. In fact it my not even be possible for us to understand, after all everything in our short life here has a beginning and an end.
[/quote]

Maybe. There are many deep and difficult thoughts to be thought.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 1, 2008 06:38PM)
Ah... but if you add time travel into the equation we could have Dennis the Menace as "the creator". How's that Mr. Wilson?
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Oct 1, 2008 11:01PM)
The wheel has always existed in nature, here are examples: a tree, by natural events falls on the side of a steep mountain and rolls down, a boulder shook lose by an earthquake rolls down the side of a mountain. These things happened for millions of years but no usable wheels naturally develop.

Up pops man, although primitive, he does not lack intelligence or the ability to reason. Now the tree and rock rolling down the side of the mountain is observed by man and he realizes this could be of great benefit to him, but progress does not happen quickly. Usable round logs and rocks are a matter of luck at first because the necessary tools to shape the wheel are not available. Man invents out of necessity, tha acquisition of food and protection from the elements are on the short list along with self-defense. Stones, sticks, bones and fire are mans first tools but I believe the thought of a wheel existed even then.

Time goes by slowly generations come and go without any great strides in making a usable wheel but with each new invention man is closer to creating it. One invention leading to the next, but without the man to creator the wheel, a log or a stone rolling down the side of a mountain are just a log or a stone rolling down the side of a mountain. Even in its simplest man made form the wheel is still more complex than what could naturally occur in nature. The building blocks may be there but with out a creator the things we take for granted today would not exist.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 2, 2008 05:11AM)
Why are some of us confusing ideas and things?

'The wheel' the name of an idea and one of the simple machines discovered and named by the ancient Greeks along with the inclined plane and lever. Things which roll ... just are.

Many animals react to fire. We seem to be the only one that goes around starting fires.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 2, 2008 08:17AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 19:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 17:35, Tom Bartlett wrote:
This is where science is fallible; they put hypothetical perimeters up to work within: “If it were impossible for complex life to form without a creator, then it would also be impossible for the creator to exist without a creator, and so on."[/quote]

My argument on this point has nothing to do with science; it's pure philosophy.

[quote]

I think this is where most of your posts confuse me at least. You tend to mix pure philosophy with science and never make the distinction.

Also you make claims like science has spacific meanings for words, then never go on to define what those are.

So for my slow witted brain (and it is believe me) what is the "scientific definition" of reasonable, and infer? Also please explain how science manages to make those definite quantities. (Please try to use as small of words as you can manage for me at least)

How do those definitions differ from what just "people" ue them as?
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 2, 2008 11:01AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-02 09:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 19:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 17:35, Tom Bartlett wrote:
This is where science is fallible; they put hypothetical perimeters up to work within: “If it were impossible for complex life to form without a creator, then it would also be impossible for the creator to exist without a creator, and so on."[/quote]

My argument on this point has nothing to do with science; it's pure philosophy.

[quote]

I think this is where most of your posts confuse me at least. You tend to mix pure philosophy with science and never make the distinction. [/quote]

If I am ever unclear about a particular point, just ask. I'm here for honest, intelligent conversation.

[quote]
Also you make claims like science has spacific meanings for words, then never go on to define what those are.[/quote]

I will do my best, if you like. Keep in mind that any serious academic activity requires years of training; quick glosses never quite get to the heart of the matter. There is no substitute for plain hard work when it comes to understanding.

[quote]
So for my slow witted brain (and it is believe me) what is the "scientific definition" of reasonable, and infer? Also please explain how science manages to make those definite quantities. (Please try to use as small of words as you can manage for me at least)

How do those definitions differ from what just "people" ue them as?
[/quote]

I'll do my best in a short space; no doubt someone will pick at every possible nit; I can't be as comprehensive as a science education in a few paragraphs.

There are two basic families of inference: deductive and inductive. Valid deductive inferences take some propositions about states of affairs and make logically irrefutable conclusions from them.

e.g.
1. All mammals have hearts.
2. Danny Doyle is a mammal.
3. Therefore, Danny Doyle has a heart.

If the premisses (1 and 2) are true, then it follows by the [i]form[/i] of the argument that the conclusion (3) must also be true.

The basic rules of deductive logic have been well understood since Aristotle. The theory underwent significant expansion and development in the early 20th century, and work still continues. For most purposes, though, our deductive inferences in science are fairly easy to understand.

The second type of inference crucial to science is the inductive inference. Here the situation is less clear. To make inductive inferences we look at the world and take note of regularities, then try our best to make sense of them.

e.g. I boil water at my home and discover that it boils at 98 degrees C. I repeat this experiment every day for a month and discover that it always boils at 98 degrees C. I make the inductive inference that water boils at 98 degrees in Edmonton.

Clearly this is less satisfying than a deductive inference. There are so many ways I could be falsely generalizing. Maybe it was an odd month. Maybe my thermometer was malfunctioning. Maybe malign genies were messing with my mind, making me only think that the water was boiling when it was not. There is no end to the list of possible objections, even if most of them are simply silly. This is where reasonableness comes in.

My induction about the temperature of boiling water is only as strong as the [i]reasons[/i] I can give for it. If I say, "it just seems so to me" this is not scientifically convincing. I may or may not be correct, but I am not adequately justifying my inference. If, however, I can produce relevant evidence to provide deductive support for my claim, then my claim becomes scientifically respectable (even though it might still be incorrect).

To support my inference that water boils at 98C in Edmonton, I can appeal to the purity of my water samples, to the Ideal Gas Law, to the altitude of my city, to historical measurements, and other principles.

Note that inductive inferences are always open to challenge. The better they withstand scrutiny, the more reliable they are. New evidence, or new understandings can always be invoked to challenge established inductive inferences, no matter how cherished they may be.

Thank you for asking. I hope that my little summary helps us to continue talking.

John
Message: Posted by: abc (Oct 2, 2008 12:08PM)
Not that I am taking Danny's side here but,
We have determined that Chimps and Humans share retrovirus consistencies therefore we can deduce that they are related to the same ancestor yet we only recently discovered that Aids (A retro virus) actually dates back to the late 19th century or early 20th century and we only discovered that AFTER we conclusively dedused that we are related to other primates based on evidence from retor viruses that we obviously still don't understand.
So please excuse us for questioning your inductive reasoning and inductive inferences.
PS. John, please do not take this as a stab at you. You are actually one of the few people whom I would get involved in an argument with on this board because you don't post rubbish.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 2, 2008 12:28PM)
Tom has PMed me indicating that I have misinterpreted his meaning here. I apologize for that. I now believe that Tom did not wish to champion the bit starting with "Try this sentence instead..." but rather to raise it for criticism.

Again, I apologize to Tom for misreading his post and for posting a response that make him appear to hold a position that he does not.

John


[quote]
On 2008-10-01 19:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 17:35, Tom Bartlett wrote:
This is where science is fallible; they put hypothetical perimeters up to work within: “If it were impossible for complex life to form without a creator, then it would also be impossible for the creator to exist without a creator, and so on."[/quote]

My argument on this point has nothing to do with science; it's pure philosophy.

[quote]
Try this sentence instead: "If it is impossible for complex life to form as we know it to form without a creator, it does not mean that other forms of life that we know nothing about did not exists without a beginning or an end for eternity.” [/quote]

I can go along with you on this provided that the original claim is modified to constrain itself to "complex life as we know it". This is probably an even more difficult argument to make than the other because it would have to catalog the relevant features of all known complex life. The argument is usually given that [b]all[/b] complex life could not exist without a creator. The arguments given for this (so far as I have seen) are hopelessly weak. Certainly, though, we can safely grant each other the possibility that someone may some day show that only some kinds of complex existence are contingent upon a creator. Do you think that this has been shown?


[quote]
I think the thought of eternity is the one thing man has the hardest time comprehending. In fact it my not even be possible for us to understand, after all everything in our short life here has a beginning and an end.
[/quote]

Maybe. There are many deep and difficult thoughts to be thought.
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 2, 2008 12:29PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-02 13:28, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
Tom has PMed me indicating that I have misinterpreted his meaning here. I apologize for that. I now believe that Tom did not wish to champion the bit starting with "Try this sentence instead..." but rather to raise it for criticism.

Again, I apologize to Tom for misreading his post and for posting a response that made him appear to hold a position that he does not.

John


[quote]
On 2008-10-01 19:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 17:35, Tom Bartlett wrote:
This is where science is fallible; they put hypothetical perimeters up to work within: “If it were impossible for complex life to form without a creator, then it would also be impossible for the creator to exist without a creator, and so on."[/quote]

My argument on this point has nothing to do with science; it's pure philosophy.

[quote]
Try this sentence instead: "If it is impossible for complex life to form as we know it to form without a creator, it does not mean that other forms of life that we know nothing about did not exists without a beginning or an end for eternity.” [/quote]

I can go along with you on this provided that the original claim is modified to constrain itself to "complex life as we know it". This is probably an even more difficult argument to make than the other because it would have to catalog the relevant features of all known complex life. The argument is usually given that [b]all[/b] complex life could not exist without a creator. The arguments given for this (so far as I have seen) are hopelessly weak. Certainly, though, we can safely grant each other the possibility that someone may some day show that only some kinds of complex existence are contingent upon a creator. Do you think that this has been shown?


[quote]
I think the thought of eternity is the one thing man has the hardest time comprehending. In fact it my not even be possible for us to understand, after all everything in our short life here has a beginning and an end.
[/quote]

Maybe. There are many deep and difficult thoughts to be thought.
[/quote]
[/quote]
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 2, 2008 12:39PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-02 12:01, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-02 09:17, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 19:16, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 17:35, Tom Bartlett wrote:
This is where science is fallible; they put hypothetical perimeters up to work within: “If it were impossible for complex life to form without a creator, then it would also be impossible for the creator to exist without a creator, and so on."[/quote]

My argument on this point has nothing to do with science; it's pure philosophy.

[quote]

I think this is where most of your posts confuse me at least. You tend to mix pure philosophy with science and never make the distinction. [/quote]

If I am ever unclear about a particular point, just ask. I'm here for honest, intelligent conversation.

[quote]
Also you make claims like science has spacific meanings for words, then never go on to define what those are.[/quote]

I will do my best, if you like. Keep in mind that any serious academic activity requires years of training; quick glosses never quite get to the heart of the matter. There is no substitute for plain hard work when it comes to understanding.

[quote]
So for my slow witted brain (and it is believe me) what is the "scientific definition" of reasonable, and infer? Also please explain how science manages to make those definite quantities. (Please try to use as small of words as you can manage for me at least)

How do those definitions differ from what just "people" ue them as?
[/quote]

I'll do my best in a short space; no doubt someone will pick at every possible nit; I can't be as comprehensive as a science education in a few paragraphs.

There are two basic families of inference: deductive and inductive. Valid deductive inferences take some propositions about states of affairs and make logically irrefutable conclusions from them.

e.g.
1. All mammals have hearts.
2. Danny Doyle is a mammal.
3. Therefore, Danny Doyle has a heart.

If the premisses (1 and 2) are true, then it follows by the [i]form[/i] of the argument that the conclusion (3) must also be true.

The basic rules of deductive logic have been well understood since Aristotle. The theory underwent significant expansion and development in the early 20th century, and work still continues. For most purposes, though, our deductive inferences in science are fairly easy to understand.

The second type of inference crucial to science is the inductive inference. Here the situation is less clear. To make inductive inferences we look at the world and take note of regularities, then try our best to make sense of them.

e.g. I boil water at my home and discover that it boils at 98 degrees C. I repeat this experiment every day for a month and discover that it always boils at 98 degrees C. I make the inductive inference that water boils at 98 degrees in Edmonton.

Clearly this is less satisfying than a deductive inference. There are so many ways I could be falsely generalizing. Maybe it was an odd month. Maybe my thermometer was malfunctioning. Maybe malign genies were messing with my mind, making me only think that the water was boiling when it was not. There is no end to the list of possible objections, even if most of them are simply silly. This is where reasonableness comes in.

My induction about the temperature of boiling water is only as strong as the [i]reasons[/i] I can give for it. If I say, "it just seems so to me" this is not scientifically convincing. I may or may not be correct, but I am not adequately justifying my inference. If, however, I can produce relevant evidence to provide deductive support for my claim, then my claim becomes scientifically respectable (even though it might still be incorrect).

To support my inference that water boils at 98C in Edmonton, I can appeal to the purity of my water samples, to the Ideal Gas Law, to the altitude of my city, to historical measurements, and other principles.

Note that inductive inferences are always open to challenge. The better they withstand scrutiny, the more reliable they are. New evidence, or new understandings can always be invoked to challenge established inductive inferences, no matter how cherished they may be.

Thank you for asking. I hope that my little summary helps us to continue talking.

John
[/quote]

It is said that you should never ask 2 questions in a letter, because the recipient will invariably answer the question you would need explained less LOL. Not a scientific principal, more of a joke email.

But you have indeed made this come true, in a fantastically condecending manner thank you very much.

So now how is it you can "quantify" inference, and more importantly, and really at the heart of the matter "reasonably". The word reasonably is one of great debate is it not?

Oh and try to be a bit more condecending if you can, I can never get enough of that from you.

So let me see if I get this.

1) God is love
2) love is blind
3) Ray Charles is blind
4) Ray Charles is God.

Clear as mud.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 2, 2008 12:44PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-02 13:39, Dannydoyle wrote:


It is said that you should never ask 2 questions in a letter, because the recipient will invariably answer the question you would need explained less LOL. Not a scientific principal, more of a joke email.

But you have indeed made this come true, in a fantastically condecending manner thank you very much.

So now how is it you can "quantify" inference, and more importantly, and really at the heart of the matter "reasonably". The word reasonably is one of great debate is it not?

Oh and try to be a bit more condecending if you can, I can never get enough of that from you.

So let me see if I get this.

1) God is love
2) love is blind
3) Ray Charles is blind
4) Ray Charles is God.

Clear as mud.
[/quote]

I took you seriously. Apparently that isn't what you wanted. Good bye Mr. Doyle.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 2, 2008 12:58PM)
For the record, I was not attempting to "infer" "deduct" or PROVE in any way that Ray Charles was is or ever will be God.

We all know Spiderman is.
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Oct 2, 2008 10:57PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-01 13:21, Tom Bartlett wrote:

Yes this thread has been highjacked, I should not have responded to Josh's post.
[/quote]

I laughed when I read that. My post was merely an extension of the current topic of conversation. Albeit a unlikeable point considering the polarized discussion of people with their thumbs in their ears and finger a-going.

You brought up tithing. When a point that shadowed the tradition of tithing poorly, you called me the hijacker...

If there are two points of view that conflict, and the proponents insist only one is right, then one must be right... or both may be wrong.

I'm just sayin'.
I don't bet any one's listnin'
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Oct 2, 2008 11:03PM)
Josh,

We need to hear from you more often. You so seldom post anymore and always manage to shine light in the dark corners of pointless discussions,

Destiny
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 2, 2008 11:12PM)
[quote]

1) God is love
2) love is blind
3) Ray Charles is blind
4) Ray Charles is God.

[/quote]

This is plainly wrong.

Everyone knows its

god is Life
Life is Pain
Payne is god
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Oct 2, 2008 11:21PM)
This reminds me of my biggest issue with faith, my wife; she's an agnostic. An unrelated side point, she is also dyslexic. She has been suffering with amnesia lately and stays awake all night wondering if there is a dog...
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 2, 2008 11:23PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-03 00:12, Payne wrote:
[quote]

1) God is love
2) love is blind
3) Ray Charles is blind
4) Ray Charles is God.

[/quote]

This is plainly wrong.

Everyone knows its

god is Life
Life is Pain
Payne is god
[/quote]

Payne is aptly named. LOL. (that was funny to me, I have been up WAY too long sorry, it was meant purley as a joke.)
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Oct 2, 2008 11:25PM)
Payne is [b][i]A[/i][/b] God. Don't trust the versions, trust the translations.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Oct 2, 2008 11:28PM)
Josh I did not say you Highjacked the thread. I did by focusing on one part of your post..
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Oct 2, 2008 11:32PM)
Oh, well my bad.
Message: Posted by: Tom Bartlett (Oct 2, 2008 11:36PM)
At least you are back giving what we all deserve.
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Oct 2, 2008 11:42PM)
On and off. Sometimes I get the rare urge to come back and fill the boards with my inane blather.
Message: Posted by: abc (Oct 3, 2008 01:39AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-03 00:42, Josh Riel wrote:
On and off. Sometimes I get the rare urge to come back and fill the boards with my inane blather.
[/quote]
But your choice of words and flawless spelling is poetry in action. Is the credit cruch getting to you or do you eat dictionaries for fun?
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Oct 4, 2008 03:34AM)
I drink.
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 4, 2008 11:33AM)
My 3 favourite posters are Josh Riel, Josh the Superfluous and Plastic Destiny. I hope one day to meet each of you and buy you a drink for the joy you bring.

John
Message: Posted by: Dan Paulus (Oct 13, 2008 01:50PM)
[quote]
Everyone knows its

god is Life
Life is Pain
Payne is god
[/quote]

Payne, to put up with the crap that dannydoyle dishes out, not to mention his direct assaults on you (what did you do? date his sister at one time?) you may not be a god, but I think you qualify for saint... or a least, martyr!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 13, 2008 02:18PM)
Actually he WOULD NOT DATE MY SISTER! That is what irked me!

What a jerk. LOL. Thanks Payne.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 13, 2008 03:10PM)
Yes but I still want to know

If all men were brothers would you let one date your sister?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 13, 2008 03:19PM)
Hey man someone has to do it Payne, it may as well be YOU! Are all men brothers? Man sometimes I fail to see the resemblence.
Message: Posted by: Destiny (Oct 13, 2008 06:41PM)
[quote]My 3 favourite posters are Josh Riel, Josh the Superfluous and Plastic Destiny. I hope one day to meet each of you and buy you a drink for the joy you bring. [/quote]

My surname is Jones - I quite look forward to booking a table for Josh, Josh, John and Jones.

Destiny
Message: Posted by: Magic Spank (Oct 14, 2008 11:40AM)
As evidence against evolution continues to grow, scientists start making excuses:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece

See... monkeys don't turn into people anymore because ummmm.. it's over! How convenient. It ended right as the world is about to get all globally warm and kill everybody.

Yeah... that's the ticket.

Evolution is something you learn from a book. If you use your own brain instead of relying on others to put thoughts in your head it's quite obviously a ridiculous theory. Intelligent design or not, evolution is still just a theory.
Message: Posted by: kcg5 (Oct 14, 2008 12:28PM)
And religion isn't something you learn from a book? its an insult to imply that we who believe in evolution don't use our brains. I might say the same about some religious people, but I wont... some of the things in the bible might not have happened....
Message: Posted by: abc (Oct 14, 2008 01:21PM)
There are also those who believe that evolution as a scientific theory holds water but dispute the possibility that it is the definite origin of life. So now I have been called stupid by two people....actually three, I call myself stupid fairly often.
Message: Posted by: Nosher (Oct 14, 2008 05:33PM)
Without a doubt the most depressing thread I've ever read...
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 14, 2008 05:35PM)
How are folks doing in getting to see the movie? It's due out on DVD real soon.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 14, 2008 05:42PM)
Wait, I thought we were past evolution and talking about why Payne would not date my sitster?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 14, 2008 05:54PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-14 12:40, Magic Spank wrote:
... Intelligent design or not, evolution is still just a theory.
[/quote]

Yes, just about the same as gravity. Now whether there are gravitons or invisible imps it happens that Newton's inverse square equation does a pretty darned good job of permitting folks to predict projectile trajectories, planetary motions and much more. But it's still just a theory and if those invisible imps start talking to us or change their mind about what they do...
Message: Posted by: abc (Oct 14, 2008 10:46PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-14 18:42, Dannydoyle wrote:
Wait, I thought we were past evolution and talking about why Payne would not date my sitster?
[/quote]
Now would "sitster" be a female sitter or sister who likes to sit. Either way why do you even have one? and why would Payne date your sitter or sister?
Message: Posted by: Josh Riel (Oct 14, 2008 11:02PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-14 12:40, Magic Spank wrote:
As evidence against evolution continues to grow, scientists start making excuses:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece

See... monkeys don't turn into people anymore because ummmm.. it's over! How convenient. It ended right as the world is about to get all globally warm and kill everybody.

Yeah... that's the ticket.

Evolution is something you learn from a book. If you use your own brain instead of relying on others to put thoughts in your head it's quite obviously a ridiculous theory. Intelligent design or not, evolution is still just a theory.
[/quote]


Hmm, what you learn from another book?
This guy was made from dirt, this chick was made from this guys rib, this snake talked this chick into eating something off a tree that was bad, chick does, guy is whipped and eats bad tree fruit too, they realise they are naked, kicked out.

Snake though was really invisible dude, made without flaw, somehow developed flaw although if made without flaw shouldn't break in the first place (Not in book, sorry), biggest invisible dude says :"Not my fault invisible snake guy bad, dude bad, chick bad", we suffer, children suffer, good people suffer, everyone suffers, it's our fault because we were born, let [i]son[/i] die to make it all better, we still suffer, I go to hell.

So yeah, throwing stones in a glass house.

One day everyone will die and realize that you are all wrong.

Except the Mormons. South Park said the Mormons were right. And me, I'm right too (Obviously)

In case no one realizes, I don't care. But I think it's funny when crazy people argue. I want to keep it going.
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 15, 2008 01:10PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-14 12:40, Magic Spank wrote:
As evidence against evolution continues to grow, scientists start making excuses:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article4894696.ece

See... monkeys don't turn into people anymore because ummmm.. it's over! How convenient. It ended right as the world is about to get all globally warm and kill everybody.
[/quote]

This is the first sign that someone doesn't really understand the theory of evolution.

Monkeys never turned into people.

Primitive primates evolved into; Apes, gibbons, chimpanzees, ourang-otangs, various other classifications of primates, AND people based on their evolutionary pressures and abilities.

[quote]
Yeah... that's the ticket.
[/quote]

Yep.

[quote]
Evolution is something you learn from a book. If you use your own brain instead of relying on others to put thoughts in your head it's quite obviously a ridiculous theory. Intelligent design or not, evolution is still just a theory.
[/quote]

Evolution is the theory that best fits the given body of evidence. God didn't sign the glaciers people, so if you choose to blieve in ID, you'll have to explain to be what evidence (not "it's in the Bible") holds up that belief.
Message: Posted by: Dan Paulus (Oct 15, 2008 01:33PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-14 12:40, Magic Spank wrote:


Evolution is something you learn from a book. If you use your own brain instead of relying on others to put thoughts in your head it's quite obviously a ridiculous theory. Intelligent design or not, evolution is still just a theory.
[/quote]

Our books are newer than your books. :kermit:

We also update them on a regular basis to include new evidence.
And don't forget... we also have the fossils, carbon dating, dna evidence, and Carl Sagan.
You have... ummm... 4000 year old story books and... Sarah Palin?
Message: Posted by: MR2Guy (Oct 15, 2008 10:50PM)
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District put the nail in the coffin for considering creationism as science.

Of particular interest was the book Of Pandas and People, a book purporting creationism trying to be slipped into the classroom under the guise of science.

When the drafts of the book Of Pandas and People was discovered and analyzed, it was overwhelmingly clear that the later books had the term Intelligent Design substituted for Creation in every instance. This is after Edwards v. Aguillard — was decided by the Supreme Court in 1987. The court determined that teaching creationism in public schools violated the Establishment Clause of the United States constitution, but that alternative scientific theories could be taught. This offered an opening for those willing to recast creationist doctrine in the language of science. The term Intelligent Design was coined to side step the rulings and try again to enter the science classroom with a religious agenda.

This word substitution is telling, significant, and reveals that a purposeful change of words was effected without any corresponding change in content .... The weight of the evidence clearly demonstrates, as noted, that the systemic change from “creation” to “intelligent design” occurred sometime in 1987, after the Supreme Court’s important Edwards decision.

The overwhelming evidence at trial established that ID is a religious view, a mere re-labeling of creationism, and not a scientific theory.

My point is I don't see any reason to even consider the theory of Intelligent Design separate from the religious teachings of creationism.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 15, 2008 11:31PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-15 23:50, MR2Guy wrote:
Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District put the nail in the coffin for considering creationism as science.
[/quote]

Did anyone really consider creationism science in the first place? I must have missed that part LOL.
Message: Posted by: Terry Holley (Oct 17, 2008 08:14PM)
Wow. How did I miss this thread all these months?

Some of you may remember that I started the "Just Saw Expelled" thread the night that "Expelled" opened (April 18?). We had quite an interesting dialogue going (I think it may have been over 20 pages) until it was completely deleted. I wish I had saved it as there were some very insightful posts.

I'm wondering how and why this one has kept going while that one was annihilated?

By the way, if anyone kept a copy of those many posts, I'd like to have them sent my way. I would like to know what I said!

Terry
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 17, 2008 08:36PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-17 21:14, Terry Holley wrote:

I'm wondering how and why this one has kept going while that one was annihilated?

[/quote]

Because you know who hasn't been in here much talking about how one can justify the genocide of an indigenous people. :}
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 17, 2008 09:13PM)
Payne, yep, and what about my sister? LOL.
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 17, 2008 09:22PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-17 22:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
Payne, yep, and what about my sister? LOL.
[/quote]

Yeah Payne, what about his sister?
Message: Posted by: MAKMagic (Oct 17, 2008 10:49PM)
I've seen you guys talk about you know who...who the heck are you guys talking about? Someone PM me.

Anyway...to stay on topic...while I don't buy the story about just snapping your fingers for 7 days and creating the earth. I also don't necessarilly buy the that all this stuff we do now is just a big accident. I mean, I talked to someone from the UK on my cell phone today. I talked into a square piece of plastic and someone thousands of miles away hear me in their piece of plastic. That's AWESOME, and while it IS science...Who's to say God isn't behind science? Not I for certain...I think it's A LOT crazier to be SURE there's NOT something more than this out there than it is to be SURE there IS. I know the movie itself wasn't all that much, but a great line to take away from the MIB is [i]"Fifteen hundred years ago everyone knew the world was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, eveyone knew the earth was flat, adn fifteen mintues ago you KNEW we were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."[/i]
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 17, 2008 10:58PM)
But MAK, one of the basic tenets is you take the book as is or you lose the integrity behind the faith itself.

Then again since there are 6.02*10**23 (a very large number) gods in a mole and none of them seem able to use a telephone it might be more productive to just take the world as you experience it and try to figure out how it came to be from the evidence at hand.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 18, 2008 02:08AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-17 23:49, MAKMagic wrote:

I think it's A LOT crazier to be SURE there's NOT something more than this out there than it is to be SURE there IS.

[/quote]

Some think it's a LOT crazier to be SURE that there is something more rather than to say they JUST don't KNOW.

I'll keep to the default position of admittedly not knowing if there is "something more" until I have been presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 18, 2008 02:23AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-17 22:22, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-17 22:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
Payne, yep, and what about my sister? LOL.
[/quote]

Yeah Payne, what about his sister?
[/quote]

If he wants her back he's going to just have to pony up that ransom.

I hope it's soon as my wife will be back from vacation Sunday and it's going to be tough to explain why I've got someone duct taped to a chair in the basement.
Message: Posted by: Terry Holley (Oct 18, 2008 09:36AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 03:08, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-17 23:49, MAKMagic wrote:

I think it's A LOT crazier to be SURE there's NOT something more than this out there than it is to be SURE there IS.

[/quote]

Some think it's a LOT crazier to be SURE that there is something more rather than to say they JUST don't KNOW.

I'll keep to the default position of admittedly not knowing if there is "something more" until I have been presented with sufficient evidence to the contrary.
[/quote]

So Payne, please tell us very specifically what [b]the[/b] "sufficient evidence" would be.

Terry
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 18, 2008 10:00AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-17 23:49, MAKMagic wrote:
I've seen you guys talk about you know who...who the heck are you guys talking about? Someone PM me.

Anyway...to stay on topic...while I don't buy the story about just snapping your fingers for 7 days and creating the earth. I also don't necessarilly buy the that all this stuff we do now is just a big accident. I mean, I talked to someone from the UK on my cell phone today. I talked into a square piece of plastic and someone thousands of miles away hear me in their piece of plastic. That's AWESOME, and while it IS science...Who's to say God isn't behind science? Not I for certain...I think it's A LOT crazier to be SURE there's NOT something more than this out there than it is to be SURE there IS. I know the movie itself wasn't all that much, but a great line to take away from the MIB is [i]"Fifteen hundred years ago everyone knew the world was the center of the universe. Five hundred years ago, eveyone knew the earth was flat, adn fifteen mintues ago you KNEW we were alone on this planet. Imagine what you'll know tomorrow."[/i]
[/quote]

I used to have a signature on my bulletin board posts; "Evolution is God's toolbox" which seemed to tick off both sides of the argument!

Payne;

GOD: I refuse to prove that I exist, for proof denies faith and without faith I am nothing.

MAN: Ah! But the "bable fish" is a dead giveaway isn't it? It proves you exist and so therefore you don't, Q.E.D.

GOD: Oh, I hadn't thought of that! (and promptly disappears in a puff of logic.)

The nature of faith is that it exists without evidence. I don't have a problem with that as long as someone doesn't use it to screw up their (or usually) somone ELSE'S lives!
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 18, 2008 10:31AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 03:23, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-17 22:22, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-17 22:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
Payne, yep, and what about my sister? LOL.
[/quote]

Yeah Payne, what about his sister?
[/quote]

If he wants her back he's going to just have to pony up that ransom.

I hope it's soon as my wife will be back from vacation Sunday and it's going to be tough to explain why I've got someone duct taped to a chair in the basement.
[/quote]

Don't you think 12 bucks is a lot in this economy?
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 18, 2008 10:55AM)
[quote]

The nature of faith is that it exists without evidence. I don't have a problem with that as long as someone doesn't use it to screw up their (or usually) somone ELSE'S lives!

[/quote]

I agree. Simply because I don't seem to posess the attribute known as faith doesn't mean that I can't see the good (and harm) it does for people.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 18, 2008 11:00AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 10:36, Terry Holley wrote:

So Payne, please tell us very specifically what [b]the[/b] "sufficient evidence" would be.

Terry
[/quote]

It knows percisely what "specific evidence" I require. So far it has yet to manifest it for me. If it can't be bothered to perform this one simple task I see little reason to start accepting its existence simply on faith alone.
Message: Posted by: MAKMagic (Oct 18, 2008 11:47AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 11:31, Dannydoyle wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 03:23, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-17 22:22, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-17 22:13, Dannydoyle wrote:
Payne, yep, and what about my sister? LOL.
[/quote]

Yeah Payne, what about his sister?
[/quote]

If he wants her back he's going to just have to pony up that ransom.

I hope it's soon as my wife will be back from vacation Sunday and it's going to be tough to explain why I've got someone duct taped to a chair in the basement.
[/quote]

Don't you think 12 bucks is a lot in this economy?
[/quote]

LOL
Message: Posted by: Terry Holley (Oct 18, 2008 11:54AM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 12:00, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 10:36, Terry Holley wrote:

So Payne, please tell us very specifically what [b]the[/b] "sufficient evidence" would be.

Terry
[/quote]

It knows percisely what "specific evidence" I require. So far it has yet to manifest it for me. If it can't be bothered to perform this one simple task I see little reason to start accepting its existence simply on faith alone.
[/quote]

It sounds like you are stating that old idea of, "If there is a God, then show yourself to me by _________ ______ ________ (fill in the blanks).

So if I say something like, "If there is a God, then show yourself to me by letting me win the lottery," and I win it, then you would agree that I have just come across sufficient evidence that God exists (at least for me), would you not?

Sounds pretty subjective to me and hard for me to believe you would set something like that up as your sufficient evidence.

Terry
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2008 12:14PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 10:36, Terry Holley wrote:


So Payne, please tell us very specifically what [b]the[/b] "sufficient evidence" would be.

Terry
[/quote]

This the sort of willful ignorance that makes these discussions so frustrating. Did Payne say that there was one ([b}the[/b] piece of evidence that was required?

More to the point, a modest amount of reflection will indicate that the evidence required for convincing is different in different cases. Evidence of the Pythagorean Theorem is very difference from the evidence that cholera is caused by a bacterium. Evidence for the existence of Zeus, Yahweh or Allah is likely different from either of these cases. The thing is, we can only evaluate evidence after it is presented.

A better question would be: What evidence convinces you that any particular god or gods exist? Perhaps that evidence is convincing; perhaps not.

John
Message: Posted by: Terry Holley (Oct 18, 2008 12:49PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 13:14, Magnus Eisengrim wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 10:36, Terry Holley wrote:


So Payne, please tell us very specifically what [b]the[/b] "sufficient evidence" would be.

Terry
[/quote]

This the sort of willful ignorance that makes these discussions so frustrating. Did Payne say that there was one ([b}the[/b] piece of evidence that was required?

More to the point, a modest amount of reflection will indicate that the evidence required for convincing is different in different cases. Evidence of the Pythagorean Theorem is very difference from the evidence that cholera is caused by a bacterium. Evidence for the existence of Zeus, Yahweh or Allah is likely different from either of these cases. The thing is, we can only evaluate evidence after it is presented.

A better question would be: What evidence convinces you that any particular god or gods exist? Perhaps that evidence is convincing; perhaps not.

John
[/quote]

John:

Your responses to me in the old "Expelled" thread that was deleted were couched in the same verbiage ("willful ignorance", etc). Contrary to some of the posts here, I'm not convinced that thread was deleted because of "You know who." The thread was actually deleted shortly after some of your responses to me that were in the same vein as the one above.

I asked a question to Payne and I prefer to let Payne speak for himself. As we all know, he's very capable of it.

I'm very open to allow you to ask your own questions, but please don't attempt to rephrase mine.

Thank you,

Terry
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 18, 2008 02:11PM)
Ah yes, the magic words "willful ignorance" summon the demon "belicose" who posesses a Café member and gets them to type in text belligerent text. shame on you - get some exorcise.

now where were with Payne's sister and whether or not seeing the movie is worth 12 bucks?
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 18, 2008 02:57PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 11:55, Payne wrote:
[quote]

The nature of faith is that it exists without evidence. I don't have a problem with that as long as someone doesn't use it to screw up their (or usually) somone ELSE'S lives!

[/quote]

I agree. Simply because I don't seem to posess the attribute known as faith doesn't mean that I can't see the good (and harm) it does for people.
[/quote]

See I see nothing at all wrong with this position in truth. You are right you do not posess the attribute named faith, BUT faith can move mountians, or it can alternativly move people to unspeakable acts. (I think that is the good and harm covered LOL)

You choose to put your faith elsewhere, and I fail to see why, at least in America, you should be forced to accept otherwise. (This comming from one of the "faithful")
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 18, 2008 04:47PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 13:49, Terry Holley wrote:


Your responses to me in the old "Expelled" thread that was deleted were couched in the same verbiage ("willful ignorance", etc). Contrary to some of the posts here, I'm not convinced that thread was deleted because of "You know who." [/quote]

Actually I don't remember who.

[quote]
The thread was actually deleted shortly after some of your responses to me that were in the same vein as the one above.[/quote]

Ok. Can you bring forward an example?

[quote]
I asked a question to Payne and I prefer to let Payne speak for himself. As we all know, he's very capable of it.

I'm very open to allow you to ask your own questions, but please don't attempt to rephrase mine.

Thank you,

Terry
[/quote]

I certainly would not ever answer for someone else. My comment has only to do with your rhetoric. As a participant in the discussion, I believe that my responses to issues raised are as relevant as anyone else's.

Sorry you don't think that open responses are appropriate in an open forum.

John
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 18, 2008 05:15PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 12:54, Terry Holley wrote:

It sounds like you are stating that old idea of, "If there is a God, then show yourself to me by _________ ______ ________ (fill in the blanks).

So if I say something like, "If there is a God, then show yourself to me by letting me win the lottery," and I win it, then you would agree that I have just come across sufficient evidence that God exists (at least for me), would you not?

Sounds pretty subjective to me and hard for me to believe you would set something like that up as your sufficient evidence.

Terry
[/quote]

But I have no idea what would make me acquire such a faith and begin to believe in a deity. I really can't think of anything that could. However the force you have named God, if it is indeed "all knowing" knows precisely what it would take for me to accept its existence as fact. Since up to this point in time it has failed to present me with what ever it is that would give me even the slightest reason to believe in it I have to conclude that either it really doesn't care if I believe in it or not or more than likely it simply doesn't exist.
Message: Posted by: Dannydoyle (Oct 18, 2008 05:21PM)
I thought the very idea of "free will" which is accepted by the religious, precludes you being forced into having faith right?
Message: Posted by: Jonathan Townsend (Oct 18, 2008 05:47PM)
Why yes DannyD... you have free will to accept any of the gods as creator - or any collection of them ... and no grounds what so ever to presume ill of anyone who chooses differently than you - presuming you choose freely and knowingly and not just as you were told... in which case you did not have or exercise free will now did you? hmmmm?

Don't fume so loudly - you might wake Cthuhlu.

Now how would one know if one had free will? Until we have a way to test for free will it may was well be "listening to the mini-spaghetti-monster-in-my-ear".

This was just my long playful way of getting us back to the basic issue - that in science you don't get to add stuff to the common model until you can reliably test for it's presence and absence and detect a difference between the two states. And that's a bare minimum condition.
Message: Posted by: Payne (Oct 18, 2008 06:58PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 18:21, Dannydoyle wrote:
I thought the very idea of "free will" which is accepted by the religious, precludes you being forced into having faith right?
[/quote]

Try telling that to a Calvinist
Message: Posted by: ed rhodes (Oct 19, 2008 01:09PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 18:15, Payne wrote:
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 12:54, Terry Holley wrote:

It sounds like you are stating that old idea of, "If there is a God, then show yourself to me by _________ ______ ________ (fill in the blanks).

So if I say something like, "If there is a God, then show yourself to me by letting me win the lottery," and I win it, then you would agree that I have just come across sufficient evidence that God exists (at least for me), would you not?

Sounds pretty subjective to me and hard for me to believe you would set something like that up as your sufficient evidence.

Terry
[/quote]

But I have no idea what would make me acquire such a faith and begin to believe in a deity. I really can't think of anything that could. However the force you have named God, if it is indeed "all knowing" knows precisely what it would take for me to accept its existence as fact. Since up to this point in time it has failed to present me with what ever it is that would give me even the slightest reason to believe in it I have to conclude that either it really doesn't care if I believe in it or not or more than likely it simply doesn't exist.
[/quote]

But! Since he seems to want to be accepted on faith, he's not going to provide any evidence that would be accepted without faith.

Harlan Ellison had a story that had [b]nothing[/b] to do with religion. In it a character had to prove he was "mad" by performing five acts of madness or the committee judging him was going to have to kill him to protect their secret. He committs [i]four[/i] and then sits in a pit he'd dug as the first act. The head of the group wants to know what the fifth act will be and the character responds;

"There isn't one. If I don't committ a fifth act of madness, you'll kill me so I'm just going to sit here. I think that should qualify as crazy even for you lunatics!"
Message: Posted by: Magnus Eisengrim (Oct 19, 2008 01:11PM)
[quote]
On 2008-10-18 18:47, Jonathan Townsend wrote:
Why yes DannyD... you have free will to accept any of the gods as creator - or any collection of them ... and no grounds what so ever to presume ill of anyone who chooses differently than you - presuming you choose freely and knowingly and not just as you were told... in which case you did not have or exercise free will now did you? hmmmm?

Don't fume so loudly - you might wake Cthuhlu.

Now how would one know if one had free will? Until we have a way to test for free will it may was well be "listening to the mini-spaghetti-monster-in-my-ear".

This was just my long playful way of getting us back to the basic issue - that in science you don't get to add stuff to the common model until you can reliably test for it's presence and absence and detect a difference between the two states. And that's a bare minimum condition.
[/quote]



Jon, you've really become a lot more fun this last while. I greatly enjoy your posts.

John
Message: Posted by: balducci (Dec 6, 2012 07:17PM)
Poor, poor Ben Stein. He's emphatically "NOT RICH" (his words). And, to add to his other woes, his friends on the right are now turning on him. See his latest column and (most importantly!) the comments that follow it:

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/05/the-bueller-next-to-me

If anyone bothers to look at the link above, you may want to follow it up with these:

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/12/04/missing-in-action

http://spectator.org/archives/2012/11/26/piers-morgan-and-other-injusti

Summary: One of his closest friends was jailed for financial fraud (based on a court document I saw, Ben really sugar coats the extent of his friend's crimes), another is going senile (which is truly sad and can happen to any of us), and a third (who relied on the generosity of older men her entire life, i.e she got through life so far as a mistress) is (it seems) getting long in the tooth and finding it hard to compete against younger versions of herself.

Anyway, poor Ben. Remember him in your prayers.
Message: Posted by: Kevin Connolly (Dec 6, 2012 07:40PM)
4 years to dig this thread up. Oofa!

Stamps are nice hobby too.