Your Garage Summer Reading Amazon Fashion Learn more Discover it $5 Albums Fire TV Stick Sun Care Patriotic Picks Shop-by-Room Amazon Cash Back Offer roadies roadies roadies  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Introducing new colors All-New Kindle Oasis AutoRip in CDs & Vinyl Best Camping & Hiking Gear in Outdoors STEM
Customer Discussions > Religion forum

Scientists Confront Creationism: Intelligent Design and Beyond

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 8226-8250 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 4:58:11 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 16, 2012 5:08:04 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
"I think this one is correct: "Darwinism provides an open rationale for eugenics, genocide and racism". His theory led to the Holocaust. That's my opinion. "

STILL irrelevant to the science of the theory. Absolutely irrelevant. Does. Not. Make. A. Bit. Of. Difference. Living things evolve anyway and natural selection is the mechanism and Darwin discovered that mechanism and your "Ph.D in Theological Ethics" knows it. Period.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 5:06:15 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
'Mr. Saunders: You raised a number of points, on pg. 328

1. Concerning Pennock's qoute about the Cambrian explosion:
When I review a book, I do not qoute mine, Mr. Saunders, ok? I invite all you that own the book, to look it up... It was the last sentence of a paragraph, yes, but was, in itself, reasonably unqualified, and therefore can stand on it's own.

2. I believe the Bible can be evidence of a type, yes. I do not accept your standard of evidence, necessarily.

3. Concerning the Origin of Life. Since the ToE is generally a naturalistic theory, involving "methodological naturalism", whatever that may be, precisely..., it is invoking a certain picture of the operation of the Universe, a certain metaphysical picture... which may not be consistent with any (correct) explanation of the Origin of Life."

Here I've been fooling myself for months that John is an "honest" Christian apologist. That's why I was so surprised when he seemed to be quote mining or when he was gushing with praise over Joseph's insane rambling.

I now see that he's a fine example of a very typical YEC apologist and Liar for Jesus.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 5:14:52 AM PDT
mark says:
Irish, Good morning,

Thanks, once again, but in the interest of accuracy, and credit where credit is due, that's Areix's post, in response to mine.

Understandable. This thread goes so fast, it's hard to keep up. Much like John commenting on Joseph's post, the bulk of which was a c & p of mine.

Peace.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 5:18:39 AM PDT
Irish Lace says:
Well, I'll be switched! You're right. Thanks, mark. I fixed it.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 5:39:00 AM PDT
mark says:
413,

There should be no offense inherent in original thought. Have no fear of offending me, for that reason, and, because, yes, I do have a thick skin. (grin)

I do "accept where we came from", even if that "from" may hold different connotations for you and me. I came from a chronological, biological, ancestral progression. Other than that, I feel must be considered speculation.

We're "always talking about this god or that" because, for some people, the objective world has insufficient experience. But the objective world is not amendable to invention, hence...the supernatural world.

Now...I just gotta know: why did you end your post with "war"? At first, I thought you were being confrontational. Then I thought, perhaps facetious. Then I thought just joking around. Which?

It's like a song in your head that just won't go away....bugs the hell out of me.

Peace.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 6:01:36 AM PDT
mark says:
Ariex,

No, I can safely say I cannot. I can imagine others doing so, but I will never be found worshiping anything. Well, except maybe a '67 Shelby Cobra.

Lots of folks have seen Aurora Borealis. No big deal. But when one has seen the sky FULL of it, horizon to horizon of dancing, multi-colored, ethereal HOLY CRAP...LOOK AT THAT!!!, pissed at the sun for rising....there's no reason to worship things that aren't real.

Peace.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 6:35:19 AM PDT
mark says:
Robert,

I'm sure you are aware of the thought experiment, where if one takes steps covering exactly half the distance to a wall, he never gets there.

It should be obvious to the most casual observer, that there must be a point where the distinction cannot be made between the atoms of the toe and the atoms of the wall.

At that point, the objective reality of both the toe and the wall cease to exist. If there can be one point where objective reality ceases to exist, then the precedent is set for all of objective reality to become subjected to the same eventuality.

This seems to be such a glaringly obvious foundational protagonist argument for the use by theists. Are you aware of any literature that says it is?

Thoughts? Anyone?

Posted on Apr 16, 2012 7:42:23 AM PDT
mark says:
To whomever objects to the proper use of knowledge;

"...exclusionary use of a priori knowledge to areas of thought and mind, necessarily restricting it from the physical world..."

There are only two permissible methods for rational, cognizant humans to obtain knowledge: from sense experience, or from not-sense experience. Experience of sensory information is perception; experience of non-sensory information is intuition.

Sensory data is of the phenomenal world alone; one cannot sense, or, have representation, from other than objects that exist. Intuition can present objects to the rational, cognizant human mind, if those objects exist but are not of experience, or, even if those objects do not exist.

All objects of the phenomenal world must be conditioned, must have attributes, in order to be perceived. Objects of intuition do not require any condition whatsoever, because it is possible for intuited objects to not have any. (space, time, mathematics, logic....a god)

Objects without condition, or attribute, are from reason alone, and is therefore a priori. This is why a priori knowledge, in and of itself, is restricted from the physical world.

Why is this so hard to understand? All humans do is attach language to intuited objects in order to use them in the physical world. Math does not exist; there are no 2's in nature, there are no fractions. Space has no unit of measure. Time is only a reference in the physical world, and has no meaning at all when used within the human mind as thought. Logic does not exist until it becomes relative to something. A god is only an idea. Yet these objects have existence in the realm of reason because we can think them. It is only their relationships that exist in the physical world, and those relationships are created, or discovered, by human thought.

Besides, if this were not true, why would we need a posteriori knowledge at all? If all knowledge could be a priori, the human senses become redundant, and therefore un-necessary. But then, we would no longer be human.

Just a brief synopsis, but hopefully, it helps.

Peace.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 7:42:57 AM PDT
Dean says:
Genocide and racism existed long before Darwin. They were tools use by religions many times in history, especially Christians. If you want to see genocide, you need only look in the Bible, there's plenty of it there.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 7:51:45 AM PDT
Irrelevant. But I am most emphatically not your kind of Christian.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 7:59:36 AM PDT
Roeselare says:
In reply to your post on Apr 14, 2012 2:02:01 PM PDT
Robert A. Saunders says:

Re werranth413, 4-14 9:47 AM: "how does energy know in which direction to propagate to directly achieve equilibrium?" It doesn't: it is strictly a statistical phenomenon.

"There are some very interesting highly technical exceptions to the 2nd 'Law' ..." Huh? Citations, please.

Experimental Demonstration of Violations of the Second Law of Thermodynamics for Small Systems and Short Time Scales

http://rsc.anu.edu.au/~evans/papers/exptFT.pdf

"No bottle can be a closed system, because as you know, that would violate so many other Laws." Citations, please -- or, at least, elaborations.

No bottle can be isolated entirely from the environment. Where would you carry out such an experiment?

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:11:41 AM PDT
Ariex says:
StevePL says: "I think this one is correct: "Darwinism provides an open rationale for eugenics, genocide and racism". His theory led to the Holocaust. That's my opinion."

Ariex: But what does that have to do with the evidence supporting evolution itself? Criticism of the possible impact of facts has nothing to do with the accuracy of facts. No matter how ugly something appears to you, it still IS. Even if the theory of evolution (which was not Darwin's theory, but, as you noted, a much earlier idea) led to the Holocaust, that did not make Darwin's discovery any less correct.

You seem to be having trouble telling the difference between logical argument and emotional pleading.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:18:28 AM PDT
Ariex says:
StevePL says: "Scientists are always bickering with each other over various parts of the theory."

Ariex; And apologists try to make that more significant than it is. Here's an analogy over the bickering. Hope this puts the controversy into better perspective for you:

Four men are sitting at a large, expensive looking dinner table. The first, a cabinetmaker, says, "This table looks like red oak." The next, a lumber salesman, says, "Well, it might be white ash. The grain is similar.". The third, a carpenter, says, "It could be either one because the stain hides the wood's original color". The fourth, a sales rep for a concrete company, says, "well, since you guys can't agree on anything, I think it is clear that the table is made of concrete."

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:21:08 AM PDT
Ariex says:
StevePL says: (re my, "but nobody is buying into your deception.)

spl: "I am. And I'm all that counts."

Ariex; So you are buying into your own self-deception? And you seem to be proud of it.

And you are all that counts? Very Christian of you, brother Steve.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:41:31 AM PDT
Ariex says:
StevePL says: "Who said that science couldn't include God at that time?"

Ariex: Ministers, mostly. They still do. But then, they don't understand science.

StevePL says: "All Darwin's scientist buddies didn't have a problem with it!"

Ariex: Considering the cultural influence religion had, that is not surprising. Scientists had to go along to get along. And, the scientific method was still in early stages of development.

StevePL says: "I think this was before the problem with God and science that you speak of."

Ariex: No, the problem has always been there but science was slow to realize the critical importance of being able to falsify a theory in order to tell the difference between fact and mistaken idea.

To elaborate: Take gravity, for example. We can measure the force, its direction, etc. Suppose we include god in the theory. How do we test for God? How do we measure God's influence on the force of gravity?

How could one test for God's influence on evolution? What would we expect to find if God is directing the process through natural forces? How would a scientist tell the difference between a natural force and a natural force directed by god?

ID proponents say that irreducible complexity would show God's hand, but so far we have not found any irreducibly complex biological structures. This is the best way to test for God that religion has been able to offer so far, and it has proved to be worthless.
Note that the failure of ID proponents to offer an irreducibly complex example does not mean that one might never be found, so the results are "inconclusive" (i.e. worthless for science and for religion).

So it is not that science rejects god, but that including god is not helpful either way. Thus a scientist can have faith in god and still do science, but science cannot employ god as a scientific explanation because there is no way to test to verify that god is the cause. Darwin recognized that. How many of Darwin's "buddies" made significant scientific discoveries? In fact, how many scientific discoveries have included god as a proved cause?

Note that scientific discoveries do not prove that god was NOT a cause, just that god is not needed as an explanation because natural ones have been observed.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:44:57 AM PDT
Ariex says:
StevePL says: "IMO, Wiker just wanted Christians to realize the devil's evil at work. Not that the devil is equated with science,"

Ariex: Exactly as I said, "agenda", not science. Why consult a writer serving his theological agenda if you are honestly trying to understand the claims of science? You are convicting a stranger of murder because you don't like his mustache.

I gather that Wiker's whole commentary was ad hominem rather than information.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:46:45 AM PDT
Ariex says:
StevePL says: "I don't care if they were later refuted. The point was that Darwin saw flaws in his theory."

Ariex: You are the poster boy for the cliché, "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up". And you actually seem proud of that. Amazing.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:49:34 AM PDT
Re Lewis, 4-16 2:43 AM: "I do not qoute [sic] mine" But it has been demonstrated that you DID.
"I believe the Bible can be evidence of a type" Since when is a book of fiction suitable as evidence?
Since evolution is provably correct in theory, and demonstrably correct in practice. you are simply being obtuse.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 8:58:25 AM PDT
Re Mark, 4-16 6:35 AM: "if one takes steps covering exactly half the distance to a wall, he never gets there." Zeno's paradox.

"there must be a point where the distinction cannot be made between the atoms of the toe and the atoms of the wall." Not so. Suppose that the toe and the wall have different chemical composition (usually the case). The atoms retain their identity and are distinguishable -- even if they are close enough that there is some overlap in the wave functions. Since your premise is faulty, no conclusions can follow, and I don't know of anyone who has tried to pursue this.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 9:18:18 AM PDT
Re werranth413, 4-16 7:59 AM: Thanks for the citation. As the title suggests, this is an instance of statistics being applied to a small system, where deviations from statistical average can become large.

"No bottle can be isolated entirely from the environment." But you can come close. The lab guys are routinely doing experiments on milli-Kelvin phenomena -- and you need very good isolation indeed to maintain temperatures this low. Even a Thermos bottle does a decent job of keeping the contents isolated from the higher temperature surroundings. Much has to do with the time scale: a Thermos won't keep your soup hot for a year, but it will do nicely to keep it hot until lunch time.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 9:20:55 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on Apr 16, 2012 11:45:50 AM PDT
Roeselare says:
When did Jesus say he was saving anyone? He didn't save Judas from doing wrong when he sensed what he was planning.

Aren't you timid about accepting disrespectful ideas about God? I mean, how much did the people of the Bible times get wrong about God? They made some bad guesses and wild assumptions about disease and origins and soothsayers and global floods and some foods.

Will you be angry with me if I speculate? Before there were enforceable laws or adequate police, they came up with this theory about how serious sin is.

I would be too afraid of offending God to accept the illogic about sin and salvation because it sounds like a vast human fabrication to me, not divine at all. Fears and desires and dreams of a heaven are powerful forces. What does God think of such a theology full of negatives? We can say metaphorically that God has given us a wonderful life, but there's no reason to believe that God is giving us anything more. That's just human religion and a manipulative human agenda. Be satisfied with our improbable emergence, it's more of a miracle than in any wishful narrative.

What do we need to be saved from?, so that we can be manipulated by clergy and theologians and church builders?, and why the counterposing of the divine with torture and blood and dying? It's all very predictably primitive. I think a person today, who should know better, is making a big mistake with Bible literalism. They can follow Jesus and the teachings without being offensive to the source of their life.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 9:22:34 AM PDT
Re Ariex, 4-16 8:41 AM: Excellent! In particular: "it is not that science rejects god, but that including god is not helpful..." Exactly so. (Actually, including god is detrimental.)

Posted on Apr 16, 2012 9:23:05 AM PDT
Ants says:
http://amazingdiscoveries.tv/c/10/The_Genesis_Conflict_-_English/

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 9:25:06 AM PDT
Roeselare says:
Good points, good example, you always have a helpful perspective for me.

In reply to an earlier post on Apr 16, 2012 9:42:52 AM PDT
Re Ants, 4-16 9:23 AM: A quick examination of this showed it to be drivel.
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the Religion forum

 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Religion forum
Participants:  161
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  Sep 30, 2010
Latest post:  May 6, 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 10 customers

Search Customer Discussions