Truck Month Textbook Trade In Amazon Fashion Learn more nav_sap_cbcc_7_fly_beacon $5 Albums Fire TV with 4k Ultra HD Beauty Mother's Day Gifts Amazon Gift Card Offer ctstrph2 ctstrph2 ctstrph2  Amazon Echo  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Echo Dot  Amazon Tap  Amazon Echo Fire, Only $39.99 Kindle Paperwhite UniOrlando Shop Now SnS
Customer Discussions > Science forum

Questions for Intelligent Design Fans


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 3126-3150 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 3:05:28 PM PST
Tim Butler says:
RR,
Tim said: "Prior to Newton's testing to figure out what gravity was did he doubt it's existence?"
RR replied: "Are you claiming that god is a natural force? A force of nature with clearly understandable and measurable impacts on natural events? Sorry, but the comparison is invalid. God is only self-evident to believers. You and an atheist can agree about the existence of gravity."

I am saying that God is the preeminent principle behind all of nature, including all forces of nature and their measurability. God is the First Cause... the uncaused Cause, so that the world around us is intelligible and we are intelligent is possible because of God as it's surpanatural cause. I am certainly not saying God is a natural force as this would be pantheism. Nature's existence (all that exists in the universe of being) cannot explain itself as it is not sufficient within itself to be it's own cause. In nature we find one being comes from another and again, if one follows this chain back they either suppose an infinite regress (the universe and all nature within it always existed) or end at a beginning. What begins has a cause and is therefore contingent being. It is reliant upon something else for it's powers of being, for it very existence. Again you impose the scientific method as if it is the only source of knowledge which it is not. Both common sense and the first principles of metaphysics preceed empirical enquiry. Without these intellectual insights we can gather all the data we want for our science but never arrive at any conclusion because it takes an act of our mind to make judgments about what we MUST ALREADY KNOW. We must reason to what we know FROM WHAT WE KNOW where it concerns scientific knowledge. We start some where in our thoughts in order to go somewhere else. I should lay out here that the Scholastics gave us an understanding of the three acts of mind:

1) Simple Apprehension - An act by which the mind beocmes congnizant of an essence without affirming or dening anything about it.
2) Judgment - An operation of the intellect composing and dividing by affirming and denying.
3) Inference (ratiocination or reasoning) - An act of the mind by which from truths already known the mind comes to know other truths.

The first act preceeds any other act of intelligence we make and without it there is nothing to think about. There is nothing to reason about if we don't first apprehend the being that presents itself to us in one instantaneous act. At this point we know something exists. We are attracted to the good we see in it, or in other words this is our intellect's appetite for the good found in being (termed the will or love). We are curious as good physicists AND as good metaphysicists. We see self-evident truths (such as a thing cannot be and not be at the same time; the principle of noncontradiction). In the second act we make judgments about that which has presented itself to our senses. Is this true or false... real or imaginary... good or evil... and so forth. In the last act we take two or more things that we know are true and deduce new things about our subject. This third act of inference is what the scientific enterprise is built upon and it is discursive by nature requiring that we make judgments in a linear fashion. We think from one existent thing to another to come up with a new truth about those existent things so-to-speak. It is reasoning par excellence and as such is syllogistic (the kind of logic a scientist is taught in their empirical school of nature).

All this is taught in a good course on minor logic and is vitally important in understanding why philosophical knowledge both preceeds and accompanies the scientific kind. It is my whole point above that we cannot make inferences (again special judgments called reasoning) about what we do not first know. In other words we cannot reason through our science datum without first recognizing something exists.

Tim said: "distinguish between moral and physical evil in the world."
RR replied: "Simple-minded. The motivations for evil are not just the absence of love, but may a psychotic condition. People with psychotic conditions hurt those they love. Alternatively, they may be primitive let's say in the case of the Inquisition thought they were doing their victims an act of love or human sacrifice in other ancient cultures."

I don't fully agree with your first two sentences and certainly not necessarily your example of the Inquisition. These latter historic incidents are much more nuanced than you imply. Authentic love being our attraction to the good we find in being, as I defined above, is not a hatred of an unjust taking of life as human sacrifice is. The Inquistion is a poor example because it was not primarily about the evil of arbitrarily killing human beings but about bringing out truth also. That the State took judgments of the Church as a liscense to kill in no way can detract from the good it did by exposing false doctrine. In fact more falsely accused "heretics" were set free by Catholic tribunerals than during the Prostestant Inquisition where so-called witch hunts were conducted. You fail to make this important distinction. The problem is your example blurs what actually happened in history by over generalizing the whole affair. Nevertheless my distinction between moral and physical evil still stands and is important in judging God's handling of our world... the one He created and conserves in existence. Evil in no way can be attributable to God because as I've said, and as you continue to ignore, it is not an entity. Evil is the lack of what should exist on the material or intellectual planes. As such a person who is psychotic "possesses" evil because he/she lacks love. Note here the way I've said this is cumbersome because I'm referring to evil as if it is an entity. Yet you still get my point that it is the lack of some necessary good that should be found in the person it refers to and so it is fundamentally a lack of love. Maybe we'd be better to say it's a lack of motivation, a lack of proper motivation which can only be directed toward the good of persons. Oh, and those who killed because of actual heresy were not doing anyone a good... they too lacked love. Call it a bad means for a good end (the moral definition for a act to be good is that it must have a good means, end and intent).

Tim said: "Such a system precludes common natures and relationships."
RR replied: "No it doesn't. Look up the doctrine of Karma. Tsong Kapa would be a good starting place for you."

So what is your point... that either all religious doctrine must be true or none at all? I think not! Nor would I even attribute such a bad principle to the scientific enterprise, as you must, if you hold it as a principle enough to convict all of religion because of it's heretics. I reject much of Hindu and Buddhist doctrine (not all) because it conflicts with the Christian doctrine that I hold to. And yes I am saying that all of Christian doctrine is true precisely because it is revealed by a divine Person who is not capable of lying or erring. I also limit such doctrine to "faith and morals" only knowing that these parimeters do touch on other areas of life because life is unitary in relation to truth.

Tim said: "Hell, like heaven is a state (and place) where those who reject God's goodness will suffer for their actions."
RR replied: "God as thug theology. No thanks. If he created everything, he created hell. So, what's that about?????"

Yes, you got that correct! Hell was created by God as a consequence for the willfull disobedience of creatures He gave freedom to (implied here intelligence too). This in no way makes God evil or the creator of evil. It simply means God is just and gives persons the reward they are due. If you sin, that is disobey, you become guilty, and deserve to be judged fairly AND properly. If you earn heaven by your acts then so be it. If you earn hell by your acts then so be it. But let me say here I am not a Calvinist who stops there implying the damned are damned from the moment of their creation onward. NO! ...I except the fact that God is not only just but merciful and offers a way out of conviction by having paid the price Himself (IE. the Incarnation... life, death, Resurrection and Ascension of God's only Son into heaven). In short the whole gospel of life as Pope John Paul II has phrased it! Thus grace is available to those who turn back to God (IE. religion... from the Latin: re-, back + ligare, to turn... that is "to turn back" to our Source). Grace as I said before is what Adam and Eve lost at the Fall and is given back by our act of faith in God through the action of the sacraments in the Church He instituted. That's the gospel truth in a nutshell! ...which you seem to lack in your understanding (more accurately misunderstanding). Let me also add the very reason you have this sense of justice in you, which is NOT measurable by the empirical method so would be unknown if that were our only means to knowledge, is because God put it in you. God is it's preeminent principle as I stated before.

Tim said: "On the contrary it makes a lot of sense if you understand that God does not hold us accountable for what we don't know."
RR replied: "If ignorance is bliss, tis follow to be wise.... Helps explain the craziness of social conservatives."

...for what we aren't WILLFULLY IGNORANT of... sorry! Correction noted. God loves human intelligence and expects us to use it and holds us accountable if we, in catching a glimpse of the truth, then back away from it... well... it is your CHOICE !!! (something social liberals love to preach that conserv's take away by their "false" authoritarian doctrines)

Tim said: "Our primary purpose in this world is to love, ..."
RR replied: "One of many purposes...."

True... primary means first which implies among others... other secondary purposes that is.

Tim said: "Love supports life... not the scientific method!.."
RR replied: "New take on 1 Corinthians: Love is not puffed up.......love is not scientific method. Got it. And "it" is a non-sequitur"

You forgot love is for the good of... NEVER the evil. My point par excellance! Your point here is one of extremes... either the scientific method or not. It's all or nothing when it comes to knowledge as so acquired and therefore don't try to confuse the issue with the truth that scientific knowledge only scratches at the surface of reality... despite it's amazing technological innovations (nuclear energy, space travel, computers and cell phones, CAT scans, laser surgery, weapons with pinpoint accuracy, etc...) We be dazzled by our scientific progress so much so we think we are progressing as a species, not seeing we are giving up our deepest human powers of intelligence and freedom to machines. To act like machines that do not think or possess freedom! To desire this so much so that some want to become one with machines and hope to some day divest themselves of their body so as to become pure thought... a fantasy if I ever heard one. A secular fantasy taken to it's logical conclusion that is. Stripped of it's form leaving only what is visible... and dehumaninzing to be sure. 111512 Ratjaws@aol.com

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 3:35:32 PM PST
Tim Butler says:
Deckard,
"Apparently the lessons of Quantum Mechanics, Relativity, and the Big Bang are lost on you. What is reasonable to expect may not always be true."

So your idea of science does not need reason? If so then you are saying it's ok to be inconsistent which I cannot agree with. As for Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and the Big Bang I've laid out my understanding, right or wrong, and all you can says is I'm wrong... so much for reasonable discussion. It fits with your statement that what is reasonable is not always true.

"Where in the scientific method is the step that says - gee, I don't know what happened. I guess that something outside science and the material world must have done it."

With the scientific method have you proved the things you study exist? With that method have you proved there is order? With that method can you prove your mind is reasonable? No, you don't need to prove any of these things because it's not necessary. You take them for granted. When it comes to an immaterial aspect of our world we either assume it then do our science or we say nothing about it. We cannot say it's a true or false proposition outside of asking from the perspective of the philosopher.

When a scientist steps up and says something like Heisenberg said (Uncertainty or Indeterminacy) , and then from such a principle infers causation has not taken place because we can't measure it, then they've stepped over into the realm of metaphysics from science and made an ontological claim that they have little to no training or authority to make. This is a serious mistake that my anti-Intelligent Design opponents make over and over again in many areas of epistemological claims. That they do so under the guise of science cannot change what they are doing. The bottom line is that many answers to questions we have will not come through the observation hands-on-test method of modern science but through the observation thought method of "the science before science" known as philosophy (IE. Einstein's so-called thought experiments). You just won't admit it because you don't trust your intellectual ability to think through those kinds of questions. You don't have a sound metaphysical basis for doing so which is the shame of our overly-scientific materialistic society. It's the schools you've been taught by that are to blame because they lacked any classical educational component and concentrated solely on technology... which means the scientific method period. My conclusion is you cannot answer the questions I pose but skirt around them by digressing back to the empirical method as if it is the only means to scientia (Latin for knowledge). It is not and so you are left holding a bag of questions that get ficticious answers attached to them, like multi-dimensional worlds that are "proven" by new mathematical theorems. So much for demonstratibility. If one can work it out on paper it's been demonstrated, right? If I cannot then I don't know it exists... it's just an idea in someone else's mind that I cannot even admit to think about whether it might be true or not. An a priori reasoning is what this has been traditionally called. It's why modern thinkers reject tradition and authority as has been manifest in this forum on Intelligent Design. 111512 Ratjaws@aol.com

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 4:45:00 PM PST
Deckard says:
Tim Butler said:
"So your idea of science does not need reason?"

As usual, the only thing that you have is semantic games. Using reason and having some thing be reasonable are two different things. QM and relativity are the ultimate exercises in reasoning; that does not mean that the results seem like they are reasonable.

"If so then you are saying it's ok to be inconsistent which I cannot agree with."

That's not what I said. More word games.

"As for Quantum Mechanics, Relativity and the Big Bang I've laid out my understanding, right or wrong, and all you can says is I'm wrong... so much for reasonable discussion. It fits with your statement that what is reasonable is not always true."

Actually what I said was what is true is not always reasonable. There is a difference.

"With the scientific method have you proved the things you study exist? With that method have you proved there is order? With that method can you prove your mind is reasonable? No, you don't need to prove any of these things because it's not necessary. You take them for granted."

They are not taken for granted, and in fact may not be true (as in the case of order).

"When it comes to an immaterial aspect of our world we either assume it then do our science or we say nothing about it."

You'll have to ungarble this sentence.

"We cannot say it's a true or false proposition outside of asking from the perspective of the philosopher."

Which is next to useless. Philosophize all you want - without evidence it is just so much talk.

"When a scientist steps up and says something like Heisenberg said (Uncertainty or Indeterminacy) , and then from such a principle infers causation has not taken place because we can't measure it, then they've stepped over into the realm of metaphysics from science and made an ontological claim that they have little to no training or authority to make."

Why don't you take all this out of a science forum and go play in the philosophy forum. While you are busy talking there, the physicists will be busy finding out what the nature of reality is. Then you can come back and claim that you knew it all along.
QM and relativity are fascinating because they turn all sorts of concepts of reality on their head. Go read about the double-slit experiment; it makes no sense whatsoever, but it really happens. And it was discovered by physicists using the scientific method, not philosophers.

"This is a serious mistake that my anti-Intelligent Design opponents make over and over again in many areas of epistemological claims. That they do so under the guise of science cannot change what they are doing. The bottom line is that many answers to questions we have will not come through the observation hands-on-test method of modern science but through the observation thought method of "the science before science" known as philosophy (IE. Einstein's so-called thought experiments)."

1) The Wedge Document makes crystal clear that ID is simply religious creationism dressed up to look like science to get it into the schools.
2) Einstein's thought experiments were designed to explain reality in terms of known facts.
3) Aristotle is a perfect example of just how useful your science-before-science is; Four Elements? Everything moves in a straight line? Objects fall to get back to their natural position? That's what you get with science-before-science.

"You just won't admit it because you don't trust your intellectual ability to think through those kinds of questions. You don't have a sound metaphysical basis for doing so which is the shame of our overly-scientific materialistic society."

Here it comes - you don't like materialism.

"It's the schools you've been taught by that are to blame because they lacked any classical educational component and concentrated solely on technology... which means the scientific method period."

You know nothing about my schools or academic background - but that doesn't stop you from making grand pronouncements about what you want to be true, but isn't.

"My conclusion is you cannot answer the questions I pose but skirt around them by digressing back to the empirical method as if it is the only means to scientia (Latin for knowledge)."

It isn't - but if you want to know about the nature of the world it's a lot better than relying on myths and religion.

"It is not and so you are left holding a bag of questions that get ficticious answers attached to them, like multi-dimensional worlds that are "proven" by new mathematical theorems. So much for demonstratibility."

I guess that you don't understand what a hypothesis is and what has to happened before theories are accepted. But that wouldn't fit into your desperate attempt to protect your myths would it. Go back and look at scientists actually say about M Theory - it's interesting but does not have a single shred of evidence and may not be testable, so it is not accepted.

"If one can work it out on paper it's been demonstrated, right? If I cannot then I don't know it exists... it's just an idea in someone else's mind that I cannot even admit to think about whether it might be true or not. An a priori reasoning is what this has been traditionally called. It's why modern thinkers reject tradition and authority as has been manifest in this forum on Intelligent Design."

1) You complain bitterly about science, but then you blindly accept the god of the bible without question, even though it is clear that much of it is complete nonsense.
2) You claim that ID is valid, even though it doesn't meet any of the standards that you have laid down for science. So is ID a religion, which you exempt from your criticisms of science, or is ID a science, in which you must explain why you accept it even though it doesn't meet any of your complaints about science.
3) If you believe in authority and tradition, why don't you believe in Zeus? That's who your pre-science science philosophers believed in.
4) You still haven't given us anything about reality that philosophers have told us that is of any use whatsoever.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 4:51:32 PM PST
Deckard says:
Tim Butler said:
"I reject much of Hindu and Buddhist doctrine (not all) because it conflicts with the Christian doctrine that I hold to. And yes I am saying that all of Christian doctrine is true precisely because it is revealed by a divine Person who is not capable of lying or erring."

And then you complain about science. Your religion is making you a hypocrite.

"To act like machines that do not think or possess freedom!"

Oh, you mean the freedom to do exactly what you think god tells us to do. If we actually exercise our freedom, it's off to hell forever. Do you actually know what freedom means?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 15, 2012 7:07:38 PM PST
noman says:
RE: TB tells us the mind of god "And yes I am saying that all of Christian doctrine is true precisely because it is revealed by a divine Person who is not capable of lying or erring. ":

1) How do you *know*?(not *believe*, but know in an objective,unambiguous way)
2)What are you going to do if he(?) does lie? Take him to court?

SUMMARY: TB doesn't understand the difference between belief and evidence nor religion/philosophy and science.

TB may be correct. But it's not science. I've known/worked with believers in all of the major and quite a few minor faiths...YEC's, Greek Orthodox, Reformed Judaism, Krishna, Baha'i,Sufi ... and they all have one thing in common...they all *believe*. And I've never been able to tell that one belief is more true than another. And none of them were science.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 2:56:36 PM PST
John Donohue says:
Tim Butler >>It's not an extra-ordinary claim to point to that which exists. That God exists... the burden of proof lies upon the shoulders of those who claim otherwise, just as it does for the non-directly sensible force of gravity<<

Can you really mean this? In the high school physics class I taught I did experiments to deduce the acceleration due to gravity with only a 1" X 6" board with a groove and some distance markings. I did it over and over. If I drop a lead weight I can measure the time it takes to fall 4 meters and it will invariably be 2 seconds.

Propose an experiment showing "god" so that I can perform it for the class, please.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 3:21:35 PM PST
RR says:
Tim,
"I am saying that God is the preeminent principle behind all of nature,"
Without a scintilla of evidence. I say everything has always existed in one form or another and eternal. No god needed. If you can't prove I'm wrong, I'm right. In essence, your argument from ignorance thrown back at you.

"Again you impose the scientific method as if it is the only source of knowledge which it is not."
Nope. My insight came from the Buddha during his enlightenment. Next.

"It simply means God is just and gives persons the reward they are due. "
Your god is little more than a Stalin. How disgusting.

"Let me also add the very reason you have this sense of justice in you, which is NOT measurable by the empirical method so would be unknown if that were our only means to knowledge, is because God put it in you."
Nope, it came from ripening of my good karma. No god needed. One ridiculous naked assertion deserves another.

"You forgot love is for the good of... NEVER the evil."
Guess you never heard about what paved the road to hell....

" confuse the issue with the truth that scientific knowledge only scratches at the surface of reality.."
But scientific knowledge is a great way to expose people who peddle bunk, like the inerrancy of the Bible, creationism and all other nonsense.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 16, 2012 8:48:35 PM PST
Re Butler, 11-15 3:05 PM: "scientific knowledge only scratches at the surface of reality." It can be shown that if a question is answerable at all, it is answerable ONLY by use of the scientific method [1]. In other words, there is NO demonstrable reality other than that which can be determined by science. (This does not preclude the possible existence of some other sorts of reality -- it simply says that, if such exist, it is impossible to know anything about them. Thus, they can be completely ignored.)

1. For proof, "Search Customer Discussions" for "saunderst" in "Belief in the Christian god is absurd".

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 6:25:17 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 6:27:31 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 6:48:39 AM PST
RAS: "1. For proof, 'Search Customer Discussions' for 'saunderst' in 'Belief in the Christian god is absurd'."

No thanks. No lying about sour dough and pudd(l)ing needed today... No one has rated it in as proof but you...You using your own quip personalized style coupled with oft-repeated grand tendency of self-aggrandizement. The only thing that you've proven is that:

1) YOU COMMENT WITH ABSOLUTE CONFIDENCE IN AND ABOUT YOUR OWN GRAND IMPORTANCE BASED ON YOUR FORMER STATEMENTS ALONE, AND

2) YOU ARE SO OBSESSED WITH SELF-JUSTIFICATION that your rampant, cheap cut-and-paste general citations (half being your own posts), limited to your ambitions of dogmatism actually look quite daft.

Posted on Nov 17, 2012 12:32:57 PM PST
J. Lent says:
Something to consider:
Let us pretend there is actually a valid argument for design. That just addresses the designer, not the creator.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 1:06:32 PM PST
Deckard says:
J. Lent said:
"Something to consider:
Let us pretend there is actually a valid argument for design. That just addresses the designer, not the creator."

One of the things that I have always asked IDers is an explanation of the relationship between the designer and their god (since they claim that ID is not a religion). They never answer.

Posted on Nov 17, 2012 1:42:45 PM PST
J. Lent says:
Are we going to give Tim Butler the time of day after he shifts the burden of proof to atheists after he simply decides God is self-evident and therefore does not need any evidence to support its existence?

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 2:10:13 PM PST
J. Lent wrote:
"Let us pretend there is actually a valid argument for design. That just addresses the designer, not the creator. "
===============================

And, how exactly was the designer created?

Or, what gave the designer the power to design?

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 17, 2012 3:04:50 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 17, 2012 3:06:13 PM PST
Robert A. Saunders wrote:
"1. For proof, 'Search Customer Discussions' for 'saunderst' in 'Belief in the Christian god is absurd'."
======================
Richard Kepler replied:
"No thanks. No lying about sour dough and pudd(l)ing needed today... No one has rated it in as proof but you."
======================

You guys need to lower your voices. First, Robert's claim that he could prove that belief in God is absurd, could easily alert one of the Ayatollahs of Iran, who have succeeded in extending the range of their missiles to reach Europe. Knowing that a godless Robert resides in America might give the Ayatollahs incentive to stretch their rockets to attack us, here.

Second, since Richard has exposed his residence in Japan, and since Richard allows for some probability that Robert's claim could be proved by someone, that renders Richard half-Godless, which is also punishable by death by Ayatollahs.

In any case, Ayatollahs succeeded in sneaking 75 km range rockets to Gaza in the thousands through tunnels from Arabia, which are now showing Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.

Heads up!

Mohamed F. El-Hewie

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 8:54:35 AM PST
Sceptic says:
Shouldn't we teach all design myths/theories?
Babylonian Creation Myth : http://www.cresourcei.org/enum...
Korean Creation Myth : http://www.meta-religion.com/W...
Navajo Creation Myth : http://www.lapahie.com/Creatio...
Norse Creation Myth : http://www.pitt.edu/~dash/crea...
Creation Myth from India : http://library.thinkquest.org/...
Comanche Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Chinese Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Chelan Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Pima Creation Myth : http://www.aaanativearts.com/a...
Mayan Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Miwok Creation Myth : http://www.wsu.edu/~delahoyd/c...
Salish Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Australian Aboriginal Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Hopi Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Tahitian Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Yokut Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Egyptian Creation Myths : http://www.aldokkan.com/religi...
African - Mande, Yoruba Creation Myths : http://dickinsg.intrasun.tcnj....
Micmac Creation Myth : http://www.ilhawaii.net/~stony...
Lakota Creation Myth : http://www.indianlegend.com/la...
Maori Creation Myth : http://www.laits.utexas.edu/do...
Christian & Jewish Creation Myth : http://crab.rutgers.edu/~goert...
Aztec Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Digueno Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Apache Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
African Creation Myths : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Dakota Creation Myth : http://www.bluecloud.org/32.ht...
Hungarian Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Iroquois Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Inuit Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Huron Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...
Hawaiian Creation Myth : http://www.dreamscape.com/morg...

And let children choose...

Source : http://www.magictails.com/crea...

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 11:46:42 AM PST
A. Caplan says:
Sceptic says: Shouldn't we teach all design myths/theories?
>Well, that's the basic problem, isn't it. As soon as you start substituting myth for science, you must determine which myths are valid (I can't believe that I just said that. How can a myth be valid?). Whose religion or philosophy do you accept or reject? Personally, if I was a science teacher ordered to teach an "alternative explanation to evolution", I would teach the Hindu myth. Not that I believe it, but just because I like the story.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 11:53:11 AM PST
Sceptic says:
Quite!

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 2:42:50 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 18, 2012 4:13:14 PM PST
Deckard: "One of the things that I have always asked IDers is an explanation of the relationship between the designer and their god (since they claim that ID is not a religion)."

"Always", huh? You simply assume explicitness in most features of communication and your own thematic inadequacies.

You don't know enough about religions then to be able to get an answer, huh?! NEITHER WILL YOU IN YOUR BLINDNESS ADMIT THAT ID INCLUDES NONRELIGIOUS VIEWS AND MODELS (eg., YOUR'S TRULY). But bigotry NEVER RECOGNIZES NOR SEEKS TO ACKNOWLEDGE ALL THE FACTS, does it? It must be the thrill of superficial insult-- the love of exhilaration in a simple-minded put-down!!

Deckard: "They never answer."

That looks like a cry baby plead! IDers don't answer you with the evolutionist's type and style of vacuous answer? You may be right...but never?! Why would we EVER want to answer such an obnoxious, reduced-feature question TO YOUR SATISFACTION (WHICH IS THE ONLY 'SCIENTIFIC FACTOR' IN EVOLUTIONISTS' HIGHLY IMPRESSIONISTIC VIEW AND GAME HERE THAT GENUINELY INTERESTS THEM)? Don't you agree? If not, then consider that some religions have no god and the fact that you don't know that. No wonder people who know more on these topics than you won't work with, answer, or help you.

I think it's childishly naive to not be able to recognize that when someone presses positionally loaded questions they are stacking responses vacuously. You are doing so all to your side with your own blind positional bias. People in disagreement thus can ONLY push them aside in simple discounter at best, due to your lack of insight into your own framing of questions and asking them basically in YES/NO fashion. Okay: Here's the answer you've been waiting for from us: No! (Your connection spelled out in the question is invalid by virtue of your ignorance about your presumed-necessary linkage of terms. IF YOU DON'T GET OUR MOVEMENT'S MAJOR VIEW RIGHT, YOU GIVE US EXCLUSIVELY YOUR STRAWMAN TO RESPOND TO.)

You allege we don't respond when we've called your question a strawman. Then what are evolutionists accomplishing here when they respond with the same type of reply that we are asking them to respond to an invalid argument? Is such a reply NO ANSWER as you very simplistically claim? OTHER PEOPLE CAN RECOGNIZE BLIND PERSONAL SUBJECTIVITY; WHY CAN'T EGGONLUTIONISTS?

Considering your own particular type of simple naivity spelled out on the greater subject here and bent on exclusively religious (bias) terms, most opponents probably have you on Ignore. Or else they think your inquiry is too childish to even countenance.

That would explain it: YOU'RE A VICTIM OF YOUR OWN LOADED DICE(Y) QUESTIONS BASED ON A BLUDGEONED STEREOTYPE most of the time. Who would in all seriousness want to answer YOUR CQ?!

Still, thanks for inadvertantly and quite sheepishly giving us public notice people aren't taking your mail/posts very seriously...We can easily tell why.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 2:47:30 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 18, 2012 3:13:46 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 2:50:56 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 18, 2012 5:31:25 PM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 18, 2012 6:08:38 PM PST
Deckard says:
Richard Kepler said:

<Content snipped for lack of, well, any content>

As always, bombast to cover up your intellectual cowardice.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 1:56:14 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 2:01:22 PM PST
Tim Butler says:
Robert Saunders,
Tim said: "by use of the scientific method alone, one cannot either prove or disprove the existence of God."
R Saunders replied: "Correct. And, indeed, it can be shown that neither can be done by any method whatever"

If so how about giving me the proof? If you can it surely will not be by the scientific method. If possible it can only be done through philosophy to which you seem to deny validity.
Tim said: "that God exists is a philosophic and/or religious premise, one that a scientist or the scientific method must assume in order to start."
R Saunders replied: "This is entirely wrong. It is not necessary, nor even useful, to make such an assumption. In fact, it is trivial to show that such an assumption is counterproductive."

As per above I say God's existence can be reasoned to. Evidently trivial to you means I just refuse to do it. Both Anslem and Thomas Aquinas gave proofs from reason, Aquinas building his five off Anslem's, as below:

1) From motion.
2) From the nature of efficient cause.
3) From possibility and necessity.
4) From the gradation to be found in things.
5) From governance of the world.

You on the other hand give nothing for your proof and must not realize it is impossible to prove lack of existence.
Tim said: "Re Butler, 11-7 1:57 PM: "ethical standards which imply morality, and this in turn implies the conscience as well as religious revelation."
R Saunders replied: "Hogwash. Moral codes are constructed by societies for their own benefit, and religion has nothing to do with them. Religious claims to be definers or arbiters of morality are hogwash."

You did not read what I said carefully enough... I stated that we know of the rightness or wrongness of an act through conscience OR through divine revelation. If you think otherwise then back up your claim with something more than yes or no. If you deny we have a conscience even though it may be obscured to some degree, then you make us out to be less than animals or plants which do not exhibit any moral recognition. As for divine revelation, it merely corrects and lifts up our understanding we already have of right and wrong. As such it is necessary because we are fallen. Do you deny evil in our world? Would you ignore the difference between Mother Teresa and Hitler? If moral codes are simply constructed as you suggest then they are arbitrary and murder to one person may be good to another. If so no one has any business accusing another person for any reason. Either morality is absolute, that is external to us, and we can discover it with our mind, or we live in a anything goes world and may the best man or men win.

Tim said: "thought, which is an immaterial (0r spiritual) power"
R Saunders replied: "No, it is not. Thought is simply the same process done by your computer, using neurons instead of transistors."

PROVE it! Produce a computer that can think like us and then I will recant. In the process you will have to explain how the two can be the same when the material of the brain (wet, electro/chemico tissue that is organic) is of a completely different composition than that of a computer (dry, metal and silicion traces with plastic, ceramic, etc... and consequently inorganic). It will need to be able to explain what "I" or "we" means or see the beauty of a sunrise or sunset, love persons, have a sense of justice, laugh at incongruiency, wonder about the universe, etc... How will you get lifeless matter to even simulate this?

Tim said: "Second is the leap from non-intelligent life to that which has intelligence."
R Saunders replied: "This isn't a leap: every eukaryotic organism has at least some means of detecting external conditions and reacting thereto. More complex life forms have evolved more complex forms of intelligence."

Intelligence is not just recognizing something. Machines we call computers are quite capable of doing this as are chimps. Intelligence is the ability only humans have of uniting with that which they know in the mode of thought. As I've explained before intelligence is not material since one cannot melt down the idea of a nut and bolt and use it's substance in some other way. Intelligence has an affection for good found in another being and this is what has been traditionally called love. Intelligence allows us to ask questions, something no animal has ever done. Intelligence allows us to see inconsistency in something (IE. Funniest Home Videos TV show) while no animal has ever exhibited anything close. Intelligence puts men (and women) in schools to learn... again something no animal has ever done. Intelligence builds not just beaver dams or simple tools but complex structures like these computers we communicate on. Intelligence allows us to see abstractness in nature, through mathematics for the scientist, or philosophy for the metaphysician. Intelligence coupled with supernatural faith allows humans to transcend the limits of this life, enabling them to see the next life. Where's the evidence for your claim?

Tim said: "whether it can provide evidence for so-called macro-evolution or not, I think the jury is still out."
R Saunders replied: "Not so; the verdict has been in for years. That H. sapiens and chimpanzees evolved from a common ancestor has been conclusively demonstrated [1]. For other related work, see [2, 3]."

Mr. Saunders, it very easy to just say yes or no to a proposition but it takes both knowledge and wisdom to explain why it would be true. I don't have time to sift through web pages for your thought and you should be able to much more easily sum up what they say in relation to your point. Apart from this effort on your part you waste everyone's time engaged in this discussion. 112012

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 20, 2012 9:27:07 PM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 20, 2012 9:31:37 PM PST
Re Butler, 11-20 1:56 PM: "If so how about giving me the proof?" See [1].

"As per above I say God's existence can be reasoned to." Wrong. It is well known that every logical deduction contains only information residing in its premises. Therefore, any deduction about the real world must perforce involve premises about the nature of the real world. Hence, neither Anselm nor Aquinas can be correct. And the theses they propound are thus entirely invalid.

"If you can it surely will not be by the scientific method. If possible it can only be done through philosophy" Correct.

"... to which you seem to deny validity." Not at all. Philosophy is an essential tool: it is the means by which we can know what it is possible to know, and how it is possible to know it. For details of mine, see [2].

"through conscience OR through divine revelation." There is NO SUCH THING as "divine revelation" [3].

"If you deny we have a conscience..." I do not deny this; it is exhibited by many species other than H. sapiens. But in the overall formulation of moral policy, this plays only a small role.

"murder to one person may be good to another." Demonstrably true: consider the Nazi death camps, or Stalin's obliteration of the kulaks.

"Either morality is absolute, that is external to us, ..." We know that it is NOT; moral codes vary among societies and over time. An absolute morality would do neither.

"or we live in a anything goes world and may the best man or men win." Which is why societies develop moral codes, so that one does NOT have a society in which "anything goes".

"Produce a computer that can think like us and then I will recant." We cannot yet build a computer with tens of billions of logic elements and trillions of interconnections, but we can do very well as a result of the fact that silicon devices are a million times faster than neurons. IBM built a computer system called WATSON, which competed on "Jeopardy!" -- and handily defeated its human opponents (who were the best champions that the show had ever had).

" is of a completely different composition" Irrelevant. You can get across town in a horse and buggy, or in an automobile; these have completely different composition.

"How will you get lifeless matter to even simulate this?" If we build a computer as complex as a brain, it will be trivial.

"Intelligence is the ability only humans have of uniting with that which they know in the mode of thought." Drivel. Many species of primates also do this.

"intelligence is not material since one cannot melt down the idea of a nut and bolt and use it's substance in some other way." More drivel. You can assemble individual atoms and molecules so as to produce an animal or a computer; both are strictly material. The properties of an assemblage can be entirely different from the properties of its constituents: consider a relay, for example.

"Intelligence allows us to ask questions, something no animal has ever done." You obviously know nothing about Goodall's work with apes.

"Intelligence coupled with supernatural faith allows humans to transcend the limits of this life, enabling them to see the next life." Neither you, nor anyone else, has EVER produced grounds for supposing that "supernatural" ANYTHING exists. (Or that there is such a thing as a "next life".)

" it takes both knowledge and wisdom to explain why it would be true." Which I have done, in considerable detail.

Bottom line: Your entire thesis is arrant nonsense, and bespeaks a complete ignorance of modern science.

1. "Search Customer Discussions" for "saundersg" in "Belief in the Christian god is absurd". The search will yield numerous pages of references; the reference in question is on the last page. The text is on the first page of the "Belief" thread.

2. Search for "saunderst", as above. It is on the same page as "saundersg".

3. See "saundersg", op. cit.

In reply to an earlier post on Nov 21, 2012 5:35:01 AM PST
Last edited by the author on Nov 21, 2012 5:54:16 AM PST
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


Recent discussions in the Science forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
The Creationist Definition of Entropy 4 8 minutes ago
If you could download yourself into a server to live forever, would you do it? 29 8 minutes ago
What happened to 3-D TV? 20 9 minutes ago
Black hole chain reaction at CERN 83 54 minutes ago
Creationists ask......Is this the silliest thing ever, from an Esteemed Atheist "Scientist"? 116 59 minutes ago
Global warming is the most serious problem of our generation, part 4 (reboot) 4479 1 hour ago
Calling Dr Carl Sagan Where are those 1 million Advanced Civilizations? 12 1 hour ago
Knowledge 5011 15 hours ago
Sugar or Fat? 9 16 hours ago
Creationists ask......Who is a Scientist? 475 17 hours ago
What is the greatest thing in the universe? 127 18 hours ago
Atheists in denial of being less intelligent than analytical thinking theists 159 20 hours ago
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  270
Total posts:  7233
Initial post:  Jul 20, 2007
Latest post:  Dec 18, 2015

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 11 customers

Search Customer Discussions