Evolutionry/religious nonsense

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

It's easy to arrive at a conclusion concerning the bible which is only 2,000 years old.

Cripes almighty CI, can’t you get simple history that everyone agrees on right? How do you expect me or anyone to take you seriously when you repeat obvious factual errors like this?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

Well said Leadfoot, 2,000 years old is quite the statement *sigh*
Also, cicerone imposters last comment of ‘contradictions’ ...thou shall not kill ....which the simple clear fact is this shall not Murder is the biblical teaching, because killing, although always sad, can be justified and morally ok.*sigh*
Love ya cicerone, but such statements do say a lot.

1 Reply

@Helloandgoodbye,

why is it, were ID actually some form of scientific inquiry, that it always defaults back to some Biblical BS?? Is your ID really just theistic evolution??
Ifso, why not just take credit and move on with your life?? *sigh*

0 Replies

I guess the phony emotions are to be expected from the god squad *sigh*
I never believe the members of the god squad when they claim to love complete strangers, about whom they know next to nothing *sigh*
I suspect such members just come here to preen themselves of their love, patience, and above all, the righteousness *sigh*

Ya can't beat this place for free entertainment.

1 Reply

They see themselves as superior to we mere mortals because we can't see what they haven't seen either.

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Im glad science doesnt spend its time convincing others that it knows everything and theres nothing worth knowing beyond itself.
*woopee*

If ID could come up with a rationale for investigating its "workings" Im sure thousands of lowly uninformed scientists would jump on board to try it out. However, so far ID is only a collection of trite phrases that drive the whole thing *sigh*

0 Replies

Of course, if the god squad could prove that their imaginary friend is not in fact imaginary, and provide some solid evidence, then their supernatural friend would cease to be supernatural, and would fall into the realm of naturalistic science. What a kick in the @ss . . . *sigh*

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

Oh, and of course, "abiogenesis" (an hilarious term) and the so-called "big bang" are irrelevant to any discussion of evolution. Evolution cannot take place until live is present. How it got there, and cosmic origins, are simply not relevant. The god squad bang on about those things because they have nothing to offer in the way of evidence for their beliefs, so they feebly attempt to put the onus of proof on the people whom they habitually sneer at--calling them names rather that debating honestly.

Your last sentence above appears to be an apt description of your own behavior in this thread.

The question of cosmic origins, as you put it, is indeed central to the question of a creator. So far science hasn't answered this one, except for unverifiable speculations about an indefinite sequence of expansions, collapses and new beginnings, or alternatively a manifold of quantum multiverses, both of which are themselves clearly outside the domain of science, based on verifiable hypotheses.

The evolution of species is both real and observable. However that does not, in any way, preclude intelligent design

2 Replies

@georgeob1,

oy, catholicism has given up on ID and special creation , you do know that??
Theistic evolution is actually more honest a position than "Soft ID"
(See Jerry Coyne in "ID the Faith That Dares Not Speak its Name"

1 Reply

@georgeob1,

The thread is not about "the question of a creator." It's about evolution. I have not been calling people names in this thread. Read the title.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

"TEaching the Controversy" is one of the latest bullshit steps the IDers are now taking, so you wanna go one step farther and repeal Madison v Marbury eh? . I think youre gonna have to wait longer than the folks who would like to change the 2nd Amendment.

The courts make mistakes and pick sides on cases that should be left to long term debate at all levels of academia and legislation. They should not legislate the debate parameters for academia from the bench. I don't want to change the constitution I want the courts to do their Job and academia and the legislature to do theirs.

Alan Guth (inflation theory) came up with the hypothesis that the Big Bang could possibly be a transition to a near perfect universe which would then require a quantum creation event as an alternative to the the Big Bang being the creation event as mainstream science is proposing now. He chose not to pursue that alternative logical view (and it is logical because he is logical and he proposed it) for now because, he is an atheist and the quantum creation event that ends in a near perfect universe is hard to account for without a creator. It is a free country and he has the right to pursue his research according to his own self determined biases. But, If he changes his mind and decides to pursue the alternative avenue and it is taught as an alternative theory in the educational system that will be against the law.

Why do you want to outlaw freedom of discussion of theories in academia? The truth will eventually be found and understood with open debate, don't you agree?

There is always controversies in science, especially when paradigm shifts are happening like with Quantum mechanics and its spooky actions, relativity, and now hidden dimensions, string theory and entropic gravity.

The controversy is awesome, should be discussed and taught and is good for science. It always has been if the debate is free and open.

Quote:

yeh, aint it great for science and too bad for ID???

If ID (maybe, as some form of theistic evolution), is fully understood and provides workable solutions to unsolvable problems, the result will be science combined with philosophy and history. Then science will win. Why not quit stifling the debate and just see if we can get there or not following either theory?

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Setanta wrote:

The thread is not about "the question of a creator." It's about evolution. I have not been calling people names in this thread. Read the title.

I wasn't referring strictly to the title of this thread, but rather to the content of your posts in it.

My point stands.

1 Reply

@farmerman,

Quote:

You call it Stalinism, I call it acquiring justice FROM Stalinism (remember in Soviet russia, Profim Lysenko was the favorite biological superhero , hand annointed by Stalin . talin declared that EVolution was not for the USSR (it changed in the 1980's when real Russian scientists were tired of being thrown into gulags for research into Wvolution)

What made it Stalinism is that the government chose which was taught and all alternatives were outlawed. Stalinism would have been just as wrong if he would have outlawed ID or Creationism and only allowed evolution initiated and driven by purely random and natural introductions of new information.

How is it justice by switching which view you are outlawing?

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

oy, catholicism has given up on ID and special creation , you do know that??
Theistic evolution is actually more honest a position than "Soft ID"
(See Jerry Coyne in "ID the Faith That Dares Not Speak its Name"

I'm not sure I understand your terminology here. What are "Soft ID" and "special creation" ?

I'm not aware of any relevant revision to the Catholic Church's position relative to the origin of the universe, though I don't claim to be an authority on recent events. Even in my Jesuit school days we were told that evolution was likely real, but in no way denied or precluded God's creation. It was also noted that the Bible is metaphorical and expressed in terms then understandable to the human beings who wrote it.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

The Lemon test is brilliant legal thinking IMHO, wherein it removes the "Priest saying that hes an objective reviewer of public church funding" Our Constitution has taken many centuries and were still working it out.

School boards and legislatures always made the decisions on education based on debate from academia. The lemon test requires the priest and all believers in ID be left out of the debate and installs the Judge as the secular High Priest.

You can tell because the debate isn't over science but who should be allowed to be at the debate at all. How is judicially eliminating one side from the debate good academic protocol? How is it not bigotry?

Quote:

If youre only now learning about Discovery Institute from Leadfoot, then you rwally havent been reading the several yars worth of stuff herein. Discovery comes up quite often . Of course it never comes up as an example of objective science. It more or less stands for "preaching your own special understandings even before any facts are in".

Quote:

A Ive said many tims before, we dont know anything about the origin of life so panspermia is on the table but theres still no evidence one way or another.

Are you saying you would allow teaching, discussion and debate on panspermia but not ID when there is no evidence for panspermia?

And if, there is an intelligence like the God of the bible or something else like him that created life wouldn't He qualify as a candidate since that would be considered directed Panspermia? Or should that form of Panspermia be outlawed out of the scientific discussion?

Quote:

Merely using method naturalism makes the job of doing science real, not supernatural. Creationism an ID just default to supernatural stories and the science is lost forever.

Are you saying human intelligence is supernatural? What if God's intelligence is like a human's only older and more capable. If His intelligence created matter and life maybe we should't call it supernatural but rather "prenatural intelligence" or, "preuniverse intelligence" or "pre big Bang intelligence". or "Intelligence older more capable than human intelligence" and leave names like God and supernatural out of it for now?

0 Replies

@georgeob1,

You've made a baseless accusation, but not a point. The god squad is commonly not interested in the subject matter of such a thread. They are interested in attempting to shoehorn their imaginary friend into the discussion. It remains irrelevant to the topic.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

Quote:

Quote:
Inteligent Design attempts to explain how matter and life came into existence along with suggesting that the embedded levels of complexity are to much to overcome by random introduction of new information.
NO IT DOESNT. The Discovery Institute tries to smother up the fact that their 'Center for renewal..." was founded as a purely religious center.

Ive quoted W. DEMBSKI's (1999 statement) about how "Any of the Sciences that leave Christ out of the picture must be seen as fundamentally deficient... THATS WHAT UNDER THE DISCOVERY INSTITUTE's "WHITE LAB COAT". If you want to be belligerently ignorant plase dont keep posting **** as if its objective "reasoning on your behalf" its not. Youre selling aluminum siding , thats all

Who cares what thought process or philosophy they used for developing there hypothesis? Don't you think all philosophies and thought processes should be invited and encouraged to provide there point of view at the debate? Especially, in a free nation with our constitution which guarantees freedom of expression regardless of religious views.

Quote:

Quote:
Darwinism does not provide an explanation for the origin of matter or life like ID does. The Darwinian process starts after abiogenisis.
Wow, took you only wht , 2 years to realize wht most of us have been saying??
However, Darwin does speak of a "warm little pond" but why is it againt his well evidenced theory that he should have included that as a area of study. The origins of life are a whole nother arena of study thats pretty much interdisciplanary. Its often included in evolutionary sciences departments of universities or even chemistry departments. SO what? Youre jut attempting to use it as a point of deficiency and therefore a reason for you to default to ID.

I don't want to default to ID, I want ID allowed in the discussion as an alternative in academia> Do you understand there is a difference between default and alternative?

Quote:

Besides , there are major problems with Darwin that need to be resolved (I really dont know why you dont focus moreon stuff that you can play with.)
As SET said,"all origins of life are abiogenic ".I hope you can get it down that theres a real gem of scholarship there. Probably not . It takes awy the oomph of "them v us" wehere us is the ID guys and them are the atheistic neo Darwinists.

The us vs them was started when creationists outlawed teaching evolution and was continued when evolutionists fought to outlaw teaching ID.

Don't you think it's time to stop outlawing points of view when it comes to academic debate?

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

This is as close to science as we can get about evolution of life on earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life
For those insisting on ID, they must first provide evidence of its existence. Otherwise, all they are selling is "poof" theory.

Your link provides evolution happened. I already told you many times that I believe evolution happened. Your link provides no information explaining how the process was started or how the information needed to develop the layers of complex and interdependent systems was introduced by random introduction of new information. It has been mathematically proven that random introduction of new information is incapable of providing the new information for all the systems at the same time and at the right time. Intelligent Design is a hypothesis some provide to overcome that mathematical hurdle. No alternative explanation using purely random introduction of information has been provided beyond introducing the multiverse proposal stating all there enough unobserved universes out there that are not as ordered as ours to account for the order in the universe we observe.

Do you believe those other universes exist cicerone and why?

0 Replies

@brianjakub,

So you and leadfoot like to renounce what the Discovery institute stands for and was originally based upon, yet you quote their trash. Is this like " stopped clocks are correct 2X a day?"

Quote:

I want ID allowed in the discussion as an alternative in academia> Do you understand there is a difference between default and alternative?

Whe you get in academia, then youll be free to sit in on the drag-on meetings to discuss course content foor majors or non-majors.(But if its science , not philosophy or history, Ill bet what side of a majority vote youll wind up on.)

I dont even know anyUS Universities that are accredited for science offering a Creationist or ID major. All those that do (and are accredited) offer the degrees in Philosophy or liturgical services.

Many universities have have offered ID seminars and debate sessions.It was especially hot when the Dover case was big in the country and NCSE and the NSTA had sponsored several debates among the spokespeople of the sides.

Evolutionists havent kept Creationists from teaching their stuff as science, THE CONSTITUTION DOES. Cmon, stop trying to be clever.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

This is as close to science as we can get about evolution of life on earth.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_history_of_life
For those insisting on ID, they must first provide evidence of its existence. Otherwise, all they are selling is "poof" theory

Do you have any evidence those unobserved universes exist to make the math of evolution by random introduction of new information to work?

I have evidence that Intelligence can and does produce complex interdependent systems. Do you evidence showing that random introduction of new information can develop complex interdependent systems. The fossil record provides evidence that evolution happened and is happening. It does not explain how the new information was introduced so. The evidence will be in the living matter not the dead matter of the fossil record. Could you show me how the new information was entered into the DNA in a way that can stand up to statistical analysis.

1 Reply

Evolutionry/religious nonsense

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know