wande-
Does that signify that you are ready to concede that there is a possibilty of irreducible complexity and that that possibilty becomes a certainty in the educational world of today which we are discussing?
There are two choices and both have important consequences at the personal and social levels.
How spendius arrives at his conclusions is a study in irreducable complexity by itself. I wouldnt be bothered by the content. Its pure corn mash, Of course thats my opinion and Im stickin to it.
fm-
"Corn mash" is when you don't bother with the question and rely on bluster and bombast to carry the vote of the educationally disadvantaged;a group you must consider to be large.There's an irreducible complexity at the bottom of the motive for that too.
Are you a politician?
"The creation of this imaginary past was God's artwork.All who lived,all men,women, and children of all varying tribes and climates,the eighty-year-old,the forty-five-year-old,the young lovers,and the two-year-old were all created at the same instant that He placed the half-cooked food on the stone-hearth fire.All of it appeared at once,the animals in their habitat just so much as the humans,each creature possessing its separate memory,the plants in command of their necessary instincts,the earth bountiful here and unfulfilled there,some crops even ready to go to harvest.All the fossil remains were carefully set in the rock.God gave us a world able to present all the material clues that Darwin would need fifty-odd centuries later to conceive of evolution.The geological strata had all been put in place.The solar system was in the heavens.Everything had been set moving at rates of orbit to encourage astronomers to declare five thousand and more years later that the age of the earth was approximately five billion years.I like this notion immensely," said Harlot."You can say the universe is a splendidly worked-up system of disinformation calculated to make us believe in evolution and so divert us away from God.Yes,that is exactly what I would do if I were the Lord and could not trust My own creation."
Harlot's Ghost---Norman Mailer.
What about the evolutionists proving that's not true.And if they can't,and they wimped it last time I put my own version,which was better,on the threads at least admitting that they don't "believe" it is true.
It is what happens at the beginning of every movie isn't it?
The following is a transplant or rerun, but pertinent here as well, IMO.
[url=http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?p=1975110#1975110]On a different, though congruent, thread, timber[/url] wrote:As has been pointed out before, by a stretch both ID-iocy and Science may be termed "beliefs" ... the quantitative - and critical - differentator being the relative body of evidence supporting the conclusions and postulations set forth by either.
By all evidence, we may assign to religion an age at least as old as the burial practices, cave paintings and totem figurines we find to have emerged some 45 millenia or more ago.
Science is much, much younger; whether traced to the Asian continent or the European, its real antecedents and origins are perhaps 5 millenia or so old, evidently less than 8 or 10, however one defines "science", for without
writing and numeric notation, there can be no science.
A huge body of evidence - "evidence", now, as distinct from "experience" and "tradition" - has been accumulated. To date, despite a head start of several dozen millenia, religion has yet to add to the body of evidence humankind has accumulated.
A huge body of evidence - "evidence", now, as distinct from "experience" and "tradition" - has been accumulated. To date, despite a head start of several dozen millenia, religion has yet to add to the body of evidence humankind has accumulated.
Oh yes, they have! There are many more millions that believe in the bible god.
timber wrote-
Quote:To date, despite a head start of several dozen millenia, religion has yet to add to the body of evidence humankind has accumulated.
Religious beliefs and practices added science to the body of evidence humankind has accumulated.Science came from priestly classes and castes.
Like all recalcitrant sons it wants to kick Father in the teeth now it feels it has come of age.It is envious.
spendius wrote:Science came from priestly classes and castes.
Only during the Middle Ages when they were the only ones to have the time to conduct science. Note also that science ended up stifled when religious dogma pervaded through the priestly classes and castes, which is probably why it's better that science is no longer the domain of those classes.
cicerone imposter wrote:A huge body of evidence - "evidence", now, as distinct from "experience" and "tradition" - has been accumulated. To date, despite a head start of several dozen millenia, religion has yet to add to the body of evidence humankind has accumulated.
Oh yes, they have! There are many more millions that believe in the bible god.
What is "believed" and what is
KNOWN are very different things, c.i. , and often antithetical.
timber wrote-
Quote:What is "believed" and what is KNOWN are very different things, c.i. , and often antithetical.
Something believed is known to the believer surely?
Not at all, spendi - it merely is believed by the believer to be known, entirely another matter. Knowledge is independent both of belief and believer.
timber-
Has fresco not set you right yet on that type of homespun wisdom?
And he isn't a materialist theory of mind afficionado like I am.
If i've not recently said as much, i will take this opportunity to thank Wandel for his diligence in keeping us informed of the ongoing "intelligent design" brouhaha . . .
Thanks, Setanta!
I enjoy doing these updates. I hope Dyslexia and BBB have heard the news about New Mexico.
That's not news wande.5 school board members in one place and we know from the Dover experience what school board members are like don't we?
Of course I know that school board members who agree with you are brilliant minds and that those who don't are cretins.That's got disused cobwebs on it.
spendi, whith whom schoolboard members might agree is immaterial; signally significant is that Dover's ripples are swamping the ID-iots' ark.
Hang on timber-
wande brought the Rio Rancho school board into it.Not me.I was pointing out that they were immaterial myself.
Dover is a small wave lapping against the side of the religious ark.
spendius wrote:Dover is a small wave lapping against the side of the religious ark.
That is the way it should be, spendius.
ID is also a small wave. In my opinion, most religious people ignore ID. People who embrace ID not only misunderstand science but also misunderstand religion.
