It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design: An Insult to Gods Intelligence?

page: 2
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 02:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Liberal1984
Let me put this to you: An engineer who designs a plane without a pilot is more skilful than one who designs a plane dependant on one. Yet the passengers may feel safer on a plane with a pilot. So a God who designs everything needed for a working universe at the dorn of time is surely more skilful than one who designs a universe which needs constant divine intervention (at least when it comes to evolution).



perhaps God could have used evolution to make the earth, he was fully capable of it, but according to the Bible He didn't. and this example cannot apply to God, for several reasons. yes, your correct someone who made a plane is more skilful then someone who did, but you cannot compare man to God. God is far more powerful then any man, and according to the Bible, He didnt use evolution. He made it all, and he made it all perfect. there would be no need to continue it by controlling the evolution process, why when he could of made it all at once? and what can be safer then knowing that? If you got into a plane and the pilot told you it was made by a tornado flying through a junkyard, and by some odd chance could prove it, that it actually was, and there was another plane by it that was designed and built by humans, which would you choose? because seriously, by believing evolution you believe in that plane made by a tornado in a junkyard. I feel much safer knowing I was created.
Let me re-emphasize this, the text in Genesis tells is plainly that God made the earth in a fast period of time, and the evidence we see today, though is not empirical proof, does point to a young earth and made by design. and after all, why wouldnt God tell us what he did? why would He try and make us read between the lines? the answer is we didnt, we have the Bible, and we have the evidence to prove it, even creation points to it. simple logic, you like examples, heres one. You probably think that its retarded that i used that airplane can come from a tornado? it is retarded, yet we say a bird came by random chance? yet a typical birds wing is at least 33% more efficient then any airplane wing that man has made, yet we say it came by chance? and to look at probabilities, using math I dont have the exact numbers, but I know that theres a better chance for the plane being made by that tornado then a bird evolving, and the chances for the plane being made by a tornado is somewhere in the area of 1 to to the 10 to the 10,000th power. otherwise, nearly impossible.




posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 01:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by the_patriot2004
If you got into a plane and the pilot told you it was made by a tornado flying through a junkyard, and by some odd chance could prove it, that it actually was, and there was another plane by it that was designed and built by humans, which would you choose?


That "tornado in a junkyard" analogy is totally incorrect. First of all, it was originally written (by Fred Hoyle in 1983) to apply to principles of abiogenesis, as it refers to something being built out of parts. Evolution is based on already existing structures and is fundamentally about changing rather than building.

Evolution occurs gradually through slight processes. To say that these processes occur quickly or without order is ridiculous - evolution is, by its nature, an ordered process.


Originally posted by the_patriot2004
because seriously, by believing evolution you believe in that plane made by a tornado in a junkyard. I feel much safer knowing I was created.


The feeling of safety that you seek is irrelevant. Certain principles of evolution are proven and the theory as a whole has never been falsified. Not "believing" in evolution is a personal choice, akin to not "believing" that Americans walked on the moon. You can believe these things or disbelieve them, but that doesn't change or affect the reality that evolution occurs and Americans indeed walked on the moon.


Originally posted by the_patriot2004
...the evidence we see today, though is not empirical proof, does point to a young earth and made by design.


No it doesn't. There is literally NO proof that the Earth is 6,000 years young. The "proof of design" arguement is simply a new twist on the old "watchmaker" arguement, which is unscientific and totally subjective in that the parameters for "design detection" are necessarily ambiguous.


Originally posted by the_patriot2004
...and after all, why wouldnt God tell us what he did? why would He try and make us read between the lines?


This is sort of a non-issue to people who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God character.


Originally posted by the_patriot2004
yet we say a bird came by random chance?


Who says that? I think most evolutionists believe that birds evolved into their present states.



Originally posted by the_patriot2004
yet a typical birds wing is at least 33% more efficient then any airplane wing that man has made, yet we say it came by chance?


Huh? No, we don't say it "came by chance," we say that it was evolved.


Originally posted by the_patriot2004
...and to look at probabilities, using math I dont have the exact numbers, but I know that theres a better chance for the plane being made by that tornado then a bird evolving, and the chances for the plane being made by a tornado is somewhere in the area of 1 to to the 10 to the 10,000th power. otherwise, nearly impossible.


These calculations are fundamentally flawed and essentially meaningless. You wanna know the chances of a bird evolving to become what it is today? 100%!

Zip



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 03:17 PM
link   
"Evolution is a religion. I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution"


Ah, sorry but not true.

Main Entry: evo·lu·tion
Pronunciation: "e-v&-'lü-sh&n, "E-v&-
Function: noun
Etymology: Latin evolution-, evolutio unrolling, from evolvere
1 : one of a set of prescribed movements
2 a : a process of change in a certain direction : UNFOLDING b : the action or an instance of forming and giving something off : EMISSION c (1) : a process of continuous change from a lower, simpler, or worse to a higher, more complex, or better state : GROWTH (2) : a process of gradual and relatively peaceful social, political, and economic advance d : something evolved
3 : the process of working out or developing
4 a : the historical development of a biological group (as a race or species) : PHYLOGENY b : a theory that the various types of animals and plants have their origin in other preexisting types and that the distinguishable differences are due to modifications in successive generations
5 : the extraction of a mathematical root
6 : a process in which the whole universe is a progression of interrelated phenomena

Religion:

Main Entry: re·li·gion
Pronunciation: ri-'li-j&n
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English religioun, from Latin religion-, religio supernatural constraint, sanction, religious practice, perhaps from religare to restrain, tie back -- more at RELY
1 a : the state of a religious b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith



Simply put, Evolution is an idea put forth to explain our present situation in regards to the living world around us. The key difference here, (as contrasted to a religion) is that "support" for this explanation must follow a rigid and demanding methodology of information aquistion and assesment.

Yet, even now, to be totally honest, within the context of scientific methodology, one cannot claim absolute unmitigatable truths. ... at best, what appears to be "universal constants' are the most consistent ideas - within the scope of present progress and understanding. i.e. the "best guess"



Religon is fundementally based upon Faith ... which is sufficient unto itself.


Big difference. A manifestation of true science is often if not always at odds with Faith based assertions.

Or if this makes sense ...

In Science, one starts off with the premise "I don't know" but would like to find out ... and I have some ideas ... what do you think of them? ... here's my "proof" ...

In Religion: one starts off with the premise "I don't know" but here are the all the answers (take them on faith ... without question)


LCKob



[edit on 12-11-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 04:46 PM
link   
Keep an open mind guys, I think life happened 3 ways:
1. Somehow, not sure how, but god made the Universe and all these other deminsions and realities.
2. Aliens from wherever played around with genetics on earth and made us and duck platipuses.
3. People have evloved overtime into different socities "perfecting" different things, in tibet(focusing on stuff through sprituality), in africa(hunting and basic agriculture,etc. Now don't flame or beat me up, I'm just try to be general culturally, and what has happend in those places historically.)

But why fight? We all get stuck with an NWO, and we're all too busy fighting about the man upstairs to stop them, or at least to try and scare them back. The least we can do is to somehow go mainstream, and get rid of the viruses and the pop-ups, and spam and pranksters on this site. And maybe read some Black Elk and Thomas Pain.


I've been gone 5 months, went on 3 BSB messages boards, actually like 12 all together and my grammer still sucks!


Anyway, happy to be back.lol


[edit on 11/12/05 by bsbfan1]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 05:10 PM
link   
perhaps God could have used evolution to make the earth, he was fully capable of it, but according to the Bible He didn't.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

God is male? (just curious) Though if that is true, I feel sorry for women ... who were MADE to be the companion of males?

____________________________________________________________

and this example cannot apply to God, for several reasons. yes, your correct someone who made a plane is more skilful then someone who did, but you cannot compare man to God. God is far more powerful then any man, and according to the Bible, He didnt use evolution.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Okay, he did not use the process we call "evolution" ... and "he" created everything exactly as we find it? Complete with observable phenomena like geographic stratification (plainly visible), bones and other "circumstantial" detritus from bygone eras? ... and the observable phenomena of "evolution" in action ... AS WE TYPE?? Take for instance microoganisms ... and the Microscope ... well that is unless you feel that such an optical device is "possessed by demons" ... yes, I'm sure Galileo would have something to say on the matter were he alive and contributing to this board ...

___________________________________________________________


He made it all, and he made it all perfect. there would be no need to continue it by controlling the evolution process, why when he could of made it all at once? and what can be safer then knowing that? If you got into a plane and the pilot told you it was made by a tornado flying through a junkyard, and by some odd chance could prove it, that it actually was, and there was another plane by it that was designed and built by humans, which would you choose? because seriously, by believing evolution you believe in that plane made by a tornado in a junkyard. I feel much safer knowing I was created.


vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv


... as stated by another, feeling "safe" about an explanation has no actual bearing to its validity. Keep in mind, it is not my goal to discount or trivialize the psychological component to the need for answers ... I merely point out that the presense of such "comfort" is not intrinsically tied to truth.

Secondly, your comparison of random spontanaity for the creation of a creature is flawed by over simplification. Within the context of survival in a developing ecosystem ... a creature or creature(s) primary goal is to continue.

Thus what you failed to take into account, with your "tornado" explanation, is that there are variables and driving forces which shape this "random" element towards a vague but imporant goal of primary survival. In casual colloquial terms, Mother Nature i.e. the Global Ecosystem creates an interactive environmental context for change and competition for limited resources.

____________________________________________________________


Let me re-emphasize this, the text in Genesis tells is plainly that God made the earth in a fast period of time, and the evidence we see today,

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

... what do you mean by fast ... as in the proverbial 7 days? If memory serves, it is estimated that the Earth by Scientific Reckoning is about 5 billion years old ... and that it took hundreds of millions of years to congeal, stabilize and create an atmospheric sheath enough for even the possibility of life.

_____________________________________________________________



though is not empirical proof, does point to a young earth and made by design. and after all, why wouldnt God tell us what he did? why would He try and make us read between the lines? the answer is we didnt, we have the Bible,

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv


Yes, as one religious text among a virtual library of such texts if one accounts for religious writings throughout human history ... also, the presense of a book or document does not automatcially pesuppose the validity of its contents. ... citing passages from The Communist Manifesto does not increase the validity or relevance of the ideology ... faulty reasoning that.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

and we have the evidence to prove it, even creation points to it.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

You mean religion and creationism points to it ... evolution tends to be supported by the causal sciences.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


simple logic, you like examples, heres one. You probably think that its retarded that i used that airplane can come from a tornado? it is retarded, yet we say a bird came by random chance?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

No, not total and random chance, but chance as one of the elements or variables intrinsic to the larger equation of species survival within the context of a competitive ecosystem.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

yet a typical birds wing is at least 33% more efficient then any airplane wing that man has made, yet we say it came by chance?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

(sigh) once again, not your oversimplified "chance" ... but and I use the term intentionally, a gradual and Evolutionary process, by which change occurs for a number of reasons (of which chance is but one)... where the any and all such changes /mutations are evaluated within the framework of this creatures success at survival and procreation.

Note that I will stess that my view on evolution is of course my opinion, and this opinion is in part based upon my assessment of the scientific methodology inherent to the theory/working model of evolution ... one that is being constantly tested against new data and new ideas even as I type ... for you see, this process - this methodology does not shrink from the spector of less than perfect knowledge, and as such, it is able to adapt and incorporate an ever increasingly accurate world view ... forever denied to religions frozen to a "status quo" divine answer ...

___________________________________________________________


and to look at probabilities, using math I dont have the exact numbers, but I know that theres a better chance for the plane being made by that tornado then a bird evolving, and the chances for the plane being made by a tornado is somewhere in the area of 1 to to the 10 to the 10,000th power. otherwise, nearly impossible.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Really ...

A particulary important and still contentious discovery is Archaeopteryx lithographica, found in the Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone of southern Germany, which is marked by rare but exceptionally well preserved fossils. Archaeopteryx is considered by many to be the first bird, being of about 150 million years of age. It is actually intermediate between the birds that we see flying around in our backyards and the predatory dinosaurs like Deinonychus. In fact, one skeleton of Archaeopteryx that had poorly preserved feathers was originally described as a skeleton of a small bipedal dinosaur, Compsognathus. A total of seven specimens of the bird are known at this time.

It has long been accepted that Archaeopteryx was a transitional form between birds and reptiles, and that it is the earliest known bird. Lately, scientists have realized that it bears even more resemblance to its ancestors, the Maniraptora, than to modern birds; providing a strong phylogenetic link between the two groups. It is one of the most important fossils ever discovered.

Unlike all living birds, Archaeopteryx had a full set of teeth, a rather flat sternum ("breastbone"), a long, bony tail, gastralia ("belly ribs"), and three claws on the wing which could have still been used to grasp prey (or maybe trees). However, its feathers, wings, furcula ("wishbone") and reduced fingers are all characteristics of modern birds.

Archaeopteryx
Cast of the Berlin specimen of Archaeopteryx lithographica, from the collections of UCMP.
Original at Humboldt University, Berlin.

As you can see, Archaeopteryx certainly had feathers, although whether these feathers were used for regulating its body temperature or for flight is a matter still open for debate. Feathers may have originally evolved for insulation and then been co-opted into flight. The origin of flight, and the actual flight capabilities of Archaeopteryx, are debated. Two models of the evolution of flight have been proposed: in the "trees-down" model, birds evolved from ancestors that lived in trees and could glide down, analogous to today's flying squirrels. In the "ground-up" model, the ancestors of birds lived on the ground and made long leaps. For more information, see our new exhibits on vertebrate flight and avian flight.

The flight stroke may have originated as an extension of the grabbing forearm motions that smaller, agile theropods such as Deinonychus may have used to grab and hang on to prey. As you know if you've ever cut up a chicken, living birds (except for flightless birds like the ostrich and kiwi) have a keeled sternum to which the large, powerful flight muscles attach. Archaeopteryx, however, had a comparatively flat sternum. Although it is currently thought that Archaeopteryx could sustain powered flight, it was probably not a strong flier; it may well have ran, leaped, glided, and flapped all in the same day.



Actually no, odds are far far less for a plane to be "spontaneously" made by a tornado ... as opposed to an evolutionary process creating a superior avian wing over time and many generational cycles.

... improved avian wing ... Yes, I would day that is highly probable given the example of the Archaeopteryx lithographica, found in the Jurassic Solnhofen Limestone of southern Germany ... after all, by all accounts it WAS NOT A STRONG FLYER ... but hey that was an estimated 150, million years ago ... yes birds have come a long way, have they not?






[edit on 12-11-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Nov, 12 2005 @ 11:16 PM
link   
Who knows it was so long ago, no one will never really know all of the real details. I based my knowleadge off of finding reality in mythology and trying to figure out the story the ancients knew that's all I can prove to myself so far. But trust me, it's not necessarily worth arguing over.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 02:01 AM
link   
That "tornado in a junkyard" analogy is totally incorrect. First of all, it was originally written (by Fred Hoyle in 1983) to apply to principles of abiogenesis, as it refers to something being built out of parts. Evolution is based on already existing structures and is fundamentally about changing rather than building.

actually no its not, because thats what it is random chance. No evidence has ever been found to even hint at evolution, NO missing links, even the so called ape men have either turned out to be A: real human beings, B: full blooded monkey, or C: full, blown out lies and hoaxes. Nebraska man for instance was made from a single tooth that later turned out to belong to a extinct type of pig, which in all irony wasnt extint it was found living in the congo.

Evolution occurs gradually through slight processes. To say that these processes occur quickly or without order is ridiculous - evolution is, by its nature, an ordered process.

this is a flawed theory just by looking at the laws of nature. Evolution demands that things get better over time, and the Law of entropy states that over time things get worse, and no exception to the law of entropy is ever found. NO mutations have ever been found that help the animal, in fact 99% of animals with mutations born in the wild DIE. so much for evolution, the Law of entropy pretty much eliminates the whole basis for it.


The feeling of safety that you seek is irrelevant. Certain principles of evolution are proven and the theory as a whole has never been falsified. Not "believing" in evolution is a personal choice, akin to not "believing" that Americans walked on the moon. You can believe these things or disbelieve them, but that doesn't change or affect the reality that evolution occurs and Americans indeed walked on the moon.

correct, a lot of it is our perception, but on the same note, does believing that man didnt walk on the moon mean that man didnt? if man did then mad did, and no matter what you believe that wont chance, on the same note just because you believe that we evolved doesnt make it true.


Originally posted by the_patriot2004
...the evidence we see today, though is not empirical proof, does point to a young earth and made by design.


I never said impirical proof, I said evidence, and the evidence does point to a creater, mearly because by looking at the creation and the complexity of life you can tell that evolution is simply not true. lets just look at the moon, Scientests (yes, even the ones that profess to believe in Evolution) can tell you that the moon is slowly losing orbit. at only abour 1.5 million years ago, it would have been orbiting the earth at an altitude of 10 feet. I know what happenned to the Dinosaurs, they got mooned! (haha joke get it) and the counter argument is that the moon is younger, that it split from the earth by a meteor or that the moon floated along and somehow got attached to the earths orbit, both ludicrouse. any meteorite that could hit the earth with enough force to split the earth apart and form the moon would have totally destroyed all life on earth, ending the evolution process, and knocked earth completly out of orbit eliminating any chance for it to start again. and to float in it would have to come in at an exact time, angle, and speed to get captured in orbit, and that happening without divine intervention is pretty much impossible, anyone who knows anything about gravity and space will tell you that, the odds are astronomical.


This is sort of a non-issue to people who don't believe in the Judeo-Christian God character.

If the shoe doest fit dont wear it.


Originally posted by the_patriot2004
yet we say a bird came by random chance?


Who says that? I think most evolutionists believe that birds evolved into their present states.


evolution demands random chance, slow mutations over millions of years. even the big bang theory depends on chance. the genes just happen to change the animal to something better. to say something, anything, evolved, is saying by chance, because that is what it is.


Originally posted by the_patriot2004
yet a typical birds wing is at least 33% more efficient then any airplane wing that man has made, yet we say it came by chance?


Huh? No, we don't say it "came by chance," we say that it was evolved.

refer to previous comment, same thing.


Originally posted by the_patriot2004
...and to look at probabilities, using math I dont have the exact numbers, but I know that theres a better chance for the plane being made by that tornado then a bird evolving, and the chances for the plane being made by a tornado is somewhere in the area of 1 to to the 10 to the 10,000th power. otherwise, nearly impossible.


These calculations are fundamentally flawed and essentially meaningless. You wanna know the chances of a bird evolving to become what it is today? 100%!

you say this, because you are a die hard evolutionists, but I assure you they are not flawed. they were made by men far more intelligent then me or you, and If I remember right the man who made it was a former evolutionist. I might be mistaken on that one so dont quote me on it, but in any case its an accurate information. you say that its 100% chance that it happenned, well prove it scientifically. Science is observable, testable, and repeatable. on those principles you cant be totally sure because A: no one has seen one type of animal evolve into another. B: no one has been able to make an animal change into more advanced species, all their attempts to create evolution have failed, all the mutations were lethal to the animals they tested it on, and C: repeatable, and evolution so far has not repeatable, and scientists who try to make animals fly arnt able to repeat them with the same effects, and evolution isnt happenning today. so you believe 100% that birds evolved into their present state? well why? theres no proof or even hint of evidence that they did, yet you say you believe 100%? man you got a lot of faith. people accuse me of having faith, well to tell the truth I dont believe in God because I have a lot of faith, I believe in God because I dont have enough faith not to.




[edit on 13-11-2005 by DontTreadOnMe]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 02:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
"Evolution is a religion. I don't have enough faith to believe in evolution"


Ah, sorry but not true.

actually it is, it is a religion. like I said in my previous post, Evolution requires faith to believe in, and so does creationism. they both require faith, because no one was actually there. Creationism no one saw God create the earth, and no one has seen an animal evolve. they are both matters of faith, and we choose to believe one or the other on what we percieve to be true. If we were raised to believe in Evolution naturally we will see the evidence and try and apply it to our theory. If we were raised to believe in creation, it is the same. Im gonna be my own worst critic, but by the purest form they both require faith and they are both religions. there is really only 2 differences. #1 creationists have a book that tells us what happens that is supposed to have been written by God (which I believe) and #2 the evidence. again I say evidence, not proof. and yes this is my perception of what I see as truth, but using logic. all you have to do is look at any life and all its complexity. I mean the human brain processes probably 100 times more information in a single hour then the fastest computer today will process in a week. seriously, its complex. a single blade of grass is more efficient then any man made solar panel. so yes, evolution is just as much a religion as creation, just because the word doesnt mean religion doesnt make the theory religion.

[edit on 13-11-2005 by the_patriot2004]

[edit on 13-11-2005 by the_patriot2004]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 03:23 AM
link   
actually it is, it is a religion. like I said in my previous post, Evolution requires faith to believe in,

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Actually no, it requires factual data and a working hypothesis as to how this information fits within an existing framework of similarly researched theories.

___________________________________________________


and so does creationism. they both require faith, because no one was actually there.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Yes that is probably true, no one was there ... yet your religion mandates an answer with no leeway for assessment or verification ... thus you REQUIRE FAITH IN THIS FIXED ANSWER.

Science on the other hand merely proposes working models of what could have happened given the AVAILABLE DATA GATHERED. i.e no Faith req.

___________________________________________________________


Creationism no one saw God create the earth, and no one has seen an animal evolve. they are both matters of faith,

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Actually no, as I have stated, mutations occur on a daily basis and can be observed most readily in the microscopic realm ...

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

... and we choose to believe one or the other on what we percieve to be true.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

To be more precise, your perception of truth is mandated by dogma ... mine is determined by available information and data ... there is a difference.

... and this difference is ... if tomorrow incontrvertable proof manifested to promote a god like being ... then I would change my world view.

... but (correct me if I am wrong) but no such proof could exist to sway your faith in the bible. ... for faith is the absolute suspension of disbelief - and so by extention absolute belief bar none.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we were raised to believe in Evolution naturally we will see the evidence and try and apply it to our theory. If we were raised to believe in creation, it is the same.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

No, not necessarily (see answer above)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im gonna be my own worst critic, but by the purest form they both require faith and they are both religions. there is really only 2 differences. #1 creationists have a book that tells us what happens that is supposed to have been written by God (which I believe) and #2 the evidence. again I say evidence, not proof.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

#1 - Belief is Proof
#2 - Evidence is variable possibility

In a nutshell this is the difference which within the context of this argument is mutually exclusive as in Faith is not Science is not Faith. .

-------------------------------------------------------------------


and yes this is my perception of what I see as truth, but using logic. all you have to do is look at any life and all its complexity.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Paleontology gives an objective view of what came before by means of material evidence and a verifiable/repeatable body of research.

Note that I did not say absolute truth ... for that is the realm of Faith.

______________________________________________________



I mean the human brain processes probably 100 times more information in a single hour then the fastest computer today will process in a week. seriously, its complex. a single blade of grass is more efficient then any man made solar panel. so yes, evolution is just as much a religion as creation, just because the word doesnt mean religion doesnt make the theory religion.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

All you are really saying here is life is complex ... and man made devices are less complex ... there is no corelation here with the divine ...


vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Once again incorrect, please read the accepted definition of the scientific method ... the working model of evolution is intrinsically linked to this process

... faith and subjectivity has no part in the evaluative process, in fact, the very process denies the use of "faith" due to the quantifiable requirements of the methodology ...

In basic research ... a scientist CANNOT promote a theory to his or her collegues ... and end it by saying ... that there is no evidence or data supporting the hypotheis ... he or she cannot (or at least should not) say I believe in theory x because I have faith. Any such proposal would be thrown out faster than you could say "intelligent design!" The idea is really simple ... use the metaphor of a tall building ... each floor has to be strong enough to support the floor above it ... fact and data are like the load bearing girders of this tall building ... without them the building would quickly collapse upon itself because it had not cohesive internal support structure.

This is why Causal Science are NOT A FAITH BASED RELIGION ... scientists do not rely on faith for conclusions ... therefore, if there is no data or evidence ... it just means that within the scientific community this "building" has not risen yet.



With religion, dogma provides answers which are reinforced by "faith".

With the scientific Method, THE QUESTIONS COME BEFORE ANY TENTATIVE ANSWERS ... with their relative merit weighed by existing data and correlatable proofs.

en.wikipedia.org...

The scientific method or scientific process is fundamental to scientific investigation and to the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by the scientific community. Scientists use observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by various experiments, which should be reproducible. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be possible to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement not based upon the scientific method.

Once an hypothesis is repeatedly verified through experiment, it is considered to be a theory and new predictions are based upon it. Any erroneous predictions, internal inconsistencies or lacunae, or unexplained phenomena, initiate the generation correction to hypotheses, which are themselves tested, and so on. Any hypothesis which is cogent enough to make predictions can be tested in this way.

Scientific method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Portal Scientific method portal




[edit on 13-11-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 01:24 PM
link   
ah, one more thing ...

"Creationism no one saw God create the earth, and no one has seen an animal evolve. they are both matters of faith, ..."

So, you give credence to something by observation or experience?

Despite the fact that circumstances may prevent observation for a number of reasons? so to you what ever is 'unobservable' is a matter of faith?

Examples to think about ....

1. You walk on the beach and come acoss unknown "animnal" tracks leading to the sea ... by your logic ... there was no direct observation of this event ... thus the "tracks" must remain a mystery ... hey lets see what the bible says about somethig like this ...

2. You close the refigerator door, does the light actually go off? ... according to you, the last you "observed" ... the light was on ... hey maybe it does stay on ... actually relatively easy to test AFTER THE FACT with consistant VERIFIABLE AND REPEATABLE DOCUMENTED outcomes ...

... quick answer here, merely open the refig door on some morning (where you are the first) ... now quickly feel the bulb (incandescent or flourescent) .. and notice the temperature ... and presence or lack of condensation .. both are indicators of the presense of heat ... and so ... if the bulb is cold then you have a good start on evidence that the bulb actually does go off when the door is close. haha (besides actual methods of PROVING THIS)


... and of course there is this ..

www.bacteriamuseum.org...

"This may actually be one reason why bacteria are so successful: the sharing of advantageous properties may enabled evolving species to become even more succesful. Their success depends on the selective pressures that are applied. This may sound very theoretical, but the truth is that we see it around us all the time. In our exhibit 'Antibiotics' it is explained that the use of antibiotics in medicine has resulted in resistance to antibiotics. Two mechanisms are responsible for the spread of antibiotic resistance among bacteria: every once in a while spontaneous mutations are formed that result in resistance (many bacteria are re-inventing the wheel!) but some bacteria simply 'steel' the DNA of their counterparts that have learned to deal with antibiotics. So, mutations and DNA sharing are the tools to generate diversity and increases the chance of a best fit. The selective pressure that leads to the spread of resistance is our use of antibiotics that selects for bacteria that are resistant. The battle between bacteria and man--the result of evolution."



Common every day occurance that affects everyone to some degree ...

Antibiotics and you ... but hey I will not quibble about 'direct observation" which (I had in college - along with anyone taking highschool or college biology/microbiology classes ...

... but even with all of this, the scientific method merely proposes the creation of an effective PREDICTING model of bacteria in regards to evolutionary mechanisms for survival ... active and observable today.

... by the way, what does the bible say about Bacteria and microorganisms?

... anything? ... anything at all? If not, then I suppose they don't exist ... despite the fact that ANYONE CAN SEE THEM with the right tools.

So now, I ask this ... what if phenomena is NOT mentioned in the bible .. what then?

LCKob





[edit on 13-11-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 01:40 PM
link   
Please take my name out of the end of your post, the_patriot2004. It appears as if I wrote that post.

Quoting is easy, guys. Just type in the tags for it:

[qote]
This text is being quoted.
[/qote]

Just like that, except, spell "quote" correctly.

Zip

[edit on 11/13/2005 by Zipdot]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 02:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by bsbfan1
Keep an open mind guys, I think life happened 3 ways:
1. Somehow, not sure how, but god made the Universe and all these other deminsions and realities.
2. Aliens from wherever played around with genetics on earth and made us and duck platipuses.
3. People have evloved overtime into different socities "perfecting" different things, in tibet(focusing on stuff through sprituality), in africa(hunting and basic agriculture,etc. Now don't flame or beat me up, I'm just try to be general culturally, and what has happend in those places historically.)

But why fight? We all get stuck with an NWO, and we're all too busy fighting about the man upstairs to stop them, or at least to try and scare them back. The least we can do is to somehow go mainstream, and get rid of the viruses and the pop-ups, and spam and pranksters on this site. And maybe read some Black Elk and Thomas Pain.


I've been gone 5 months, went on 3 BSB messages boards, actually like 12 all together and my grammer still sucks!


Anyway, happy to be back.lol


[edit on 11/12/05 by bsbfan1]


The Scientific Process is built on the premise of the "open mind" Those who adhere to the mindet and methodology ask who, what, where, when and how ... formulate hypotheses, collect data and assess the findings ... and repeat the process (as a part of the ongoing process).

Thus I submit to you that Scientific Methodology is open minded, flexible and dynamic ... there are no claims to ABSOLUTE TRUTH AND KNOWLEDGE ... because we don't have it ... but it is our goal to ATTAIN as much truth and knowledge as humanly possible.

Hey, those following the methodology actually handicap ourselves by openly admitting that the presense of a diety cannot be DISPROVED ... thus leveling the playing field so to speak ... now organized religion on the other hand often just says in essense ... Believe or be Outcast. Keep Faith or you will fall. add infinitum...

Now, compare our "best guess/working model" to Dogma ... and I challange you to pick the more "open minded" approach.

... but I digress, while indirectly affecting the topic, it is not the topic itself, so I won't elaborate further in this divergent train of thought.


LCKob



[edit on 13-11-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
Evolution as a biological science has been proven over and over again, so calling it a fantasy is not very accurate.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

While I agree with your sentiment, I would caution against the overly liberal use of the term "proven" ... in that science cannot incontrovertibly "prove" much of what is under investigation... perhaps a more accurate way of putting it is ...


Evolution as a component of the biological sciences has been (and even while we converse) reinforced over and over again, so calling it a fantasy is not very accurate, given the nature of the methodology and the undeniable results produced.

....

Perhaps this link will < provide possibilities and food for thought for > some about < the how and why of fossils and their possible implications to > our origins. The site also covers the creationism as compared to objective data compiled over the years for the purpose of defining a scientific model of terrestrial origins.


www.talkorigins.org...







[edit on 13-11-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:12 PM
link   
Recently there's been a lot of concern about fundamentalist Christians trying to brainwash kids into thinking that evolution is a controversial theory (i.e. scientifically unsound).

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Scientifically unsound? Ironic that, given the FACT that the working model of Evolution was (and continues to be) an integral module of the scientific methodology with focus on biology.

____________________________________________________________



The Christian fundamentalists have formed a well organised community which has created a publicity machine lobbying very hard restrict the teachings of Darwinism. Their ideology is being spear headed through the philosophy of something called "intelligent design". Basically this states that many livings things are too complex for evolution to have created them.
The fundamentalists have even generated statistics reporting to show the improbability of evolution on such a complex level.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

I would challange that finding, based upon the data and compiled research in the area of biology, paleotology, astronomy and even physics. (for I am reasonably sure the issue of entropy will emerge)

____________________________________________________________

These statistics seem to ignore the fact there are many ways to solve almost any complex problem and that biology does just that, even when it is not the most efficient solution (as can be observed in two independent organisms facing the same job). This feature in biology has also been observed in many closely related organisms (bacterium’s, plants, insects, and animals alike).

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

I agree with this assessment, it is consistent with present scientific findings

___________________________________________________________


Also by their nature these statistics are incapable of addressing the significance of redundant genes (against the statistic itself). Redundant genes are present in virtually every living thing, and their existence as past legacies (documented almost countless times) also strongly works in evolutions favour.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Yes this is consistent and verifiable

___________________________________________________________

Naturally the fundamentalists want to put god in evolutions place but to do this they are carrying out their attack on a political level. Seeming to lack scientist who happen to be fundamentalist, some intelligent design proponents have even obtained degrees to boost their credentials. This was revealed in Newscientist 9th July 05 page 12.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Irregardless of degree, proponents from both sides will be oblidged to provide effective, factual data and the process /reasoning behind the respective assertions...

Facts from a young child would be more compelling to those disposed to reason, than any "Degree" or title.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Let me put this to you: An engineer who designs a plane without a pilot is more skilful than one who designs a plane dependant on one. Yet the passengers may feel safer on a plane with a pilot.
So a God who designs everything needed for a working universe at the dawn of time is surely more skilful than one who designs a universe which needs constant divine intervention (at least when it comes to evolution).

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

For the sake of argument let us say that there were two competing "gods" ... as you say, the first creates a stable, all inclusive universe ... one that does not need a pilot so to speak ...

For this scenario, I would want clarifcation of what is meant by "autopilot" ...

1. Does this mean, no change ... limited change?

The underlying motivation for such a question would be simply ... does this universe change over time? ... and if not (because it was all set up and "finalized" ... then why does there seem to be a large body of data supporting a dynamic universe ... on that is constantly changing which directly and indirecty affect the dynamics of living organisms by means of their environment.


For the case of a changing enviroment, the model of evolution fits in and is consistant with observational cues and accumulated research data.

.... so within this context, as to which is superior, I think a case can be made either way ...

In scenario 1. You have the planner who sweats the details ... puts them into place and perpetual status quo? Perfection by inaction or lack of change?

In scenario 2, You have the problem solver ... what better way than to create a model based upon dynamic self correction and adjustment ... a divine "thermostat" if you will.

Note that I personally do not find compelling evidence for dieties ... and postulated the above scenarios "for the sake of argument".

__________________________________________________________


Are the fundamentalists of this world like passengers on a plane as they feel safe (reassured) in a universe where god constantly interferes as opposed to one where he doesn’t have to? Even though this would be superior universe and therefore more likely to by him? Even though unlike manmade things divine things don’t mess up?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Sounds reasonable (you mean "scenario 1?)... in fact within this thread, subjective comfort levels have been mentioned as reasons for a particular view.

_______________________________________________________

The past and the future are written (you could travel to them if only could brake the speed of light). Also all movement below the speed of light takes you to the future as two atomic clocks on a stationary and air born plane once proved. The difference may be less than a millionth of a second in a lifetime but it’s real and is part of relativity.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Valid point, if you agree with the theory of relativity (which I do)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therefore why doesn’t God have the unpiloted perfectly planned model of creation? In fact look at all the evidence for evolution and it looks as though he already does!!! Ever heard of “Gods great plan” in the bible by the way?).

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

I would be far more amenable to such a statement IF present findings were not at such odds with bibilcal assertions ... compounded by the relative levels of past frictions between the fledgling sciences and the more established and dominant religious institutions.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



Yet in many socially “backward” U.S states they are winning the battle against science. As in contrast to evolution ID has passed zero scientific scrutiny (let alones decades of it) and holds not a single tangible achievement to its name. But even in Kansas the school governors are due to accommodate ID through revising scientific standards by accepting “adequate” as opposed to only “natural” scientific explanations. There may be “evidence” for ID but without scientific standards that apply to all things equally there may be “evidence” for everything and anything.

By denying evolution its place in science that fundamentalists are insulting God’s creation (as I tried to demonstrate). If by nothing else this will be punished through poorer science students.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

My opposition to this development would revolve around the degredation of the scientific method ... by allowing in an untested subjective element in the form of this "creator" ... it allows for the precedent of subjectivity into an otherwise objective method.

Keep in mind, that I am not opposed to this diety as in Athiest ... but rather I am trying to maintain the stance of neutral objectivity which is represented by fact based assessments only.

As in the wikipedia definition ... any assertion that is not falsifiable cannot be considered hypothetical due to its nature of subjectivity. Therefore, a god cannot be "installed" in a purely scientific hypothesis until compelling evidence supports such an assertion.

Until then, this assertion would by definition remain an opinion as far as the causal sciences go.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And as the fundamentalists only motivation seems to be fear of a “clock work” reality and a desire to expand the church using some of the very means that Christianity stands against, I bet so too will the fundamentalists who pioneered ID for the wrong reasons. All this from me and I’m not even a Christian!!

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

fear is a great motivator for humans ... and if ones "comfort level" enters into the equation ... then I hazzard the guess that fear is a major component for resistance to change in regards to a fundemental world view.

--------------------------------------------------------------------

But am I right or wrong?

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

I think it rather plain what my stance is here ... and of course it is open to outside scrutiny ... my goal here is to find the truth ...

Also please comment on “If God does interfere with evolution he does a pretty bad job given all the cancers and George Bush’s kicking around” Right or wrong? (Democrats first please).
P.S. I’ve written another version of this argument and am about to distribute it. But before I do I want to know if there are any pro ID people who think differently.



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:16 PM
link   
Has anyone considered that intelligent design corroborates God's intelligence?



posted on Nov, 13 2005 @ 05:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by FEMA
Has anyone considered that intelligent design corroborates God's intelligence?


Well, yes, hypothetically speaking if a being had the knowledge, the means and the motivation to mold life on that level, then I think it safe to say that this being is QUITE intelligent.

But is that the case, and can it be proven?


[edit on 13-11-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Nov, 14 2005 @ 11:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by LCKob
actually it is, it is a religion. like I said in my previous post, Evolution requires faith to believe in,

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Actually no, it requires factual data and a working hypothesis as to how this information fits within an existing framework of similarly researched theories.

___________________________________________________

which evolution does not have anymore then creation.

and so does creationism. they both require faith, because no one was actually there.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Yes that is probably true, no one was there ... yet your religion mandates an answer with no leeway for assessment or verification ... thus you REQUIRE FAITH IN THIS FIXED ANSWER.

Science on the other hand merely proposes working models of what could have happened given the AVAILABLE DATA GATHERED. i.e no Faith req.

___________________________________________________________

evolution works on a misrepresentation of the data already gathered on what they see today.

Creationism no one saw God create the earth, and no one has seen an animal evolve. they are both matters of faith,

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Actually no, as I have stated, mutations occur on a daily basis and can be observed most readily in the microscopic realm ...

correct mutations happen daily but none of them help the animal and mutations come from the loss of genetic material. evolution requires that A: the animal gains genetic information (which NOONE has EVER seen happen) and B: that the mutation help the animal, which has NEVER been observed either. Like i said earlier, misrepresentation of available data

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

... and we choose to believe one or the other on what we percieve to be true.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

To be more precise, your perception of truth is mandated by dogma ... mine is determined by available information and data ... there is a difference.

... and this difference is ... if tomorrow incontrvertable proof manifested to promote a god like being ... then I would change my world view.

... but (correct me if I am wrong) but no such proof could exist to sway your faith in the bible. ... for faith is the absolute suspension of disbelief - and so by extention absolute belief bar none.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If we were raised to believe in Evolution naturally we will see the evidence and try and apply it to our theory. If we were raised to believe in creation, it is the same.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

No, not necessarily (see answer above)

there is no way I can "prove" that to you, because of your faith in evolution. that is something you will have to decide on yourself. you have faith that evolution is true based on your experience and what you have seen, but what if I could propose to you that I could disprove everything youve been told about evolution, what would you say then? and then the question is what could I say that you would believe? I mean Ive already brought up that the law of entropy pretty much destroys the evolution theory, and thats not a statement from the Bible thats a law that is taught in every single public school and college in America, the Law of entropy states that everying falls apart over time and no exceptions have been found, yet you have so obviously ignored that, so what will you believe?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Im gonna be my own worst critic, but by the purest form they both require faith and they are both religions. there is really only 2 differences. #1 creationists have a book that tells us what happens that is supposed to have been written by God (which I believe) and #2 the evidence. again I say evidence, not proof.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

#1 - Belief is Proof
#2 - Evidence is variable possibility

In a nutshell this is the difference which within the context of this argument is mutually exclusive as in Faith is not Science is not Faith. .

belief is not proof. I can believe something and it not be true. lets say I grew up in the congo all my life, and I believe the earth is flat. used to be a major theory. yet we all know the earth is round. Yet I can believe with all my heart that the earth is flat, but that doesnt make it flat, the earth is still round whether or not I believe it is, and I propose that God exists whether or not you believe in Him or not. but lets get onto a science here, neither creation nor evolution fall into it. Do I have to bring in the scientific method again? apparently you ignored that part of my reply as well. science is testable, observabe, and repeatable, and neither creation nor evolution fall into this category, leaving them to both be hypothesis.

-------------------------------------------------------------------


and yes this is my perception of what I see as truth, but using logic. all you have to do is look at any life and all its complexity.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Paleontology gives an objective view of what came before by means of material evidence and a verifiable/repeatable body of research.

Note that I did not say absolute truth ... for that is the realm of Faith.

______________________________________________________



I mean the human brain processes probably 100 times more information in a single hour then the fastest computer today will process in a week. seriously, its complex. a single blade of grass is more efficient then any man made solar panel. so yes, evolution is just as much a religion as creation, just because the word doesnt mean religion doesnt make the theory religion.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

All you are really saying here is life is complex ... and man made devices are less complex ... there is no corelation here with the divine ...

Im saying that since an computer requires a designor, so does the infinitly more complex human brain.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Once again incorrect, please read the accepted definition of the scientific method ... the working model of evolution is intrinsically linked to this process

I did I gave you the accepted defintion of the scientific method as is taught in the public schools. by stating that it isnt, well not to be rude but I think maybe you need to go back and take a look at what is science.

... faith and subjectivity has no part in the evaluative process, in fact, the very process denies the use of "faith" due to the quantifiable requirements of the methodology ...

In basic research ... a scientist CANNOT promote a theory to his or her collegues ... and end it by saying ... that there is no evidence or data supporting the hypotheis ... he or she cannot (or at least should not) say I believe in theory x because I have faith. Any such proposal would be thrown out faster than you could say "intelligent design!" The idea is really simple ... use the metaphor of a tall building ... each floor has to be strong enough to support the floor above it ... fact and data are like the load bearing girders of this tall building ... without them the building would quickly collapse upon itself because it had not cohesive internal support structure.

This is why Causal Science are NOT A FAITH BASED RELIGION ... scientists do not rely on faith for conclusions ... therefore, if there is no data or evidence ... it just means that within the scientific community this "building" has not risen yet.

evolution is a faith based religion, as I have already said no one has seen it happen, or evidence of it happening.

With religion, dogma provides answers which are reinforced by "faith".

With the scientific Method, THE QUESTIONS COME BEFORE ANY TENTATIVE ANSWERS ... with their relative merit weighed by existing data and correlatable proofs.

en.wikipedia.org...

The scientific method or scientific process is fundamental to scientific investigation and to the acquisition of new knowledge based upon physical evidence by the scientific community. Scientists use observations and reasoning to propose tentative explanations for natural phenomena, termed hypotheses. Predictions from these hypotheses are tested by various experiments, which should be reproducible. An important aspect of a hypothesis is that it must be falsifiable, in other words, it must be possible to prove the hypothesis to be false. If a proposition is not falsifiable, then it is not a hypothesis, and instead an opinion or statement not based upon the scientific method.

Once an hypothesis is repeatedly verified through experiment, it is considered to be a theory and new predictions are based upon it. Any erroneous predictions, internal inconsistencies or lacunae, or unexplained phenomena, initiate the generation correction to hypotheses, which are themselves tested, and so on. Any hypothesis which is cogent enough to make predictions can be tested in this way.

Scientific method
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
Jump to: navigation, search
Portal Scientific method portal


You throw around faith like its a bad thing yet its not, we both have faith mine in a supernatural being, you in what you have been taught about evolution. they are borh hypothesis, and both run on faith. now you claim that yours is based off of evidence yet so do I. so why are we sitting here arguing about faith and all and start providing evidence. I propose this, find a specific evidence for evolution, anything. a half-man half ape, or anything that would point to the evolutionary process, and let us use evidence we see in the world to back up our theories, instead of arguin over which is faith and which is religion. Ill start with the stink bug. In order to produce the blast it shoots from its rear, it has two seperate organs in its body that each contain a different chemical, and on cue the beetle mixes these two together which causes the blast. I propose that this had to have been created, heres why, how would it have evolved? over millions of years, which came first? the chemical or the containment organs? if the containment organs first, how did the creature know that it would need them? so for millions of years it had these organs that did it no good, and it would have been eaten up by predators since it had no defense to protect itself. yet if it had evolved the chemicals first it would have blown up, causing the extinction of the species. slow evolution states that animals evolved slowly over millions of years, yet theres really no way this beetle could have. now theres those that state it happenned instantly, from one species had a baby and it was the next one up, but whered it get the genetic material? it had to have come from somewhere, and nowhere have we seen an animal come from a completly different type.



[edit on 13-11-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Eyes... Bleeding... Can't... Read... PLEASE use quotes correctly:

Regular quote and reply:
-----------------------------------------------------------
[quòte]Originally posted by Superman
Hi, I am faster than a speeding bullet!!!!
[/quòte]

Hi Superman, I think you have a good point here.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This appears as:

Originally posted by Superman
Hi, I am faster than a speeding bullet!!!!


Hi Superman, I think you have a good point here.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Nested quote and reply with a reply:
-----------------------------------------------------------
[quòte]Originally posted by Superman
[quòte]Originally posted by Otherguy
This is a nested quote. Superman is quoting my quote.
[/quòte]
Good point, otherguy. That is a nested quote.
[/quòte]

Nice nested quote, Superman.
-----------------------------------------------------------
This appears as:

Originally posted by Superman

Originally posted by Otherguy
This is a nested quote. Superman is quoting my quote.

Good point, otherguy. That is a nested quote.


Nice nested quote, Superman.


All aboard the quote train!!! CHOO CHOO!

Zip



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 03:00 AM
link   
You throw around faith like its a bad thing yet its not,

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Faith in itself is not necessarily a bad thing but it has no place in scientific methodology.

____________________________________________________________

we both have faith mine in a supernatural being, you in what you have been taught about evolution.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

(once again) wrong ... you have faith in a fixed answer ... I, by means of this methodology, adjust my views as information becomes available ... and is incorporated into a measureable context.

What part of this simple concept do you not understand. As I said, if incontrovertible evidence presented itself as to the presende of a diety I could and would change my world view ... but can you forsake your dogma?

____________________________________________________________


they are borh hypothesis,

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

Lets look at the definition of Hypotheisis shall we?

Main Entry: hy·poth·e·sis
Pronunciation: hI-'pä-th&-s&s
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural hy·poth·e·ses /-"sEz/
Etymology: Greek, from hypotithenai to put under, suppose, from hypo- + tithenai to put -- more at DO
1 a : an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument b : an interpretation of a practical situation or condition taken as the ground for action
2 : a tentative assumption made in order to draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences
3 : the antecedent clause of a conditional statement

Okay, so you are saying that your religion is based upon hypotheses? \

Really, ... as in "an assumption or concession made for the sake of argument"

Ohhh ... so the bible is comprised of assumptions?

So, you readily admit that your belief and the bible are nothing but opinions?

So when do you - "draw out and test its logical or empirical consequences"

... so by extension, you are allowed to experiment and find for yourself religious truths?


You might want to answer this fundemental question first before charge into battle ...



Also keep in mind, that I have stressed OFTEN that science contains no ABSOLUTE PROOFS ... by process and design, this methodology helps to gather, examine and assess data in light of testable ideas. These become working models for our understanding of the universe around us ...


Here are just a few sites which contain evidence and reinforce the case for "unintelligent design" otherwise known as evolution.



Why Are Scientists Confident that Complex Biological Systems Evolved Gradually?
www.talkreason.org...


Observed Instances of Speciation
www.talkorigins.org...


Evolution in (Brownian Space): A Model of the origin of Bacterial Flagellum
www.talkreason.org...


The Nitty Gritty Bit
www.talkreason.org...


Distinguishing rationalization from logic
www.talkreason.org...


ID for faithful, evolution for scientists
barometer.orst.edu...


Patience and Absurdity: How to Deal with Intelligent Design Creationism
A review of Why Intelligent Design Fails: A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism
www.talkreason.org...


Why Intelligent Design Fails
A Scientific Critique of the New Creationism
www.talkreason.org...


29+ Evidences for Macroevolution
The Scientific Case for Common Descent
www.talkorigins.org...


Evolution and Chance
www.talkorigins.org...


Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
www.talkorigins.org...


Five Major Misconceptions about Evolution
www.talkorigins.org...


Attributing False Attributes to Thermodynamics
www.talkorigins.org...


Entropy, Disorder and Life
www.talkorigins.org...


Comparison of the Human and Great Ape Chromosomes as Evidence for Common Ancestry
www.gate.net...


The Genetic Basis of Evolutionary Change
www.gate.net...

Fossil Hominids
The Evidence for Human Evolution
www.gate.net...


Evidence Supporting Biological Evolution
books.nap.edu...


In Defense of Evolution (2003)
www.infidels.org...


DNA Sequence of Baboon Highly Repeated DNA: Evidence for Evolution by Nonrandom Unequal Crossovers
www.pnas.org...


Top Ten Types of Evidence for the Evolutionary Origin of Species (also termed Common Ancestry, Descent With Modification, "Macroevolution")
puffin.creighton.edu...



[edit on 15-11-2005 by LCKob]



posted on Nov, 15 2005 @ 02:55 PM
link   
Patriot says:

belief is not proof. I can believe something and it not be true. lets say I grew up in the congo all my life, and I believe the earth is flat. used to be a major theory. yet we all know the earth is round.

VVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVVV

LCKob Responds:

Hmmmm ... Does Galileo ring a bell here? Darwin and the Galapagos?

_________________________________________________________

Patriot says:

Yet I can believe with all my heart that the earth is flat, but that doesnt make it flat, the earth is still round whether or not I believe it is, and I propose that God exists whether or not you believe in Him or not.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

LCKob responds:

Subsititute "the Earth is flat" with "God" and see what you get ... as for proposing ... does your religion actually allow for supposition or proposition? I was under the impression that the presense of this "God" is without question. So can you actually (within the strictures of your religion) prospose or support ANYTHING that is not accepted doctrine?

Well??

_________________________________________________________

Patriot says:

but lets get onto a science here, neither creation nor evolution fall into it. Do I have to bring in the scientific method again? apparently you ignored that part of my reply as well. science is testable, observabe, and repeatable, and neither creation nor evolution fall into this category, leaving them to both be hypothesis.

vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv

LCKob responds:

Actually yes, lets get into science here ...

... as for testable, observable, and repeatable, these criteria are MANDATES FOR SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY. I think I provided enough examples exemplfying these three requirements in my previous post. And you?

... once again your religion requires this?

Show me these requirements please?

[edit on 15-11-2005 by LCKob]



new topics




 
0
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join