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.

 

Bush Advocates Teaching ID in Schools

page: 6
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir

Is there really a wayBush can "win".??? I men if backs the teaching of ID, he is trying to appease other groups and spreading propaganda... If he doesnt back the teaching of ID he is a "biggotted Christian that does not respect freedom of religion"...Is there a way this guy can win on anything ???


He could actually behave like a conservative for once and declare that the federal government has no business being involved in education.




posted on Aug, 16 2005 @ 10:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by drfunk
My issue with creationism and ID is that it should not be taught in a science class. It is pseudoscience and compared to evolution in the amount of scientific 'proof' and 'evidence' it has it becomes clear that it shouldnt be taught in the science class.

Teach creationism/ID in a philosophy or religious studies (elective) classes?? that's fine with me. But dont try and poison science classes with crap...


Interesting sentiments, perhaps a viable solution. But in religion, will they teach that the Bible is literally true? That is the assumption upon which rests the entire contention for creationism. But because the Bible is self-contradictory, it can not be logically contended that it is true in a literal sense. Hence, any legitimancy for the creationist position dissolves.

Here are a few of the contradictions:

Should we kill?
Ex. 20:13 Thou shalt not commit murder.
Ex. 32:27 Thus saith the Lord God of Israel, put every man his sword by his side...and slay every man his brother...companion..neighbor.(See also 1 Sam. 6:19; 15:2,3; Num. 15:36)

Ex 20:5 "...for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God..." (see also Ex 34:14, Deut 4:24, Josh 24:19, and Nah 1:2)
Gal 5:19-20 "Now the deeds of the flesh are evident, which are...jealousy..." (See also 2 Cor 12:20)

Should we tell lies?
Ex. 20:16 Thou shalt not bear false witness.(Prov. 12:22; Rev. 21:8)
1 Kings 22:23 The Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of all these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. (II Thess. 2:11; Josh. 2:4-6 with James 2:25)

Should we steal?
Ex. 20:15 Thou shalt not steal. (Lev. 19:13)
Ex. 3:22. And ye shall spoil the Egyptians. (Ex. 12:35-36; Luke 19:29-33)

Shall we keep the Sabbath?
Ex. 20:8 Remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy. (Ex. 31:15; Num. 15:32,36)
Is. 1:13 The new moons and the Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity. (John 5:16; Matt. 12:1-5)


Shall we make Graven images?
Ex. 20:4. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven...earth...water. (Lev. 26:1)
EX. 25:18 And thou shalt make two cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them.

Are we "saved" through works?
Eph. 2:8,9 For by grace are ye saved through faith...not of works. (Rom. 3:20, 28; Gal. 2:16)
James 2:24 Ye see then how that by works a man is justified, and not by faith only.(Matt. 19:16-21)


Should good works be seen?
Matt. 5:16 Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works. (I Peter 2:12)
Matt. 6:1-4 Take heed that ye do not your alms before men, to be seen of them...that thine alms may be in secret. (Matt. 23:5)


Should we own slaves?
Lev. 25:45-46 Moreover of the children of the strangers that do sojourn among you, of them shall ye buy...and they shall be your posession...they shall be your bondmen forever. (Gen. 9:25; Ex. 21:2,7; Joel 3:8; Luke 12:47; Col. 3:22)
Is. 58:6 Undo the heavy burdens...break every yoke. (Matt. 23:10)


Does God change his mind?
Mal. 3:6. For I am the Lord; I change not. Num. 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent. (Ezek. 24:14; James 1:17)
Ex. 32:14. And the Lord repented of the evil which he had thought to do unto his people. (Gen. 6:6; Jonah 3:10; Sam. 2:30-31; II Kings 20:1-6; Num. 16:20-35)


Are we punished for our parent's sins?
Ex. 20:5 For I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generations. (Ex. 34:7)
Ezek. 18:20 The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father.

Is God good or evil?
Psa. 145:9. The Lord is good to all. (Deut. 32:4; James 1:13)
Is. 45:7 I make peace and create evil. I the Lord do all these things. (Lam 3:38; Jer. 18:11; Ezek. 20:25)

Is God Peaceable?
John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you. (Luke 2:14; Acts 10:36)
Matt. 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth, I came not to send peace, but a sword. (Matt. 10:35-37; Luke 22:36)

Was Jesus trustworthy?
John 8:14 Though I bear record of myself, yet my record is true.
John 5:31 If I bear witness of myself, my witness is not true.

Shall we call people names?
Matt. 5:22 Whosoever shall say Thou fool, shall be in danger of hellfire.
Matt. 23:17 (Jesus said) Ye fools and blind.

Has anyone seen God?
John 1:18 No man hath seen God at anytime. (Ex 33:20; Tim. 6:16; John 6:46; I John 4:12)
Gen. 32:30 For I have seen god face to face. (Ex. 33:11, 23; Is. 6:1; Job 42:5)

How many gods are there?
Deut. 6:4 The Lord or God is one Lord.
Gen. 1:26 And God said, let us make man in our image.(Gen. 3:22; I John 5:7)

Are we all sinners?
Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned. (Rom. 3:10; Psa.14;3)
Job 1:1 There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright. (Gen. 7:1; Luke 1:5-6)

When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"



posted on Aug, 17 2005 @ 11:35 PM
link   
spamandham said - "Is that the process that is thought to have happened, or are you intentionally trying to form a rediculous strawman that you can easily knock down?"

Absolutely not. I stand by creation. This "strawman" you speak of is far more solid than accidental accidents accidentally happening to bring about an accidental reality. Understand this is not speculation, and this isn't religion specific. People have their own religious beliefs and I respect that. This is kind of a basic look at the mechanism of creation. Look back to my example of the sandwich. That sandwich would never have existed without it being thought of first.

We as people create things all the time, similar to the original creating force. I challenge anyone to create something (a painting, a sculpture, a cake, etc.) without first getting an idea about it.

Troy

[edit on 17-8-2005 by cybertroy]



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 12:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
spamandham said - "Is that the process that is thought to have happened, or are you intentionally trying to form a rediculous strawman that you can easily knock down?"

Absolutely not. I stand by creation. This "strawman" you speak of is far more solid than accidental accidents accidentally happening to bring about an accidental reality.


The strawman I was referring to is your positioning evolution as "man consisting of mud magically jumping to life", which by the way, is exactly the process the Bible speaks of for the creation of Adam (athough it speaks of clay rather than mud, but close enough).


Originally posted by cybertroy
Understand this is not speculation,


Yes it is.


Originally posted by cybertroy
and this isn't religion specific.


Of course it is. We wouldn't be having this discussion if not for your religious beliefs.


Originally posted by cybertroy
This is kind of a basic look at the mechanism of creation. Look back to my example of the sandwich. That sandwich would never have existed without it being thought of first.


Life is not a sandwich.

Is there intelligent design behind the feedback in an amplifier and a microphone? Is there intelligent design behind the formation of a tornado? What about crystal formation? We are surrounded by natural processes that result in localized order. Are you simply going to deny that?


Originally posted by cybertroy
I challenge anyone to create something (a painting, a sculpture, a cake, etc.) without first getting an idea about it.


This is semantics. The question isn't whether something can be created without thinking about it, but rather, can life form as the result of natural processes? Of course it can. It is possible the universe was entirely unordered until 1 second ago and randomly formed the order we now see at that time, including our own memories. The odds of this would certainly seem to be unimaginably small, but not zero. Thus, the spontaneous formation of life, which is vastly simpler than that, is also not zero. (current investigation implies the odds are high rather than small anyway)

So the question isn't can it happen, but more importantly, did it?

If you wish to claim we are intelligently designed, then are you willing to recognize the flaws in our design as well, and the necessary implication of the degree of intelligence of said designer?

Examples of flaws in the design (in no way comprehensive); the appendix, the nerve that wraps down the chest area and back up to control speach (can't recall the name), poor spinal design for erect posture that results in wide spread back problems, the vestigal tail, 5 toes, colorblindness, etc. etc.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 03:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by marg6043
This happen when I was in junior high, and imagine what can do to you when somebody is shoving the bible to tell you that you are worshiping God the wrong way in your own school.
[edit on 3-8-2005 by marg6043]


Firstly, I entirely agree with you about the screaming matches. I really don't understand how people can preach a policy of "Love your neighbour as yourself" when at the same time they're treating their "neighbour" like something spawned in hell.

And I'm also wondering if you've considered the fact that evolutionist ideas are being "shoved" at you from every direction, with the same message of hatred and contempt for anyone who is not true to the cause. That is to say, I never did hear of a pre-college student volunteering to learn about evolution.

It seems to me, rightly or wrongly, that if there is to be true freedom of speech and thought then this should work in all directions - as long as it does not incite hatred or criminality, and as long as there is NO attempt to denigrate anyone who does not agree.

Of course on that basis the evolutionists would also have to stop bad mouthing everyone else - AND each other - and enter into a rational debate. And I can't see that happening, can you.

Incidentally, since an URL for a "Scopes Monkey Trial" website has been posted:

hyttp://www3.mistral.co.uk/bradburyac/tennesse.html

I wonder how many people realise now that Professor Kirtley Mather (Harvard), one of the expert witnesses for the defense at that trial, claimed in his evidence that many scientists in America, including himself, were "theistic evolutionists" - that is, people who believe that God used (and still uses?) evolution to make things the way they are. Which sounds suspiciously like a version of Intelligent Design, to me.

Have a good day



Paul



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 04:07 AM
link   
Whist applauding your efforts to substantiate your case - rather than making generalised assertions - it seems you have not been as careful in your research as you might have been.

For example, you seem to think the King James version of the Bible is a word-for-word accurate translation of the original texts. It isn't. Thus this point:


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
Are we all sinners?
Rom. 3:23 For all have sinned. (Rom. 3:10; Psa.14;3)
Job 1:1 There was a man... whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright. (Gen. 7:1; Luke 1:5-6)


is inaccurate because you assume that "perfect" = "without sin."

In Job it is the word "tam", which means "plain."

In Genesis the word translated as "righteous" is "tsaddiq" which means "just" (as in "justice"), which is the same meaning as in Luke, though there the translation is of the Greek word "dikaios."

On other occasions you simply bodge things up, as in


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
When was Jesus crucified?
Mark 15:22 and it was the third hour, and they crucified him.
John 19:14-15 And about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your King! But they cried out...crucify him!"


Firstly, in your enthusiasm you've given the wrong reference - it should be Mark 15:25. Did you misread that, or were you repeating someone else's error, I wonder?

Secondly, you seem to assume that Christ was crucified IMMEDIATELY after his "trial", yet as far as my memory serves me, the trial took place at night, and the crucifixion was the next day.

And what exactly is meant by "hour" anyway? The Original Greek word in both your examples is "hora", which is indeed normally translated simply as "hour." But having said that, it strikes me that there weren't any clocks around at that time - leastways, not as we know clocks. Do you know what way they had of calculating time? Were there 24 hours in a day at that time?

Could these two passages mean that Jesus was "tried" around the sixth hour after midnight - and "crucified" at the third hour after noon?
I don't know - do you?

I could go through the whole of your list like this - but quite frankly I have no interest in ripping your argument to shreds. If you want to believe the Bible is inconsistent in places then you're welcome to that belief.

I just have to wonder whether you actually worked this stuff out for yourself, or whether you're only repeating what you've read or heard elsewhere because you need an excuse not to believe in the overall message.

Have a good day



Paul



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:21 PM
link   
No Paul, it is through abundant and disgusting experience with the Church and the Bible from whence my discontent foments. From the time I was a very "churched" boy to when I served as a deacon at a First Presbyterian Church, I could get no answers to the many "mysteries" of that faith (or those so replete in all the others). Not only that, I experienced the veiled and even blatant derision of the so-called upstanding members of those communities. As a result, my faith was flattened like a bug on a windshield. So my beliefs have become much more simplified, not like the raging cabal of religionists intent on "taking back" America.

President Bush is merely pandering to an electoral base of religionists. Yet the Presidential Science Advisor, Dr. John Marburger III, is engaging in damage control. On Aug. 2, The New York Times quoted a telephone interview with Marburger in which he said, "evolution is the cornerstone of modern biology" and "intelligent design is not a scientific concept."

An article today from Space.com clarifies the "apologetics" that were necessitated by advisors to Bush and advisory boards with excellent credentials:

Marburger also spoke with Dr. Marvin Cohen, President of the American Physical Society, and recipient of the National Medal of Science from President Bush in 2002. In an Aug. 4 release, Cohen explains that the APS is "…happy that the President’s recent comments on the theory of intelligent design have been clarified. As Presidential Science Advisor John Marburger has explained, President Bush does not regard intelligent design as science. If such things are to be taught in the public schools, they belong in a course on comparative religion, which is a particularly appropriate subject for our children given the present state of the world."

Furthermore, "President Bush, in advocating that the concept of ‘intelligent design’ be taught alongside the theory of evolution, puts America’s schoolchildren at risk," says Fred Spilhaus, Executive Director of the American Geophysical Union. "Americans will need basic understanding of science in order to participate effectively in the 21st century world. It is essential that students on every level learn what science is and how scientific knowledge progresses." (AGU, Aug. 2, 2005) AGU is a scientific society comprising 43,000 Earth and space scientists.

Likewise, the American Institute of Biological Sciences criticized the President: "Intelligent design is not a scientific theory and must not be taught in science classes," said AIBS president Dr. Marvalee Wake. "If we want our students to be able to compete in the global economy, if we want to attract the next generation into the sciences, we must make sure that we are teaching them science. We simply cannot begin to introduce non-scientific concepts into the science curriculum." (AIBS, Aug. 5, 2005) The American Institute of Biological Sciences was established as a national umbrella organization for the biological sciences in 1947 by 11 scientific societies as part of the National Academy of Sciences. An independent non-profit organization since 1954, it has grown to represent more than 80 professional societies and organizations with a combined membership exceeding 240,000 scientists and educators.

Science educators are equally dismayed. "The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world’s largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design – effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation’s K-12 science classrooms. We stand with the nation’s leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president’s top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom, said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director." (NSTA, Aug. 3, 2005) NSTA has 55,000 members who teach science in elementary, middle and high schools as well as college and universities.

The American Federation of Teachers, which represents 1.3 million pre-K through 12th grade teachers, was even harsher. "President Bush’s misinformed comments on ‘intelligent design’ signal a huge step backward for science education in the United States. The president’s endorsement of such a discredited, nonscientific view is akin to suggesting that students be taught the ‘alternative theory’ that the earth is flat or that the sun revolves around the earth. Intelligent design does not belong in the science classroom because it is not science." (AFT, Aug. 4, 2005)

There’s significant legal precedent from US Supreme Court that creationism - in any clothing - does not belong in the American classrooms. Teaching creationism is in violation of the separation of church and state, and has been ruled illegal by the US Supreme Court in several cases. It’s unfortunate that the President apparently does not understand that science is not equivalent to a belief system but is description of how the natural world works. Creationism, including intelligent design, is a religious point of view, not science.

At a time when industrial, academic, and business leaders are calling for more American students to train in engineering, mathematics, science and technology, we need to teach science in science classrooms. Let’s teach the scientific ideas that are supported by overwhelming evidence such as gravitation, relativity, quantum mechanics, and evolution. Creationist ideas/beliefs, such as intelligent design, don’t belong in science classrooms. In our haste to leave no child behind, let’s not leave science behind either.



posted on Aug, 18 2005 @ 10:36 PM
link   
Sure, the Bible is a very old document(s) and deserves study along with other and even older inscriptions such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. And of course, there are biblical passages that are inspirational and so forth. However, after considerable study of the Bible, it is overwhelmingly clear to me that biblical sayings are best in short sections (i.e. "sound bytes"). That way, the manifold contradictions are not a problem, as I encountered from youth through adulthood. Even while I was a deacon at a First Presyterian Church, the contradictory miasma could not be ameliorated, other than by cognitive dissonance.

There is precious little scientific data in the Bible, save for vague descriptions of the general localities of a few mineral deposits, et al. Importantly, it is anathema to attempt to derive science from it, for its lessons stress the non-material, non-physical, but spiritual realm of life. Moreover, faith is also highlighted and not knowledge with respect to such realms. Of course, faith or belief is what occurs in the absence of proof. Actual evidence is physical or substantial in nature, the antithesis of faith.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 12:05 AM
link   
spamandham,

It's clear that you aren't grasping what I am talking about. If you don't see it then you don't see it. That's cool, it might take some thought on the subject to see it.

The sandwich is only a simple way of showing how creation works, and to show that the universe in which we live is not accidental, and there was a preconcieved notion in the beginning, meaning, there was a "creator," "creating force," whatever you want to call it.

This is your assignment. I want you to sit down one time and spontaniously jump into action without any forethought as to what you will be doing. Just let me know when you have accomplished this.

Troy



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 06:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
No Paul, it is through abundant and disgusting experience with the Church and the Bible from whence my discontent foments.


Well, I can certainly agree that the Christian churches include many people who fit the description you give.
But so what? Christianity - or any other religion - stands on the validity, or otherwise, of it's core propositions NOT on whether it's followers are jolly nice chaps.

As to the bulk of your argument in your new mail, I'm afraid you are again arguing out of emotion rather than logic, and I would suggest that you are mistaken - for similar reasons.

Firstly, truth is what is true WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT, NOT whatever belief or theory gets the most votes. Remember, go back a few centuries and all those teachers, academics, etc. would have voted AGAINST Galileo, and AGAINST Darwin.

Consider this fact, if you will - all the pro-evolutionists in the US seem to be terrified of allowing textbooks to include a mention that evolution is a theory NOT a fact, and that there are alternative interpretations of the evidence.

Although this even became the subject of an article in Scientific American, I have yet to see a rational explanation of WHY this would be so terrible (given that it is, after all, true). Most arguments are so childish that they amount to saying very little except "well if we did that for evolution we'd have to do it for the other sciences as well."

DO YOU KNOW that one of the expert witnesses at the Scopes trial used exactly that argument? In 80 years, it seems, no one has been able to come up with a better reason for concealing the truth.

NOW - here's the real irony:

That qualification was included in UK school textbooks ast least as far back as the early 1980's (when I started as a school teacher). And has it undermined the teaching of science in UK schools? NOT AT ALL. NOT one little bit. In fact UK science's biggest problem is that so many of our scientists are lured away to work in the US (better pay, better research facilities, etc.)
So why would your companies be doing that if education has been invalidated by admitting that the evidence for evolution is open to interpretation?

The fact is that US academics are fighting a war which simply polarises the views of the general population. And since a majority of Americans already believe that BOTH evolutionism AND creationism should be taught in schools - that strongly suggests that all of the pro-evolution bigots whose opinions you quote are actually fighting AGAINST THEMSELVES.

If they had the sense to see it - if they weren't blinded by their bigotry - they'd realise that Bush is actually doing them a favour by trying to open out this discussion.
After all, of evolution is so strongly supported by the evidence surely evolutionists should win every debate on the subject with no trouble at all. Shouldn't they?

What a load of wozarks!
(It ain't "bad language", but it ain't complimentary, either)

Have a good day

PaulZ



[edit on 21-8-2005 by PaulZ]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 07:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by cybertroy
The sandwich is only a simple way of showing how creation works, and to show that the universe in which we live is not accidental, and there was a preconcieved notion in the beginning, meaning, there was a "creator," "creating force," whatever you want to call it.


But, you haven't actually shown any of this. You've merely declared it as if it were fact, and then provided some poor analogies.


Originally posted by cybertroy
This is your assignment. I want you to sit down one time and spontaniously jump into action without any forethought as to what you will be doing. Just let me know when you have accomplished this.


Not that it matters, but my heart is beating right now and I am giving it no thought whatsoever.

Regardless, is it your contention that nothing happens unless it is caused by an intelligent agent?



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 10:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaulZ
Well, I can certainly agree that the Christian churches include many people who fit the description you give.
But so what?
deletia
Firstly, truth is what is true WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT, deletia[edit on 21-8-2005 by PaulZ]


So what?!?* But you entirely ignored the important point, that after too many years of belief, none of my questions could be answered adequately. Only by authoritarianism are the "truths" rendered as fact. Facts are not merely asserted a priori without PROOF, certainly not based merely upon BELIEF.

Of course, truth is what is true WHETHER YOU BELIEVE IT OR NOT, (read this very carefully Paul). But your "facts" are based entirely upon belief. You have no evidence for creationism or intelligent design. What are the tests, where is the evidence? Are the results repeatable? Finally, instead of basing your theory on what is found out during investigations, your theory is a foregone conclusion at the outset. It is what you BELIEVE.

All your speculation is merely the fumbling of religionists who attempt to fit themselves with with "scientist hats." Instead they need to find the thinking caps that are tucked away in the innermost recesses of their darkest closets.

The only evidence you have simply amounts to hope, i.e. "evidence of things hoped for..." (BTW, the entire quote from Saul is one of least understood, for good reason I must add. The quotation is mind-numbingly ambiguous and confuses rather than clarifies. Even when I have asked the most fervent fundamentalists to clarify its ambiguity, they could say NOTHING!!!)

*Besides, aren't they supposed to be known by their fruits? Their rotten, stinking fruit of gossip, derision and ostracization. Then consider the history of religionists with uncounted masses stricken in their 2,000 year wake, tortured and killed by their sickening system of BELIEFS.



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:14 PM
link   
An oft repeated post for an ad infinitum topic:



Why is the Christian creation theory viewed as the only alternative to evolution?

It is the theory of a religion. If the Christian creation theory is to be considered another possibility then so must the creation theories of the rest of the worlds religions. The version from the Hindu Puranas for example? The repeating cycles of Buddhism? Or the pagans Great mother? Why stop at religions? What about the many versions from ancient cultures? Surely the closer to the time of creation the more significance and validity the story carries? Aboriginal Dreamtime? Native Americans emergence from the underworld? Ancient Chinas Phan Ku and the cosmic egg?

Would the Christian creationists advocate joint teaching of all these beliefs and theories that in terms of possibility are on a par with their own? I doubt it. The reason Christian creationists, if honest, would most likely give for the teaching of their particular belief above the others is that their culture, history and laws in thier particular country (ie America) are based on Jeudo/Christian beliefs.

Realising that, they must also realise that therefore the teaching of creationism has nothing to do with education, and everything to do with pushing their own religious dogma.


[edit on 21-8-2005 by kegs]



posted on Aug, 21 2005 @ 11:53 PM
link   
OK, I'll be a condescending jackass too, "here's your assignment..."

A snowflake is perfectly explicable in terms of natural phenomena, of natural science. And the process of its formation is replicable in the laboratory and explained in terms of intermolecular forces and meteorology. Certainly, the order observed in such an ice crystal is often remarkable. Yet it is not necessary to invoke an intelligent creator to explain the crystallization process in the atmosphere.

Your "ass"ignment: if ID is a science, then explain the role of the creator and the effects of a creator's presence on snowflake formation. What is the evidence for your results? (No speculation allowed without testable evidence.) How do snowflakes form in such a disordered environment as the interior of a cloud? And why is it that the weather that produces snow is ordered, yet chaotic enough to often defy prediction? Of course not only must the design be proved, but also define the mechanisms from the creator through to the final fall of the flake (in terms of intelligent design only). That is, explain every step of the process of the intelligent design of a snowflake by a creator and exactly what the creator does at each part of the process. Why? Compare your results with the meteorological explanation.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 12:20 AM
link   
Umm.. I'm not sure if you're referring to me, but I'm largely in agreement with you. My post was as an individual thought, not a reply or message to anyone in particular.

[edit on 22-8-2005 by kegs]



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
But you entirely ignored the important point, that after too many years of belief, none of my questions could be answered adequately.


Actually I did take note of your point. What puzzled me was the fact that you didn't - and don't - seem to realize that this one statement - which I accept as being entirely true *for you* actually undermines your entire argument.

What do YOU mean by "adequate" in this context?
Presumably - please correct me if I'm wrong - you mean "to MY satisfaction".

Fine. But that doesn't mean that your questions "couldn't" be answered, only that they weren't answered in a way that was valid *for you*.

Another person might well find the same answers entirely satisfactory - which you might interpret as stupidity or gullibility. But that, too, is only YOUR perception.

Now, you wrote:


Originally posted by Aeon10101110
But your "facts" are based entirely upon belief. You have no evidence for creationism or intelligent design. What are the tests, where is the evidence?


What you fail to realise is that "evidence" has to be INTERPRETED.
There is NO SUCH THING as evidence which simply proves something without there being an observer who INTERPRETS that "evidence" as proving X, Y or Z.

Just as you interpreted the previous answers as inadequate, you interpret the evidence regarding evolution as adequate.

You demand that evidence should pass certain tests. But who decides which tests? Who decides whether X, Y or Z has passed a given test adequately? None of this is "absolute" - it's all down to opinions.

You believe that there is good evidence in support of evolution, but not for creationism. And of course, if that's what you believe then for you it's true. You might, however, want to consider these words from a Nobel Prize winning immunologist and evolutionist, Sir Peter Medawar:

"... it is difficult not to sympathise with the layman's bewilderment upon learning that acceptance of the hypothesis of evolution does not rest - as he assumed it must - upon the validity of so-called proofs of evolution, most of which are unconvincing or open to other interpretations, but rather upon evidence of a different and far weightier kind."
Aristotle to Zooes, Peter and Jean Medewar. Oxford University Press, 1985. Pages 92-93.

The "weightier kind of evidence", by the way, was that the evolutionary hypothesis was - in Sir Peter's opinion, of course - the only "explanation" which made sense of all the evidence!

Hey, how's THAT for shooting yourself in the foot!

I have no quarrel with you believing whatever you choose to believe. I merely think it might be a little more respectful to your fellow man to recognise that you are NOT replacing "beliefs" with "facts" - you're trying to replace one set of beliefs with another set of beliefs.

Bush, is at least arguing that the various beliefs should be put on the table and discussed.
I say again, if evolution is such an open and such case, why are evolutionists afraid to participate in open discussion? Maybe it's their arrogance that leads them to suppose that lay people won't understand their open and shut case?

Maybe they need to learn to communicate, for a change, instead of simply demanding that everyone take their word as "gospel" .... Oops!

Have a good day



PaulZ



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 11:59 AM
link   
Thank you PaulZ



You have voted PaulZ for the Way Above Top Secret award. You have two more votes this month.


I have given you my vote for your statement below which I have also added to my signature. This is something that I have been saying for a very long time, but since ID, creationism or any other theory / belief.



if evolution is such an open and shut case, why are evolutionists afraid to participate in open discussion? Maybe it's their arrogance that leads them to suppose that lay people won't understand their open and shut case?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaulZ
I say again, if evolution is such an open and such case, why are evolutionists afraid to participate in open discussion? Maybe it's their arrogance that leads them to suppose that lay people won't understand their open and shut case?


What do you call scientific journals, magazines, message boards such as this one etc.? Are these not open discussions?

Paul, I'm curious what is the purpose behind the intelligent design of the appendix?



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by PaulZ

Originally posted by Aeon10101110
But you entirely ignored the important point, that after too many years of belief, none of my questions could be answered adequately.


Actually I did take note of your point. What puzzled me was the fact that you didn't - and don't - seem to realize that this one statement - which I accept as being entirely true *for you* actually undermines your entire argument.


But you didn't mention it at all or address it in any way whatsoever. Why? Instead, you merely reframe the debate in your own terms constantly, thereby creating conditions whereby only your point may be made. And otherwise, there is actually an objective concept of truth which is the basis of knowledge and investigation. That is, your feigned acceptance of what is true *for you* (subjective truth) is drivel. Something of a "baiting" technique, it appears.

Before I could possibly address the convoluted morass of your diatribe on interpretation, please provide a possible explanation as to why none of my questions over the years, regarding the veracity of the simplistic, biblical explanations and interpretations, could be answered by religionists.


Originally posted by PaulZ
Hey, how's THAT for shooting yourself in the foot!


How so? Please elucidate.



posted on Aug, 22 2005 @ 10:42 PM
link   
Paul, instead of your manifold digressions into etiology, for once explain something useful in terms of your position.

To Wit:

A snowflake is perfectly explicable in terms of natural phenomena, of natural science. And the process of its formation is replicable in the laboratory and explained in terms of intermolecular forces and meteorology. Certainly, the order observed in such an ice crystal is often remarkable. Yet it is not necessary to invoke an intelligent creator to explain the crystallization process in the atmosphere.

If ID or CS is actually science, then explain the role of the creator and the effects of a creator's presence on snowflake formation. What is the evidence for your results? (No speculation allowed without testable evidence.) How do snowflakes form in such a disordered environment as the interior of a cloud? And why is it that the weather that produces snow is ordered, yet chaotic enough to often defy prediction? Of course not only must the design be proved, but also define the mechanisms from the creation through to the final fall of the flake (in terms of intelligent design only). That is, explain every step of the process of the intelligent design of a snowflake by a creator and exactly what the creator does at each part of the process. Why? Compare your results with the meteorological explanation.



new topics




 
0
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join