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.
Originally posted by Pockets
reply to post by Old Man
come on, how has the bible ever been right, I want to know
Growth rings in trees and other plants are caused by a variation in the water supply to the plant. Annual rings occur when the temperature drops and the sap in the tree fails to rise. The leaves of the deciduous trees turn color and die, soon dropping off. In the spring, the warmth releases the tree from its state of "hibernation" and the sap begins to flow again. Even though there may be water in the ground, when the temperature drops, the tree does not continue its cycle until it is again spring. Therefore, a ring results when the growth is temporarily halted and begins when spring arrives.
In order to understand why the pre-flood wood showed no growth rings one needs only to consult the Bible. It informs us that before the flood it did not rain; therefore there were not wet and dry seasons. Growth was at a constant rate.
I will have a look at this film once I find it. Although I have to agree with one of the quotes from wiki that ID is not a science nor does it have any scientific premise to back up its claims. Its like me stating that the universe was created by a tribe of space pixies and that the design in nature is proof that these pixies were the ones who did it. To me it is a claim that bears no merit for it is unprovable and therefore should not be submitted.
Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by shihulud
S, yes...
I agree with you, MidnightDStroyer's post's were good/informative...for sure.
Nice response from you as well...as usual...
...
Refering to... en.wikipedia.org...:_No_Intelligence_Allowed
Have you seen this?
Some holes...yes
But overall creditable, in my mind....
OT really interested in your take...AFTER YOU SEE IT, OK?
OT out...game two is on!
His claims are dismissed by scientists, historians, biblical scholars and Christian leaders even in his own Seventh-day Adventist Church, but he continues to have a strongly motivated if narrowly based following among some fundamentalists and evangelicals WIKI
Originally posted by Pockets
It's not that they or I fear the bible, it's the fact that these people know that it's a load of rubbish, total lies to control the dumb people
Originally posted by PammyK
reply to post by OldThinker
OT I have just read through this thread and I would like to tell you that you are a very smart man! I think scientist are afraid of religion. This is a wonderful way to "get the word out." Kudos to you! It sure got people talking. I just wonder how non-believers live day to day not believing in God, or any "higher power." I believe that the Bible teaches us to love and be kind to one another. Just because some religious people down through the ages were terrible dosen't mean it spoils the whole basket. I believe in science myself and think without it we might not be around, maybe they were put here to serve just that purpose.
Just watched the film - hmmmmmm where do I start? Provoking - yes, biased - to an extent. The first hour was thoroughly enjoyable until ID became creationism, bringing in nazi-ism and eugenics as an argument was below the belt. I agreed and disagreed all the way through it although one point was never expanded on (except at the end by Dawkins in a roundabout way) in that ID supposes the complex 'design' on Earth is evidence for an intelligence - fair enough I suppose, however that also implies that the 'designer' would be more complex and therefore also require a designer ad infinity. To explain this away as being the creation of a infinite external entity does more damage to the 'theory' than the theory that complex life originated from simple beginnings.
Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by shihulud
shihulud,
You get a chance to see the film we discussed?
I'm about ready to go to the new 007 movie this weekend with my 17 yr old daughter...she's thinks he's hot oh well she's growing up
Hope all is well...let me know what you think of the Ben Stein film...I really enjoyed it...some issues, but overall quite provoking!!!
God bless you
OT out
Originally posted by shihulud
Just watched the film - hmmmmmm where do I start? Provoking - yes, biased - to an extent. The first hour was thoroughly enjoyable until ID became creationism, bringing in nazi-ism and eugenics as an argument was below the belt. I agreed and disagreed all the way through it although one point was never expanded on (except at the end by Dawkins in a roundabout way) in that ID supposes the complex 'design' on Earth is evidence for an intelligence - fair enough I suppose, however that also implies that the 'designer' would be more complex and therefore also require a designer ad infinity. To explain this away as being the creation of a infinite external entity does more damage to the 'theory' than the theory that complex life originated from simple beginnings.
Originally posted by OldThinker
reply to post by shihulud
shihulud,
You get a chance to see the film we discussed?
I'm about ready to go to the new 007 movie this weekend with my 17 yr old daughter...she's thinks he's hot oh well she's growing up
Hope all is well...let me know what you think of the Ben Stein film...I really enjoyed it...some issues, but overall quite provoking!!!
God bless you
OT out
All in all a very very good film.
Any specifics you wish to discuss???
G
First, I have to agree with the ID crowd that there are some very big (and frankly exciting) questions that should keep evolutionists humble. While there is important work going on in the area of biogenesis, for instance, I think it's fair to say that science is still in the dark about this fundamental question. It's hard to draw conclusions about the significance of what we don't know. Still, I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close. I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.
Second, IDers also argue that the cell is far more complex than Darwin could have imagined 149 years ago when he published On the Origin of Species. There is much more explaining to do than those who came before us could have predicted. Sure, we also know a lot more about natural selection and evolution, including the horizontal transfer of portions of genomes from one species to another. But scientists still have much to learn about the process of evolution if they are to fully explain the phenomenon. Again, I have faith that science will complete that picture, but I suspect there will be some big surprises. Will one of them be that an intelligent being designed life? I doubt it. Even if someone found compelling evidence for a designer, for us materialists, it would just push the ultimate question down the road a bit. If a Smart One designed life, what is the material explanation for its existence?
The third noteworthy point IDers make has its roots, paradoxically, in a kind of psychological empiricism. Millions of people believe they directly experience the reality of a Creator every day, and to them it seems like nonsense to insist that He does not exist. Unless they are lying, God's existence is to them an observable fact. Denying it would be like insisting that my love for my children was an illusion created by neurotransmitters. I can't imagine a scientific argument in the world that could convince me that I didn't really love my children. And if there were such an argument, I have to admit I'd be reluctant to accept it, however compelling it appeared on paper. I have too much respect for my own experience.
I suppose it would just be the same view that the christians took when confronted with so called witches and people like Galileo etc.
Originally posted by OldThinker
I guess the thing that surprized me...was the traditional 'origin' establishment group was SO negative to an opposing view...
As I said religions held a similar view and to an extent still very much do (ie the close mindedness) as do many scientists. It is the concept of pride/ego and most of all the feeling of being perceived to be WRONG that closes the minds of most. I very much agree with the notion of 'put in on the table...debate it.'... and then decide for yourself how much you agree or disagree. As I have said in other posts - I am not an atheist due to the views of others (they might help in my conviction) but mainly due to my agreement or ultimately disagreement with the evidence put on the table
I don't know, if just seemed they were closed-minded...my background into education was, something to this effect..."let all views be put on the table....debate it...and you decide!" You know fair-and-balanced stuff...
I will agree that I find ID more palatable than creationism and could even subscribe to an extent. Creationism digs a deep hole into close mindedness with the assumption that the Judeochristian god is the architect without even contemplating other scenarios i.e the creation myths of other cultures/ panspermia or even that life DID arise through natural causes. I myself find it perfectly plausible that life on Earth could have been seeded or manipulated by an intelligence (just not one that forgoes rationale) but also can just as easily find it plausible that life arose via natural processes i.e simple to complex.
First, I have to agree with the ID crowd that there are some very big (and frankly exciting) questions that should keep evolutionists humble. While there is important work going on in the area of biogenesis, for instance, I think it's fair to say that science is still in the dark about this fundamental question. It's hard to draw conclusions about the significance of what we don't know. Still, I think it is disingenuous to argue that the origin of life is irrelevant to evolution. It is no less relevant than the Big Bang is to physics or cosmology. Evolution should be able to explain, in theory at least, all the way back to the very first organism that could replicate itself through biological or chemical processes. And to understand that organism fully, we would simply have to know what came before it. And right now we are nowhere close. I believe a material explanation will be found, but that confidence comes from my faith that science is up to the task of explaining, in purely material or naturalistic terms, the whole history of life. My faith is well founded, but it is still faith.
I agree that even the most simple celled lifeform is very very complex but that still does not detract from the idea that this complexity could very well have come about from natural processes from simpler objects (not a good word). Its not inconceivable that life may have arisen from 'dead' molecules
Second, IDers also argue that the cell is far more complex than Darwin could have imagined 149 years ago when he published On the Origin of Species. There is much more explaining to do than those who came before us could have predicted. Sure, we also know a lot more about natural selection and evolution, including the horizontal transfer of portions of genomes from one species to another. But scientists still have much to learn about the process of evolution if they are to fully explain the phenomenon. Again, I have faith that science will complete that picture, but I suspect there will be some big surprises. Will one of them be that an intelligent being designed life? I doubt it. Even if someone found compelling evidence for a designer, for us materialists, it would just push the ultimate question down the road a bit. If a Smart One designed life, what is the material explanation for its existence?
Subjectivity and personal experience are in NO WAY a basis for the existence or non existence of a creator and also not 'observable fact' however much the subjectivity enforces the ideal.
The third noteworthy point IDers make has its roots, paradoxically, in a kind of psychological empiricism. Millions of people believe they directly experience the reality of a Creator every day, and to them it seems like nonsense to insist that He does not exist. Unless they are lying, God's existence is to them an observable fact. Denying it would be like insisting that my love for my children was an illusion created by neurotransmitters. I can't imagine a scientific argument in the world that could convince me that I didn't really love my children. And if there were such an argument, I have to admit I'd be reluctant to accept it, however compelling it appeared on paper. I have too much respect for my own experience.
The same can be said for the religious faithful in their inference of a deity
so...the article concludes...
"Which leads me to a final concession to my ID foes: When they say that some proponents of evolution are blind followers, they're right. A few years ago I covered a conference of the American Atheists in Las Vegas. I met dozens of people there who were dead sure that evolutionary theory was correct though they didn't know a thing about adaptive radiation, genetic drift, or even plain old natural selection. They came to their Darwinism via a commitment to naturalism and atheism not through the study of science. They're still correct when they say evolution happens. But I'm afraid they're wrong to call themselves skeptics unencumbered by ideology. Many of them are best described as zealots. Ideological zeal isn't incompatible with good science; its coincidence with a theory proves nothing about that theory's explanatory power. "
It would seem not, the pride/ego concept comes into its own here.
"Can't they all just get along"
Originally posted by Pockets
reply to post by Old Man
come on, how has the bible ever been right, I want to know