PRO

Where Your Ideas can change Minds

Please visit our new forum at

http://www.4forums.com

CON


YouDebate.com Forum
» back to YouDebate.com
Register | Profile | Log In | Lost Password | Active Users | Help | Board Rules | Search | FAQ |
Custom Search
» You are not logged in.   log in | register

  YouDebate.com Forum
   Creationism vs Evolution Debates
     Teaching ID is nonsensical
       Spare a thought for the teachers

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

    
racoon

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

If Creation starts to be taught in science lessons, and in order not to discrimate every religion's beliefs have to be taught, what happens to RE? And the Science teachers who have studied ACTUAL SCIENCE for years who now have to teach nonsense that they know full well isn't true.
Creationism does not belong in Science classes, it can stay in RE where it belongs.


-------
I'm too good for anything to have created me
 


Posts: 4 | Posted: 05:55 AM on February 21, 2006 | IP
Jade-Raevyn

|       |       Report Post




Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I absolutely agree.  I am Christian, I believe God created the world, and I say that creationism has no place in the science classroom.  However, if there is scientific evidence that puts evolution in doubt, that should at least be touched on in science class.  You can't just teach something as complete fact when it isn't.  Give both sides of the story-meaning the scientific sides-and let people figure it out on their own.  
 


Posts: 2 | Posted: 08:43 AM on February 21, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from racoon at 05:55 AM on February 21, 2006 :
And the Science teachers who have studied ACTUAL SCIENCE for years who now have to teach nonsense that they know full well isn't true.


Oddly enough I had a middle school teacher,Ph.d, believe it or not,  who couldn't teach it but believed everything was created on a theological and scientific basis.

I don't know if it's nonsense considering there are some great scientists on both sides of the issue.

The biggest problem with people teaching Evolution is that it's taught as absolute fact and some of the examples in textbooks are well known frauds/misleading in evolutionist circles. For example, Haekel's embryos. . .


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 12:52 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Oddly enough I had a middle school teacher,Ph.d, believe it or not,  who couldn't teach it but believed everything was created on a theological and scientific basis.

There's the catch, he "believed" everything was created...One doesn't believe in the theory  evolution, one accepts it based on the strength of the evidence.  Someone believes in creation based on faith, since there is no evidence to support it.  

The biggest problem with people teaching Evolution is that it's taught as absolute fact and some of the examples in textbooks are well known frauds/misleading in evolutionist circles. For example, Haekel's
embryos. . .


But evolution is a fact, allele frequencies in populations do change over time, new species do arise and the theory of evolution explains it.
And virtually all the experts agree that there is so much evidence supporting the theory of evolution, it is a provisional fact.  As for frauds being used to teach evolution, what frauds?  Haeckel's law of recapitulation was discredited at the begining of the 20th century and hasn't been used to support evolution since then.  What text books still use it?
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 01:46 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 01:46 AM on February 22, 2006 :

There's the catch, he "believed" everything was created...One doesn't believe in the theory  evolution, one accepts it based on the strength of the evidence.  Someone believes in creation based on faith, since there is no evidence to support it.  

I don't know how religous he was, but I typed he believed on a theological and scientific basis, meaning he had proof.

But evolution is a fact, allele frequencies in populations do change over time, new species do arise and the theory of evolution explains it.

Some of evolution is fact, most of which doesn't contradict creation.

And virtually all the experts agree that there is so much evidence supporting the theory of evolution, it is a provisional fact.  

No, there are world renown scholars who have switched from E to C and others. I guess you only read about E.

As for frauds being used to teach evolution, what frauds?  Haeckel's law of recapitulation was discredited at the begining of the 20th century and hasn't been used to support evolution since then.  What text books still use it?

 I'm sorry for not knowing the exact name of the  textbook by route memory, as usual I've typed another poorly expressed idea.

Haekel was in textbooks long after the begining of the 20th century. In addition, I'd say Java Man, that was in TIME magazine 1994(I know it's not a scientific mag). I remembered that one. = )  







   
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:25 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I don't know how religous he was, but I typed he believed on a theological and scientific basis, meaning he had proof.

But believe means you don't have proof, you believe based on faith, not evidence.  As a scientist, he would know this.

Some of evolution is fact, most of which doesn't contradict creation.

Well, creation is not creationism and is not science, so nothing could contradict it, it can explain everything with "Goddidit" and so it explains nothing.  Creationism made testable claims and has been disproven.  Evolution contradicts many claims of creationism.  And what parts of evolution aren't fact?

No, there are world renown scholars who have switched from E to C and others. I guess you only read about E.

No, over 99.9% of the worlds biologists accept evolution.  Virtually every scientific organization in the world accepts evolution.  There is over 150 years of evidence, observations, tests and experiments that support it and no evidence that falsifies it.  

Haekel was in textbooks long after the begining of the 20th century. In addition, I'd say Java Man, that was in TIME magazine 1994(I know it's not a scientific mag). I remembered that one. = )

So some old. out of date text books had Haeckels drawings in them...That just reflects badly on the school districts that purchased them, it doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all or all the experts that accept it.  It was shown to be false aroung 100 years ago.
Java man is classified as Homo Erectus, and is evidence for evolution, what's the problem?

 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 05:09 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The main problem with Java Man is that, if you go back to the original reports, he was first classified as an ape.  Each report after that tends to make him more and more man-like.  By the time Franz Weidenreich got done with him he was virtually a man.  Now, of course, the bones are no longer available to be studied (having been "lost" during WWII) and creationists can not determine if they were really human or ape.  The evidence for Java Man is old and untestable.  I'm sure you wouldn't want us to use that.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:16 AM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The main problem with Java Man is that, if you go back to the original reports, he was first classified as an ape.  Each report after that tends to make him more and more man-like.

Untrue, From here:JavaMan

"Based on his own theories about how brains had evolved and wishful thinking, Dubois did claim that Java Man was "a gigantic genus allied to the gibbons", but this was not, as creationists imply, a retraction of his earlier claims that it was an intermediate between apes and humans. Dubois also pointed out that it was bipedal and that its brain size was "very much too large for an anthropoid ape", and he never stopped believing that he had found an ancestor of modern man (Theunissen 1989; Gould 1993; Lubenow 1992). (The creationist organization Answers in Genesis has now abandoned the claim that Dubois dismissed Java Man as a gibbon, and now lists it in their Arguments we think creationists should NOT use web page.)"

Dubois always thought it was an ape/human intermediary.

Now, of course, the bones are no longer available to be studied (having been "lost" during WWII) and creationists can not determine if they were really human or ape.  The evidence for Java Man is old and untestable.  I'm sure you wouldn't want us to use that.

But this isn't a problem because other Java man fossil remains have been found that support the findings of Dubois.  From here:
JavaManII

"In 1969 at Sangiran on Java, a fairly complete cranium, with a brain size of roughly 1000 cc was found. It is the most complete erectus find from Java and is thought to be about 800,000 years old."

The evidence for Java Man is old and untestable.  I'm sure you wouldn't want us to use that.

Actually, the evidence is still available and testable.  The original claim was that Java man is a fraud used in teaching evolution.  That claim is untrue.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 9:15 PM on February 22, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 05:09 AM on February 22, 2006 :
I don't know how religous he was, but I typed he believed on a theological and scientific basis, meaning he had proof.

But believe means you don't have proof, you believe based on faith, not evidence.  As a scientist, he would know this.

There is more than one way to use the word believe. The word faith does not mean you don't have any proof, but not every shred of tangible proof. Proof and faith are mixed to gether.

Some of evolution is fact, most of which doesn't contradict creation.

Well, creation is not creationism and is not science, so nothing could contradict it, it can explain everything with "Goddidit" and so it explains nothing.

I actually meant microevolution.

 And what parts of evolution aren't fact?

For you to even ask the question shows a lack of knowledge (probaly not) or dogmatic(faithlike) adherence to protocol.

No, there are world renown scholars who have switched from E to C and others. I guess you only read about E.

No, over 99.9% of the worlds biologists accept evolution.  Virtually every scientific organization in the world accepts evolution.  There is over 150 years of evidence, observations, tests and experiments that support it and no evidence that falsifies it.  

You typed the most fallacious paragraph ever. HALL OF SHAME NOMINIEE. You are living in a hole, or willfully lying. In the 60s around 67% of scientists were skeptical about God and  the figures went up among elite scientist. The numbers have decreased since. If that were true there would not be any controversy.

Haekel was in textbooks long after the begining of the 20th century. In addition, I'd say Java Man, that was in TIME magazine 1994(I know it's not a scientific mag). I remembered that one. = )

So some old. out of date text books had Haeckels drawings in them...That just reflects badly on the school districts that purchased them, it doesn't affect the theory of evolution at all or all the experts that accept it.  It was shown to be false aroung 100 years ago.
Java man is classified as Homo Erectus, and is evidence for evolution, what's the problem?

It's bad science done intentionally, as with fossil frauds. It hurts credibility. It makes me not believe in "new" fossils until they've been shared with other scientist.


Java man is only a skull cap. femur(probaly didn't go with the skull) and three teeth. It's not much to believe in, especially after 19 evolutionists tear the claims to shreds in a 342pg annihilation of Java MAN, that is homo sapien.

I know there are links on the internet supporting anything but we really have to filter information. I don't believe things because it fits what I want. I believe when it fits, period.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 03:48 AM on February 23, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There is more than one way to use the word believe. The word faith does not mean you don't have any proof, but not every shred of tangible proof. Proof and faith are mixed to gether.

Faith has nothing to do with proof.  And no one believes in evolution, they accept it based on the evidence.  The point is, there is no evidence to support creation.

For you to even ask the question shows a lack of knowledge (probaly not) or dogmatic(faithlike) adherence to protocol.

Answer the questions, what parts of evolution aren't facts.  The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution.  I understand the theory of evolution and I don't accept it dogmatically.  So once again, answer the question or withdraw the claim.

You typed the most fallacious paragraph ever. HALL OF SHAME NOMINIEE. You are living in a hole, or willfully lying. In the 60s around 67% of scientists were skeptical about God and  the figures went up among elite scientist. The numbers have decreased since. If that were true there would not be any
controversy.


Nope, sorry, that's what the latest pools show, over 99.9% of the worlds biologists accept evolution.  You keep claiming that "reknown scholars" have switched from evolution to creationism, well, I don't believe you, name some famous names or withdraw the argument.  And as far as the world of science goes, there is no controversy.  Evolution is the central concept of modern biology and virually all biologists accept it.  You should stop reading that creationist crap.

It's bad science done intentionally, as with fossil frauds. It hurts credibility. It makes me not believe in "new" fossils until they've been shared with other scientist.

No biologist uses Haeckel's drawings as evidence for evolution, as I said, it was disproven around the turn of the century.  And you haven't shown us any fossil frauds yet, and the only ones I can think of were piltdown man and archaeoraptor, which were both shown to be frauds by real scientists.

Java man is only a skull cap. femur(probaly didn't go with the skull) and three teeth. It's not much to believe in, especially after 19 evolutionists tear the claims to shreds in a 342pg annihilation of Java MAN, that is homo sapien.

The initial find was just a skull cap, don't know what this paper is you're talking about, but Java man is recognized as homo erectus, not homo sapiens.  And since that time other fossils of Java man have been discovered that are more robust than the original, or didn't you read this from my last post:

"In 1969 at Sangiran on Java, a fairly complete cranium, with a brain size of roughly 1000 cc was found. It is the most complete erectus find from Java and is thought to be about 800,000 years old."

I know there are links on the internet supporting anything but we really have to filter information. I don't believe things because it fits what I want. I believe when it fits, period.

All my information has been verified.  And for someone who seems to pick and choose the facts they want to accept and ignore the facts they don't like, you don't have a lot of room to talk.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 04:28 AM on February 23, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 04:28 AM on February 23, 2006 :

Faith has nothing to do with proof.  And no one believes in evolution, they accept it based on the evidence.  The point is, there is no evidence to support creation.

The term "blind faith" constitues faith without any proof or reason. Faith involves proof, as stated before not absolute tangible proof. My understanding is secularly, it is a common misconception to think faith involves no evidence.

For you to even ask the question shows a lack of knowledge (probaly not) or dogmatic(faithlike) adherence to protocol.

Answer the questions, what parts of evolution aren't facts.  The theory of evolution explains the facts of evolution.  I understand the theory of evolution and I don't accept it dogmatically.  So once again, answer the question or withdraw the claim.

The question is outside the purpose of the thread, it's an unneccessary can of worms. Like our Archy talks it may go on forever = ). From an objective person(me), both sides have covered good ground and have some uncovered.

You typed the most fallacious paragraph ever. HALL OF SHAME NOMINIEE. You are living in a hole, or willfully lying. In the 60s around 67% of scientists were skeptical about God and  the figures went up among elite scientist. The numbers have decreased since. If that were true there would not be any
controversy.


Nope, sorry, that's what the latest pools show, over 99.9% of the worlds biologists accept evolution.  You keep claiming that "reknown scholars" have switched from evolution to creationism, well, I don't believe you, name some famous names or withdraw the argument.  And as far as the world of science goes, there is no controversy.  Evolution is the central concept of modern biology and virually all biologists accept it.  You should stop reading that creationist crap.

Over 99.9%? Please, you're quoting a statement, not a poll! You missed my point, the is the trend going down not  up (toward 99%). That wasn't a poll but a general statement someone made.  Name names, you want me to name names of those who have switched? Alan Sandage, Patrick Glynn, Dean Kenyon. . . there are other prestigious scientists who are skeptical of Evolution, not sure if they switched.


Java man is only a skull cap. femur(probaly didn't go with the skull) and three teeth. It's not much to believe in, especially after 19 evolutionists tear the claims to shreds in a 342pg annihilation of Java MAN, that is homo sapien.

The initial find was just a skull cap, don't know what this paper is you're talking about, but Java man is recognized as homo erectus, not homo sapiens.  And since that time other fossils of Java man have been discovered that are more robust than the original, or didn't you read this from my last post:

The paper was published by his peers around the time when it happened. Marvin Lubenow, and Cambridge's Sir Arthur Keith say Java Man is just that, a man.

"In 1969 at Sangiran on Java, a fairly complete cranium, with a brain size of roughly 1000 cc was found. It is the most complete erectus find from Java and is thought to be about 800,000 years old."

It's only my irrelevant opinion but wouldn't a smaller human have a smaller brain size. The most obvious dissimilarites are in the extremities, which we never seem to find a  complete enough fossil of. That's a find I'd really be interested in.

I know there are links on the internet supporting anything but we really have to filter information. I don't believe things because it fits what I want. I believe when it fits, period. I

All my information has been verified.  And for someone who seems to pick and choose the facts they want to accept and ignore the facts they don't like, you don't have a lot of room to talk.

When have I picked and chosed? I'm more objective than you are. As you would say, show me proof or retract the statement.




 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 3:03 PM on February 23, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

See all the controversy, the back and forth, evidence here, contradictory evidence, contradictory of the contradictory evidence, the issue is not obviously one sided; teaching ID is not nonsense because there are reknown scholars skeptical of Evolution and some believe things appear created.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 3:06 PM on February 23, 2006 | IP
Army_of_Juan

|     |       Report Post




Junior Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

No, the 99% of Biologist accepting evolution IS a poll.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/ev_publi.htm

And on top of that 95% of all natural scientist accept evolution.


-------
"I am Sofa-King we Todd Ed." - I. B. Creationist
 


Posts: 15 | Posted: 7:54 PM on February 23, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

And I still haven't seen anything besides the evasive hole-punching in Evolution. Where's the evidence for Creationism that was asked for at the beginning of this thread? Proving your innocense in a trial doesn't automatically mean the guilt of one other person.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:32 PM on February 23, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

I disagree with Jade-Raevyn. Both sides should be taught because they're opposites, as a result  our education system will have more balance. Most people believe everything in a textbook.


As for the polls, I think it's a little poorly done. especially the 2nd one:

And on top of that 95% of all natural scientist accept evolution.

This is like saying 95% of Christians except the biblical account of the resurrection. Natural scientist look for natural means/law of every solution, supernatural one are automatically excluded.

No, the 99% of Biologist accepting evolution IS a poll.

Unless I misread something, it wasn't just biologists. I wish the poll would have had a simple God/Darwin create the universe. Or give two Creation options and two Evolution options. My understanding is that some Creationists or IDers don't believe the world was created in six literal days.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:21 AM on February 24, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

This is like saying 95% of Christians except the biblical account of the resurrection. Natural scientist look for natural means/law of every solution, supernatural one are automatically excluded.


Precisely. This is because there's no such thing as supernatural science.

No, the 99% of Biologist accepting evolution IS a poll.


Of course it's a poll. AOJ just said it was. Did you mean to say something else; I have the same problems in the morning on these forums.

Anyway, it's pretty clear the validity of the claim is not in question. For the sheer purpose of embarrassing the Discovery Institute, there was a poll started that only allowed you to take part if you are a biologist with the name of Steve.  So far, the total number of Steves alone that have signed the poll is over 700, which absolutely demolishes the Disovery Institutes petty +150. The poll's point, obviously, is that it's over the DI's number without even taking into account the rest of the 99% of the scientists.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/24/2006 at 07:36 AM).

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 2/24/2006 at 6:40 PM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:28 AM on February 24, 2006 | IP
Demon38

|      |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

The term "blind faith" constitues faith without any proof or reason. Faith involves proof, as stated before not absolute tangible proof. My understanding is secularly, it is a common misconception to think faith involves no evidence.

Real easy way to resolve this question, show us the testable, empirical evidence that supports creation.  If you can't do this (and no creationist has been able to yet), they you can't refute my claim.  Creationism is believed by faith, not evidence.  Evolution is accepted based on the overwhelming evidence that supports it, no faith involved.

The question is outside the purpose of the thread, it's an unneccessary can of worms. Like our Archy talks it may go on forever = ). From an objective person(me), both sides have covered good ground and have some uncovered.

But you have yet to show us any evidence for creationism, so I still maintain, there is no evidnce supporting creation.

Over 99.9%? Please, you're quoting a statement, not a poll! You missed my point, the is the trend going down not  up (toward 99%). That wasn't a poll but a general statement someone made.

No, that was a poll.  The trend is not going down.  In science, there is no controversy, evolution is so well supported, it is a fact.  

Name names, you want me to name names of those who have switched? Alan Sandage, Patrick Glynn, Dean Kenyon. . . there are other prestigious scientists who are skeptical of Evolution, not sure if they switched.

Alan Sandage?  The astronomer?  Why would you use an astronomer when we're talking about biological evolution?  Irrelevant.

Patrick Glynn...Glynn isn't even a scientist, he earned a Ph.D in English and American Lietrature!  Again, who cares what he has to say, he is irrelevant!  Show us his arguments and we can discuss them, but the guy isn't a biologist and so his opinion carries no weight!

Dean Kenyon...The guy who wrote "Of Pandas and People"?  Well, I'd just like to point out that this book has been debunked numerous times, shown to be false and shown to be a religious book, not a book of science.  

So I stand by my statement, ID and creationism are not scientific theories and have no evidence backing them up, they are believed only on faith.  Evolution is fully accepted by virtually all biologists based on the overwhelming evidence, there is no controversy concerning evolution in science.
Here's what the scientific community thinks,
from here:
SciencEvolution

"The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species. A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. The body of knowledge that supports the theory of evolution is ever growing: fossils continue to be discovered that fill gaps in the evolutionary tree and recent DNA sequence data provide evidence that all living organisms are related to each other and to extinct species. These data, consistent with evolution, imply a common chemical and biological heritage for all living organisms and allow scientists to map branch points in the evolutionary tree.
Biologists may disagree about the details of the history and mechanisms of evolution. Such debate is a normal, healthy, and necessary part of scientific discourse and in no way negates the theory of evolution. As a community, biologists agree that evolution occurred and that the forces driving the evolutionary process are still active today. This consensus is based on more than a century of scientific data gathering and analysis.
Because creationism is based almost solely on religious dogma stemming from faith rather than demonstrable facts, it does not lend itself to the scientific process. As a result, creationism should not be taught in any science classroom."

The paper was published by his peers around the time when it happened. Marvin Lubenow, and Cambridge's Sir Arthur Keith say Java Man is just that, a man.

Lubenow doesn't even understand the theory of evolution, so his opinion is worthless, from here: Lubenow

"On pp 46-7 Lubenow tries to explain evolutionary theory. He recounts what he sees as the differences between evolutionary gradualism and punctuated equilibria, though not in any depth; nor does he mention the adaptationist/neutralist controversies, instead assuming that everyone accepts the strict Darwinian model. His chain of oversimplifications leads him into a glaring non-sequitur: "It is thus basic to evolution that if species B evolved from species A, that species A and species B cannot coexist for an extended length of time". Ungrammatical, and inaccurate; yet time and again throughout the book he appeals to this supposed corollary of evolution to argue that, because there is coexistence between a supposed ancestral species and Homo sapiens, the relationship cannot actually be ancestor-descendant. "

Why do you use ignorant non scientists to try and support your claims?  Lubenow doesn't know what he's talking about, why don't you use the experts to try and support your position, oh, yeah, all the experts disagree with you.

And please tell us exactly where Keith made those claims and what evidence did he have to make them...  Java man was homo erectus, many other fossils of h. erectus have been found, they were not modern man.

It's only my irrelevant opinion but wouldn't a smaller human have a smaller brain size. The most obvious dissimilarites are in the extremities, which we never seem to find a  complete enough fossil of. That's a find I'd really be interested in.

Really?  Then look at Turkana boy, an almost complete fossil skeleton of h. erectus found in Kenya, from here:
TurkanaBoy

"However, the richest source of fossils has been the Lake Turkana region of northern Kenya, both on the east and west sides. These sites have exposed the oldest and most complete speciments. In 1975, an almost complete cranium was found and then dated at 1.8 million years with a brain size of 880 cc. A decade later, they found the now famous "Turkana Boy" which is renowned for its almost complete skeleton. This skeleton was a huge aid in assessing overal body proportions and relationships of the species."

When have I picked and chosed? I'm more objective than you are. As you would say, show me proof or retract the statement.

You use creationist sources instead of experts, like when you used Lubenow, when shown that the overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution, you claim this isn't true and then show us an astronomer and an English professor to support your claim.  You ignore the most recent research on dino to bird evolution because it refutes your claims, you use out of date resources that have been already refuted.  I think you are quite good at picking and choosing and shutting your eyes to the real evidence.
 


Posts: 1664 | Posted: 2:47 PM on February 24, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Demon38 at 2:47 PM on February 24, 2006 :
The term "blind faith" constitues faith without any proof or reason. Faith involves proof, as stated before not absolute tangible proof. My understanding is secularly, it is a common misconception to think faith involves no evidence.

The statement I made is true regardless of whether I have evidence to support it.

But you have yet to show us any evidence for creationism, so I still maintain, there is no evidnce supporting creation.

This is addressed later.

Over 99.9%? Please, you're quoting a statement, not a poll! You missed my point, the is the trend going down not  up (toward 99%). That wasn't a poll but a general statement someone made.

No, that was a poll.  The trend is not going down.  In science, there is no controversy, evolution is so well supported, it is a fact.  

I've already written how the "poll" was biased. But it does say what you say it does.

Name names, you want me to name names of those who have switched? Alan Sandage, Patrick Glynn, Dean Kenyon. . . there are other prestigious scientists who are skeptical of Evolution, not sure if they switched.

Alan Sandage?  The astronomer?  Why would you use an astronomer when we're talking about biological evolution?  Irrelevant.

We're not talking about biological evolution. The topic of the thread is "Teaching ID is nonsensical". An ID covers astronomy, you asked for names, don't get mad when it's one of the world's elite.

Patrick Glynn...Glynn isn't even a scientist, he earned a Ph.D in English and American Lietrature!  Again, who cares what he has to say, he is irrelevant!  Show us his arguments and we can discuss them, but the guy isn't a biologist and so his opinion carries no weight!

You continue to commit the same fallacy over and over, attacking the person and not the arguement. It is not neccessary to be a biologist to understand or have an opinon about evolution. I gave you names like you asked, don't get upset, you got names. Glynn is a Harvard graduate, former arms control negotiater for the Regan admin. He's smart enough to have an opinion.


Dean Kenyon... he wrote the expected to be ground breaking, "Biological Predestination", refuted his own claims. Why? The immense complexity of the cell and information bearing properties of DNA.
 

"The theory of evolution is the only scientifically defensible explanation for the origin of life and development of species. A theory in science, such as the atomic theory in chemistry and the Newtonian and relativity theories in physics, is not a speculative hypothesis, but a coherent body of explanatory statements supported by evidence. The theory of evolution has this status. "

Once again, bias isn't a reason to not agree, but this is a heavily biased statement. Evolution and ID do not have math based theories like what you mentioned. It's not the same thing. The theories mentioned, minus evolution are accepted because they're based on MATH, not subjective evidence.

The paper was published by his peers around the time when it happened. Marvin Lubenow, and Cambridge's Sir Arthur Keith say Java Man is just that, a man.

Lubenow doesn't even understand the theory of evolution, so his opinion is worthless, from here: Lubenow

Same fallacy, over and over, you will not listen. Hypothetically, he doesn't need to know anything about evolution. Evolution isn't the science of interpreting bones!Oh yeah, Lubenow quotes Sir Arthur Keith. Let me guess, you think people from England are dumb because of their accents.lol

Why do you use ignorant non scientists to try and support your claims?  Lubenow doesn't know what he's talking about, why don't you use the experts to try and support your position, oh, yeah, all the experts disagree with you.

I'm trying to address the issues and not get off on your famous tangents. You don't Ernst Mayr is an expert anymore, then you used a quote of his for your own proof. Same fallacy, over and over. . . . lol


And please tell us exactly where Keith made those claims and what evidence did he have to make them...  Java man was homo erectus, many other fossils of h. erectus have been found, they were not modern man.

It's only my irrelevant opinion but wouldn't a smaller human have a smaller brain size. The most obvious dissimilarites are in the extremities, which we never seem to find a  complete enough fossil of. That's a find I'd really be interested in.

When have I picked and chosed? I'm more objective than you are. As you would say, show me proof or retract the statement.

You use creationist sources instead of experts,

False, I actually use a lot of both, you  disagree with more evolutionist sources!lol

when shown that the overwhelming majority of biologists accept evolution, you claim this isn't true

False, I said the poll was biased. The majority proably do, just not 99.999%

 You ignore the most recent research on dino to bird evolution because it refutes your claims,

Absolutely FALSE, you disagreed with your own source, it's toward the end of the archy debate. lol

you use out of date resources that have been already refuted.  I think you are quite good at picking and choosing and shutting your eyes to the real evidence.

Our sources aren't much different. Everyone with an opinion picks and chooses. Between the two of us, I have sources from both sides.


Yes I could talk about Turkana Boy, but it's not part of the thread.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 12:29 AM on February 25, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Correction!!! The second line in my post above is mine, not Demon's. I did a poor job, next time I won't use Quote but copy and paste.

Anthropic Principle is evidence for ID. So is the lack decent origin-of-life possibilities, due to the complexity of all the variables needed for life.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 12:37 AM on February 25, 2006 | IP
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Anthropic Principle refers to errors in data collection due to the use of a faulty or selective method.  This hardly proves creationism.

The so-called lack of decent origin-of-life possbilities doesn't prove creationism either.  That argument basically boils down to, "We haven't figured out exactly how it happened yet, so god must have done it."  Not very compelling, it is?

You mention the complexity of all the variables needed for life, but in fact, nobody knows what variables are needed for life.  At most, we might one day determine what was involved in the evolution of life on Earth, but we'll probably never know all possible combinations that might have resulted in the evolution of life.

That's the problem with Behe.  He tries to show the near mathematical impossibility of the exact combinations of molecules coming together that resulted in life, but he doesn't, and can't, claim that those are the only possibilities.


-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 10:24 AM on February 25, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

True, but experiment after experiment using the conditions that the leading evolutionists believe to have been in effect at the time of "creation" have shown that there is no way for life to have sprung up naturally.  Which leaves two choices, the evolutionists are wrong or supernatural forces "created" life.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 10:34 AM on February 25, 2006 | IP
subbie

|     |       Report Post



Newbie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Wrong.

The basic idea behind evolution is descent with modification.  Popluations change over time and those organisms better suited to the environment tend to survive in greater numbers at the expense of those that are not.

The Theory of Evolution says nothing, absolutely nothing, about how it all began.  So, even if that question is, at this point, unanswered, it's inconsequential to evolutionary theory.


-------
Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin
 


Posts: 12 | Posted: 10:47 AM on February 25, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from subbie at 10:24 AM on February 25, 2006 :
Anthropic Principle refers to errors in data collection due to the use of a faulty or selective method.  This hardly proves creationism.

The so-called lack of decent origin-of-life possbilities doesn't prove creationism either.  That argument basically boils down to, "We haven't figured out exactly how it happened yet, so god must have done it."  Not very compelling, it is?

You mention the complexity of all the variables needed for life, but in fact, nobody knows what variables are needed for life.  At most, we might one day determine what was involved in the evolution of life on Earth, but we'll probably never know all possible combinations that might have resulted in the evolution of life.

That's the problem with Behe.  He tries to show the near mathematical impossibility of the exact combinations of molecules coming together that resulted in life, but he doesn't, and can't, claim that those are the only possibilities.


Creation can not be "proven", but it can be strongly inferred. My understanding is the

Anthropic principle is how all universe's constants are fine tuned to inconceivable precision without scientific reason for it. It just is. Some of these constants if adjusted by, ie 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion, would cause the universe to fall apart, uh. . . ID.

Considering how much we know about DNA, earth's early element makeup, around when this happened. . . .  we still have nothing. It's an obviously complex(ID) thing to do.

My response to the Behe statement: And you say ID is not falsifiable? Now Behe has to falsify an infinite amount of possibilites before it makes sense, when does reason say enough is  enough?


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:42 AM on February 26, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from subbie at 10:47 AM on February 25, 2006 :
Wrong.

The basic idea behind evolution is descent with modification.  Popluations change over time and those organisms better suited to the environment tend to survive in greater numbers at the expense of those that are not.

The Theory of Evolution says nothing, absolutely nothing, about how it all began.  So, even if that question is, at this point, unanswered, it's inconsequential to evolutionary theory.


You're right it doesn't, Darwin does suggest the "prebiotic soup".  Evolution basically describes what happens after the first life was appeared. C'mon, it begs the the question, how did the first life get there? You have to see the significance of the question, especially from an IDer.
    Personally, I think an origin of life scientist creating life will be a huge blow to evolution. Very non-intuitive I know; I contend the process will be next to impossible to happen naturally the process will point to ID. If you don't belive that the experiment still only proves it was done in a lab, by intelilgent people. I got it, intelligent people acting on random processeslol.



 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:54 AM on February 26, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Since evolution theory says nothing of the origin-of-life why not give ID a forum since TofE doesn't cover it.
 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 01:56 AM on February 26, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Well, two things:

1.) This is an old forum, and the staff, I don't believe, are active.

2.) Evolution, Abiogenesis, Creationism, Intelligent Design... it's all the same debate. Just make a separate topic for whatever you want to talk about.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 02:17 AM on February 26, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 01:42 AM on February 26, 2006 :Anthropic principle is how all universe's constants are fine tuned to inconceivable precision without scientific reason for it. It just is. Some of these constants if adjusted by, ie 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion, would cause the universe to fall apart, uh. . . ID.

this is an argument from ignorance.  whether they were fine tuned by a creator or they were the result of a complex, undirected, natural process makes no difference because either way, we are here.  there is just as much possibility that we are here because of a completely random line of events.

"The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).


 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 10:46 AM on February 28, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Only one problem with that argument.  If I suddenly showed up at your front door I could tell you that there was just as much chance that I was abducted by aliens and dropped on your doorstep as there is that I somehow found out who you were, looked up your address and drove (flew, whatever) over to your house.  I'm guessing that you would believe that there was a GREATER chance that the latter happened than the former even though I could argue that because I was there the chances were equal.  There is NOT just as much chance that I was abducted by aliens.  


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 11:36 AM on February 28, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from RoyLennigan at 10:46 AM on February 28, 2006 :
Quote from Milken at 01:42 AM on February 26, 2006 :Anthropic principle is how all universe's constants are fine tuned to inconceivable precision without scientific reason for it. It just is. Some of these constants if adjusted by, ie 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion, would cause the universe to fall apart, uh. . . ID.

this is an argument from ignorance.  whether they were fine tuned by a creator or they were the result of a complex, undirected, natural process makes no difference because either way, we are here.  there is just as much possibility that we are here because of a completely random line of events.

"The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).




It's not an arguement from ignorance. I didn't say it is true/false only because it hasn't been proven otherwise. It points to . . . ID. You've ignorantly used an "arguement from ignorance" rebuttal.

PS Don't copy and past TalkOrigins stuff so quickly. . .  Thank EMyers for stating my response.

Not explaining things because "you're here", admit it, is weak. . . "Evolution-of the-Gaps" has just arrived. Let's not explain anything. . .STOP THE DEBATE who cares we're here!




 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 1:29 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 1:29 PM on February 28, 2006 :
Quote from RoyLennigan at 10:46 AM on February 28, 2006 :
Quote from Milken at 01:42 AM on February 26, 2006 :Anthropic principle is how all universe's constants are fine tuned to inconceivable precision without scientific reason for it. It just is. Some of these constants if adjusted by, ie 1 part in a trillion trillion trillion, would cause the universe to fall apart, uh. . . ID.

this is an argument from ignorance.  whether they were fine tuned by a creator or they were the result of a complex, undirected, natural process makes no difference because either way, we are here.  there is just as much possibility that we are here because of a completely random line of events.

"The peril of negative arguments is that they may rest on our lack of knowledge, rather than on positive results" (Behe 2003).




It's not an arguement from ignorance. I didn't say it is true/false only because it hasn't been proven otherwise. It points to . . . ID. You've ignorantly used an "arguement from ignorance" rebuttal.

PS Don't copy and past TalkOrigins stuff so quickly. . .  Thank EMyers for stating my response.

Not explaining things because "you're here", admit it, is weak. . . "Evolution-of the-Gaps" has just arrived. Let's not explain anything. . .STOP THE DEBATE who cares we're here!



but what you're saying is that the universe is fined tuned.  what are you relating the universe to to know that it is fine tuned?  why do you think that the universe is at an exact perfection?  why do you think that life requires a preset condition?

there is no constant in your hypothesis, only an assumption.

the universe just is.  you cannot say that there must be a god just because our environment is just good enough for us to survive in it.  because if it wasn't just good enough for us to survive in it, then we would never have come into existence.

(Edited by RoyLennigan 2/28/2006 at 4:33 PM).
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 4:30 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EMyers at 11:36 AM on February 28, 2006 :
Only one problem with that argument.  If I suddenly showed up at your front door I could tell you that there was just as much chance that I was abducted by aliens and dropped on your doorstep as there is that I somehow found out who you were, looked up your address and drove (flew, whatever) over to your house.  I'm guessing that you would believe that there was a GREATER chance that the latter happened than the former even though I could argue that because I was there the chances were equal.  There is NOT just as much chance that I was abducted by aliens.  


but this analogy is not like our universe.  you are consciously taking two possibilities, one that you know has a much greater chance of happening than the other.  

you might think that the probability of our universe developing undirected is quite small, but to really find the relation to creation, you would have to figure out some way to find the probability that there is a god.  then relate the probability of god existing to the probability that the universe developed undirected and you will find which is more likely.  even then, all you have figured out is statistics.  there is still a chance that the other might be true.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 4:43 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Only one problem with that argument.  If I suddenly showed up at your front door I could tell you that there was just as much chance that I was abducted by aliens and dropped on your doorstep as there is that I somehow found out who you were, looked up your address and drove (flew, whatever) over to your house.  I'm guessing that you would believe that there was a GREATER chance that the latter happened than the former even though I could argue that because I was there the chances were equal.  There is NOT just as much chance that I was abducted by aliens.  


There's no chance whatsoever. Either you got abducted by aliens or you didn't. It's not going to be a different answer no matter how many times you roll the dice.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 6:45 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There's no chance whatsoever. Either you got abducted by aliens or you didn't. It's not going to be a different answer no matter how many times you roll the dice.

Are you saying (not mocking, just trying to follow) that you would find it just as probable that I was abducted by aliens as that I looked up your address?  This analogy of course depends on the same situation we have in abiogenesis.  I'm there.  You know I'm there.  You know I got there somehow.  But you didn't see it happen.  Obviously, some options are going to be more likely than others.  At least, that's my perception.  It sounds like you disagree.


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 7:34 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

There's no chance whatsoever. Either you got abducted by aliens or you didn't. It's not going to be a different answer no matter how many times you roll the dice.

Are you saying (not mocking, just trying to follow) that you would find it just as probable that I was abducted by aliens as that I looked up your address?  This analogy of course depends on the same situation we have in abiogenesis.  I'm there.  You know I'm there.  You know I got there somehow.  But you didn't see it happen.  Obviously, some options are going to be more likely than others.  At least, that's my perception.  It sounds like you disagree.


I'll admit enough to say that the human brain works that way, however fallacious that form of logic is, but the two concepts we're talking about--that is, Abiogenesis and Creation--are not comparable on a scale of probability.

It's just silly to say, "It's more likely that a supernatural being exists than it is we came here naturally," or the other way around. It also depends on several factors that are left out. For instance, a supernatural form of life could exist, but that doesn't necessarily--and on the other hand it does--mean that the probability of coming here through supernatural creation is stronger. Since we don't know the creator, we can't say it's likely that he/she/it would create us, because we don't know it's psyche. It would all depend what kind of creator we had.

Going back to the rape+murder analogy:

If Man A is a convicted sex offender, the suspicion that he could be the perpetrator of the crime goes up, even if there's no evidence that he's been in the vincity of the crime. However, if Man B is, for example, the President of the United States, the detectives are going to check their evidence over and over and over and over again to make sure, and the suspicion that the president committed (depending on your political affiliation, I guess) automatically goes down, even if all the evidence says he did it.

My point is, it could be more likely that a supernatural being would stop life from happening, rather than help it. Among that, there are countless other factors that are impossible to measure. Probability simply isn't a valid argument against nor for Abiogenesis or Evolution.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 9:08 PM on February 28, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

 what are you relating the universe to to know that it is fine tuned?  

Please rephrase the question. I think the answer is dozens and dozens of constants that if changed, the universe would cease to exist.

why do you think that the universe is at an exact perfection?  

Please rephrase the question. I think the answer is dozens and dozens of constants that if changed, the universe would cease to exist.

why do you think that life requires a preset condition?

Francis Crick (atheist) co-discoverer of DNA says the odds of life on earth as a result of a non-directed process to be around 1:10^2,000,000,000   Keep in mind the entire Universe already in order!

The psyche of a Creator may be taken from any of the major 3 religions, omniscience -potent -presense.

If you read his response, probability had everything to do with it because you only saw him appear on the doorstep and were asked to guess

How about you're about to be executed by a sharpshooting firing squad at point blank range, you're blinded folded, you hear, "Ready, Aim, Fire. . ", but nothing happens. When you open your eyes everyone has left. Does this require an explanation? Yes it does!

I repeat, saying it doesn't require an explanation is very weak, obvious avoidance. It's not how you operate in the real world and it's now allowable for a field of study designed for explaining such issues.

 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:17 AM on March 1, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

How about you're about to be executed by a sharpshooting firing squad at point blank range, you're blinded folded, you hear, "Ready, Aim, Fire. . ", but nothing happens. When you open your eyes everyone has left. Does this require an explanation? Yes it does!

I repeat, saying it doesn't require an explanation is very weak, obvious avoidance. It's not how you operate in the real world and it's now allowable for a field of study designed for explaining such issues.


It requires an explanation, yes, but an explanation that science cannot touch.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:30 AM on March 1, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 04:17 AM on March 1, 2006 :
 what are you relating the universe to to know that it is fine tuned?  

Please rephrase the question. I think the answer is dozens and dozens of constants that if changed, the universe would cease to exist.

it would not cease to exist, it would be vastly different, though.

i was wondering if you could show me how our universe could not have come into existence by undirected process.

Quote from Milken at 04:17 AM on March 1, 2006 :why do you think that the universe is at an exact perfection?  

Please rephrase the question. I think the answer is dozens and dozens of constants that if changed, the universe would cease to exist.

when two molecules collide at high speeds, they explode into particles.  each different particle has its own unique spin, but they fly off in seemingly chaotic directions; it is different every time.  say our universe is one of those particles and it exists because of the exact trajectory of that particle.  now if that particle had gone off in a different direction, our universe would not have come into existance, but it didn't and so our universe exists.  it has nothing to do with probability or statistics because those only show the likelyhood of an event based on a large number of observations.  no one has observed the creation of the universe, or any other universes.  no one has observed god.  no one has observed the formation of life.

Quote from Milken at 04:17 AM on March 1, 2006 :why do you think that life requires a preset condition?

Francis Crick (atheist) co-discoverer of DNA says the odds of life on earth as a result of a non-directed process to be around 1:10^2,000,000,000   Keep in mind the entire Universe already in order!

what does he base this probability on?  and again, why does it matter, if life is here, now.  obviously (from his position) there is a chance that life can develop without intelligent direction, so why are you saying it is impossible?  now, what are the chances that there is a god?

Quote from Milken at 04:17 AM on March 1, 2006 :The psyche of a Creator may be taken from any of the major 3 religions, omniscience -potent -presense.

If you read his response, probability had everything to do with it because you only saw him appear on the doorstep and were asked to guess

How about you're about to be executed by a sharpshooting firing squad at point blank range, you're blinded folded, you hear, "Ready, Aim, Fire. . ", but nothing happens. When you open your eyes everyone has left. Does this require an explanation? Yes it does!

i don't see how this relates to the question.  of course im going to try to make up explanations, but i know i would seriously doubt that any of them would be correct, and i know that none of them would be completely right.  it is the nature of the human mind to make up reasons for why things happen, even when there is no evidence to guide those explanations in the right direction.

Quote from Milken at 04:17 AM on March 1, 2006 :I repeat, saying it doesn't require an explanation is very weak, obvious avoidance. It's not how you operate in the real world and it's now allowable for a field of study designed for explaining such issues.

i am not saying it doesn't require an explanation, i am saying that you shouldn't believe in an explanation soley because it explains everything.


 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 07:30 AM on March 1, 2006 :
How about you're about to be executed by a sharpshooting firing squad at point blank range, you're blinded folded, you hear, "Ready, Aim, Fire. . ", but nothing happens. When you open your eyes everyone has left. Does this require an explanation? Yes it does!

I repeat, saying it doesn't require an explanation is very weak, obvious avoidance. It's not how you operate in the real world and it's now allowable for a field of study designed for explaining such issues.


It requires an explanation, yes, but an explanation that science cannot touch.


I enjoy speaking with rational people, well stated.

Applying my previous thoughts to the example:
I take the blind fold off, a few moments after I theoretically should be shot.

All I see is a pile of clothes and guns where the shooters were standing. I also heard a non gunlike sound that wasn't a gunshot, I remember hearing what sounded like clothes dropping, guns dropping, etc.

The natural observable may infer a ID.

I admit we've basically stated our sides of the view quite clearly. I don't think it's nonsense you do (at least in a science classroom you do).


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 1:46 PM on March 1, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :

i was wondering if you could show me how our universe could not have come into existence by undirected process.


I already gave you Francis Crick's opinion. I never stated it was 100% impossible.

Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
when two molecules collide at high speeds, they explode into particles.  each different particle has its own unique spin, but they fly off in seemingly chaotic directions; it is different every time.  say our universe is one of those particles and it exists because of the exact trajectory of that particle.  now if that particle had gone off in a different direction, our universe would not have come into existance, but it didn't and so our universe exists.  it has nothing to do with probability or statistics because those only show the likelyhood of an event based on a large number of observations.  no one has observed the creation of the universe, or any other universes.  no one has observed god.  no one has observed the formation of life.


Your logic is flawed. The arguement for using prob is not that the universe actually exists but whether it is directed or undirected, caused or uncaused.

The universal acceptance of the Big Bang denies your speculation.
The speculation still doesn't account for where the particles come from?

We haven't observed any of the events you're talking about directly the arugement goes both ways and at it's core is invalid.

Quote from Milken at 04:17 AM on March 1, 2006 :why do you think that life requires a preset condition?

Francis Crick (atheist) co-discoverer of DNA says the odds of life on earth as a result of a non-directed process to be around 1:10^2,000,000,000   Keep in mind the entire Universe is already in order!



Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
what does he base this probability on?  and again, why does it matter, if life is here, now.  obviously (from his position) there is a chance that life can develop without intelligent direction, so why are you saying it is impossible?  now, what are the chances that there is a god?


Francis Crick is an atheist Eist, his bias would go in your favor. Check is credentials he's a very respectable scientist, not the best of writers thought lol. Maybe I made a mistake somewhere, please show me where I said it was impossible.

Quote from Milken at 04:17 AM on March 1, 2006 :The psyche of a Creator may be taken from any of the major 3 religions, omniscience -potent -presense.

If you read his response, probability had everything to do with it because you only saw him appear on the doorstep and were asked to guess

How about you're about to be executed by a sharpshooting firing squad at point blank range, you're blinded folded, you hear, "Ready, Aim, Fire. . ", but nothing happens. When you open your eyes everyone has left. Does this require an explanation? Yes it does!

i don't see how this relates to the question.  of course im going to try to make up explanations, but i know i would seriously doubt that any of them would be correct, and i know that none of them would be completely right.  it is the nature of the human mind to make up reasons for why things happen, even when there is no evidence to guide those explanations in the right direction.

Quote from Milken at 04:17 AM on March 1, 2006 :I repeat, saying it doesn't require an explanation is very weak, obvious avoidance. It's not how you operate in the real world and it's now allowable for a field of study designed for explaining such issues.

i am not saying it doesn't require an explanation, i am saying that you shouldn't believe in an explanation soley because it explains everything.


*Let the record show the last reference has been dodged*

Honestly, we're getting outside of the thread, a little. I've essentially stated my reasons.


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 2:29 PM on March 1, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

All I see is a pile of clothes and guns where the shooters were standing. I also heard a non gunlike sound that wasn't a gunshot, I remember hearing what sounded like clothes dropping, guns dropping, etc.

The natural observable may infer a ID.


Your analogy infers a supernatural force... nothing intelligent about it though. If you mean to say that unknown, untestable supernatural forces can occassionally be inferred by currently-unexplainable events, you are correct. Using your reasoning, it's just as viable to introduce other concepts alongside ID, Creation, and Evolution.

1.) Supernatural Selection. It works just like regular Natural Selection, except that now it can bypass the holes in Evolutionary Theory. No longer is the Cambrian Period a problem. Supernatural Selection dictates that a specie can evolve into anything in any number of generations. The flagellum is irreducibly complex, you say? No problem. Supernatural Selection merely skips over the part where less-complex flagellum mechanisms are developed, and cuts straight to the big cheese.

2.) Supernatural Quantum Mechanics. Things just happen, and that's all there is to it. No reasoning. Life poofed into existence in the form of prokaryotic cells.

3.) Levitation. Let's place ourselves back in the 10th Century AD, when we all knew that man would never be able to fly. Man's inability to fly infers supernatural levitational forces that blatantly defy the known fact that what goes up must come down. Birds, bats, and insects possess this supernatural ability.



Inference simply is not scientific. You need evidence, and for what is ideally the final time, a hole in the other side's case is not evidence for yours.


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 4:21 PM on March 1, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 2:29 PM on March 1, 2006 :
Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
when two molecules collide at high speeds, they explode into particles.  each different particle has its own unique spin, but they fly off in seemingly chaotic directions; it is different every time.  say our universe is one of those particles and it exists because of the exact trajectory of that particle.  now if that particle had gone off in a different direction, our universe would not have come into existance, but it didn't and so our universe exists.  it has nothing to do with probability or statistics because those only show the likelyhood of an event based on a large number of observations.  no one has observed the creation of the universe, or any other universes.  no one has observed god.  no one has observed the formation of life.


Your logic is flawed. The arguement for using prob is not that the universe actually exists but whether it is directed or undirected, caused or uncaused.

its not flawed, it just doesn't convey my idea as well as i thought it would.  the more you critisize my logic, the more i can see that you don't understand what it is i am saying.  i don't know if that is because you can't understand it or because i am not conveying it clearly enough.

scientific evidence supports the idea that our universe is a natural process and that there isn't a conscious omnipotent force determining all events.  it supports the idea that even if the probability of our universe being created unintentionally is less than the probability of it being created by a god, that it is still more likely that the former occured because of the evidence at hand that the universe formed undirected.

and who's to say that our universe is the only one, especially if there isn't an intelligent creator?  ours could be just one out of several, or hundreds, or millions, or a constantly increasing number, close to infinity.  in which case it is not at all a small chance that our universe formed with just the right conditions for life to form.  with a greater number of universes, there is a greater chance that one will have the right conditions for life.

Quote from Milken at 2:29 PM on March 1, 2006 :The universal acceptance of the Big Bang denies your speculation.
The speculation still doesn't account for where the particles come from?

how does the theory of the big bang deny my speculation?  why are you leaving me in the dark by simply saying i'm wrong instead of telling me how i'm wrong?

and the speculation was not supposed to say where the particles came from.  its not part of the analogy.  read up on some physics to find that out, i don't know if i could explain it as well.

Quote from Milken at 2:29 PM on March 1, 2006 :We haven't observed any of the events you're talking about directly the arugement goes both ways and at it's core is invalid.

if my argument is invalid, so is yours.  we're both speculating on ideas that others have conjured up from their experiences on this planet.  neither of them have been proven and neither of them can be completely proven.  so i concede that you have your beliefs and i have mine.  both of them are possibilities and i do not entirely rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer.  i just personally believe that undirected development is more likely (my main support, in so many words, being that we can actually try to compute the probability of life occuring randomly whereas we don't even know where to start computing the probability of a conscious creator).

Quote from Milken at 2:29 PM on March 1, 2006 :Francis Crick is an atheist Eist, his bias would go in your favor. Check is credentials he's a very respectable scientist, not the best of writers thought lol. Maybe I made a mistake somewhere, please show me where I said it was impossible.

right, i dont think you actually did say that it was impossible.  but your constant refutation of my logic implies that you fundamentally believe that undirected creation of the universe is not a possibility.

i don't doubt your source, but i don't really see what you're trying to convey by using it.  if you wanted to try to persuade me that there is a greater chance of god creating the universe, you might have put in another probability of that happening, instead of showing me just one side.  probabilities in this argument are nothing if there isn't something to compare it to.

Quote from Milken at 2:29 PM on March 1, 2006 :*Let the record show the last reference has been dodged*

Honestly, we're getting outside of the thread, a little. I've essentially stated my reasons.

go ahead and inflate your self-esteem by being condescending.  you don't need to call me out when i'm already arguing your points.  nowhere in my posts have i said that it doesn't require an explanation.  nowhere am i trying to dodge your questions.

again; you shouldn't believe in an explanation soley because it explains everything.  in fact, you should not believe any theory or idea that claims it explains everything.  it is impossible to know everything and explain how everything works, we can only get closer and closer.
 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 5:44 PM on March 1, 2006 | IP
EMyers

|     |       Report Post




Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Two cents from a creationist viewpoint that tends to split the difference on the current topic.  Many (I think most, but don't have the data to back it up) creationists tend to believe that God created the universe and set the natural laws in order so that he didn't have to spin the earth, and move the moon around it, and pull the tides, and swing all the planets around the sun.... (I think you get the drift).  If he didn't, there wouldn't be any need (from a creationist viewpoint) for the natural laws to exist (and they do exist).  When I jump, I think I come back down because God created the law of gravity, not because he pushed me back down.  Phenomenal cosmic power or not, that would make for a pretty busy Deity, don't you think?


-------
"Thou believest that God is one; thou does well: the demons also believe, and shudder." James 2:19 - Belief is never enough.
 


Posts: 1287 | Posted: 12:27 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

en
Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 4:21 PM on March 1, 2006 :
All I see is a pile of clothes and guns where the shooters were standing. I also heard a non gunlike sound that wasn't a gunshot, I remember hearing what sounded like clothes dropping, guns dropping, etc.

The natural observable may infer a ID.


Your analogy infers a supernatural force... nothing intelligent about it though. If you mean to say that unknown, untestable supernatural forces can occassionally be inferred by currently-unexplainable events, you are correct. Using your reasoning, it's just as viable to introduce other concepts alongside ID, Creation, and Evolution.

1.) Supernatural Selection. It works just like regular Natural Selection, except that now it can bypass the holes in Evolutionary Theory. No longer is the Cambrian Period a problem. Supernatural Selection dictates that a specie can evolve into anything in any number of generations. The flagellum is irreducibly complex, you say? No problem. Supernatural Selection merely skips over the part where less-complex flagellum mechanisms are developed, and cuts straight to the big cheese.

2.) Supernatural Quantum Mechanics. Things just happen, and that's all there is to it. No reasoning. Life poofed into existence in the form of prokaryotic cells.

3.) Levitation. Let's place ourselves back in the 10th Century AD, when we all knew that man would never be able to fly. Man's inability to fly infers supernatural levitational forces that blatantly defy the known fact that what goes up must come down. Birds, bats, and insects possess this supernatural ability.



Inference simply is not scientific. You need evidence, and for what is ideally the final time, a hole in the other side's case is not evidence for yours.


The evidence is everything naturally observable leading to the inference.

If Eist believe in the above mentioned, go for it. I actually thought you'd make an arguement like this earlier.  

1) Don't you mean Punc Equil lol
2) Isn't that some athiests view of the world
3) Funny, but I don't thing ID is THAT for from being "science".

To the topic, if Evolution is exclusively taught it should not be taught as fact. I would disagree with ID being taught as fact. I disagree with the strong undertone of automatically suggesting God does or does not exist. If E theory was taught with a pinch of theism, I'd go for it.


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:05 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:


Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
 now if that particle had gone off in a different direction, our universe would not have come into existance, but it didn't and so our universe exists.  it has nothing to do with probability or statistics


Sorry, I've been exchanging words with The Wolf for too long.

The arguement for using prob&stat is not that the universe actually exists but whether it is directed or undirected, caused or uncaused.

Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
its not flawed, it just doesn't convey my idea as well as i thought it would.  the more you critisize my logic, the more i can see that you don't understand what it is i am saying.  i don't know if that is because you can't understand it or because i am not conveying it clearly enough.


I feel like I understand

Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
scientific evidence supports the idea that our universe is a natural process and that there isn't a conscious omnipotent force determining all events.  it supports the idea that even if the probability of our universe being created unintentionally is less than the probability of it being created by a god, that it is still more likely that the former occured because of the evidence at hand that the universe formed undirected.


What evidence? Well worded though. . .

Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
and who's to say that our universe is the only one, especially if there isn't an intelligent creator?  ours could be just one out of several, or hundreds, or millions, or a constantly increasing number, close to infinity.  in which case it is not at all a small chance that our universe formed with just the right conditions for life to form.  with a greater number of universes, there is a greater chance that one will have the right conditions for life.


Not many scientists on either side take life intelligent life on other planets very seriously. So I won't either. . .

Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
how does the theory of the big bang deny my speculation?  why are you leaving me in the dark by simply saying i'm wrong instead of telling me how i'm wrong?

and the speculation was not supposed to say where the particles came from.  its not part of the analogy.  read up on some physics to find that out, i don't know if i could explain it as well.


The Big Bang suggests the universe started at a finite time (and point) in the past (the universe is not infinitely old). It's called "Bang" because that's essentially what happened, a VERY VERY high temperature explosion happened.

Particles bumping into each other and the direction the particle went made the universe. . . . . "arise". . .  is a contradiction.

If you want to rule out ID you can't have particles appearing out of no where, it sounds supernatural.

Quote from Milken:
We haven't observed any of the events you're talking about directly the arugement goes both ways and at it's core is invalid.


Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
if my argument is invalid, so is yours.  we're both speculating on ideas that others have conjured up from their experiences on this planet.  neither of them have been proven and neither of them can be completely proven.  so i concede that you have your beliefs and i have mine.  both of them are possibilities and i do not entirely rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer.  i just personally believe that undirected development is more likely (my main support, in so many words, being that we can actually try to compute the probability of life occuring randomly whereas we don't even know where to start computing the probability of a conscious creator).


What I meant was I can ask the exact same questions about not having observed the begining of the universe to support my opinion, so they cancel each other out.

Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
i don't doubt your source, but i don't really see what you're trying to convey by using it.  if you wanted to try to persuade me that there is a greater chance of god creating the universe, you might have put in another probability of that happening, instead of showing me just one side.  probabilities in this argument are nothing if there isn't something to compare it to.


I'm conveying that the odds of the universe being created by an undirected source (as stated previously) is vanishingly small. It's based on the sum probability of many events needed for life, happening randomly. Both sides? I'm showing you someone on you're side. The other side will be worse = ).


Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
go ahead and inflate your self-esteem by being condescending.  you don't need to call me out when i'm already arguing your points.  nowhere in my posts have i said that it doesn't require an explanation.  nowhere am i trying to dodge your questions.


Whoa! I wouldn't intentionally do that, my self-esteem is already inflatedlol! Do not take my comments too seriously. . . .

Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
again; you shouldn't believe in an explanation soley because it explains everything.  in fact, you should not believe any theory or idea that claims it explains everything.  it is impossible to know everything and explain how everything works, we can only get closer and closer.


I agree that we'll never know everything, and there's almost no such thing as a universal law (as Entwi&I mentioned, gravity, atomic, electro). If an explaination explains everything, I'll probaly believe it.



 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 02:43 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

To the topic, if Evolution is exclusively taught it should not be taught as fact. I would disagree with ID being taught as fact. I disagree with the strong undertone of automatically suggesting God does or does not exist. If E theory was taught with a pinch of theism, I'd go for it.


Evolution is a fact, just as the spherical shape of the earth is a fact. There are people who still argue that the earth is flat, but that's no reason to "teach the controversy" about earth's shape in science.

And, for the 50th time this week, Evolution says nothing about whether or not God exists. That can be left completely up to the students and their parents to decide on their own, and it wouldn't change any facts of Evolution.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/2/2006 at 10:02 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:30 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
RoyLennigan

|        |       Report Post



Regular
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 02:43 AM on March 2, 2006 :

Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
now if that particle had gone off in a different direction, our universe would not have come into existance, but it didn't and so our universe exists.  it has nothing to do with probability or statistics


Sorry, I've been exchanging words with The Wolf for too long.

The arguement for using prob&stat is not that the universe actually exists but whether it is directed or undirected, caused or uncaused.

well either way, the universe was caused by something.  it cant just pop out of nowhere.  and the probability for it existing is past tense and we know that it is 1 because it exists, i wasn't arguing that.  what i am arguing is that you can't take chance into matters like this.  first of all, we don't know anywhere near all the variables involved and second, even if we found out the probability of it occuring that doesn't mean it necessarily happened that way.  we can't base this belief on probability, we have to base it on physical evidence (and just a little bit of human inference).

Quote from Milken at 02:43 AM on March 2, 2006 :
Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
its not flawed, it just doesn't convey my idea as well as i thought it would.  the more you critisize my logic, the more i can see that you don't understand what it is i am saying.  i don't know if that is because you can't understand it or because i am not conveying it clearly enough.


I feel like I understand

neither of us understand each other, that is why we are still arguing.  in the back of my mind i know we are both right, but our conflict is caused by our differences in explaining our experiences.  we are using different metaphorical expressions built up by slightly different cultures that precede us.

Quote from Milken at 02:43 AM on March 2, 2006 :
Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
scientific evidence supports the idea that our universe is a natural process and that there isn't a conscious omnipotent force determining all events.  it supports the idea that even if the probability of our universe being created unintentionally is less than the probability of it being created by a god, that it is still more likely that the former occured because of the evidence at hand that the universe formed undirected.


What evidence? Well worded though. . .

everything we observe continues to be explained by physical processes.  the way i see it, the only way god could exist is if he either set things in motion and then stepped back (like EMyers was saying many people believe) or if he was those natural processes and we just can't understand the connection because he is so much more advanced/complex/superior than we are.

we also do not distinctly define what life, or intelligence is.  is life limited to only the organic cells that we know of?  or can it be any collection of matter that is able to have feedback into the system, or self concsiousness?  i think it is the latter.  as such, god could be in any number of forms.  we say that god is intangible, that he is not physical.  well this could be explained as god being the fundamental interactions of our universe--those fine-tuned characteristics of our universe that cause it to act in a certain way.  he might not be a physical entity, but rather a constant (the shape, geometry, characteristic interactions, fundamental forces) which determines, merely by its presence, how everything in the universe occurs.

Quote from Milken at 02:43 AM on March 2, 2006 :
Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
and who's to say that our universe is the only one, especially if there isn't an intelligent creator?  ours could be just one out of several, or hundreds, or millions, or a constantly increasing number, close to infinity.  in which case it is not at all a small chance that our universe formed with just the right conditions for life to form.  with a greater number of universes, there is a greater chance that one will have the right conditions for life.


Not many scientists on either side take life intelligent life on other planets very seriously. So I won't either. . .

i wasn't arguing for life on other planets.  i was arguing that our universe may be one in the line of many, and that maybe ours is the first to have life, or maybe its not.  maybe there is a kind of space outside our universe that goes on even farther, and maybe something outside of that too.  when you think about it, it is really more absurd to believe that there is an end or beginning to everything.  and i don't mean that there wasn't a beginning to [what we call] our universe, but that there was always energy around before it.

Quote from Milken at 02:43 AM on March 2, 2006 :
Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
how does the theory of the big bang deny my speculation?  why are you leaving me in the dark by simply saying i'm wrong instead of telling me how i'm wrong?

and the speculation was not supposed to say where the particles came from.  its not part of the analogy.  read up on some physics to find that out, i don't know if i could explain it as well.


The Big Bang suggests the universe started at a finite time (and point) in the past (the universe is not infinitely old). It's called "Bang" because that's essentially what happened, a VERY VERY high temperature explosion happened.

Particles bumping into each other and the direction the particle went made the universe. . . . . "arise". . .  is a contradiction.

If you want to rule out ID you can't have particles appearing out of no where, it sounds supernatural.

i don't see how what you're saying is a contradiction to my statements.  but i might be misunderstanding you.  also, the particles don't pop out of nowhere, when atoms are destroyed, particles fly out in different directions.  but particles haven't really been shown to always exist in atoms, they are only observed when atoms are broken up.

Quote from Milken at 02:43 AM on March 2, 2006 :
Quote from Milken:
We haven't observed any of the events you're talking about directly the arugement goes both ways and at it's core is invalid.


Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
if my argument is invalid, so is yours.  we're both speculating on ideas that others have conjured up from their experiences on this planet.  neither of them have been proven and neither of them can be completely proven.  so i concede that you have your beliefs and i have mine.  both of them are possibilities and i do not entirely rule out the possibility of an intelligent designer.  i just personally believe that undirected development is more likely (my main support, in so many words, being that we can actually try to compute the probability of life occuring randomly whereas we don't even know where to start computing the probability of a conscious creator).


What I meant was I can ask the exact same questions about not having observed the begining of the universe to support my opinion, so they cancel each other out.

oh i know, just that we're clear on that.  a lot of people use those kind of arguments without thinking that they can be used on their own ideas in a similar fashion.  i believe that all ideas/beliefs/theories can be 'proven' wrong by logic, but that doesn't mean that they are really wrong.  it means that the theory doesn't describe with 100% accuracy what the person who made the theory experienced, which should be a given.

Quote from Milken at 02:43 AM on March 2, 2006 :
Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
i don't doubt your source, but i don't really see what you're trying to convey by using it.  if you wanted to try to persuade me that there is a greater chance of god creating the universe, you might have put in another probability of that happening, instead of showing me just one side.  probabilities in this argument are nothing if there isn't something to compare it to.


I'm conveying that the odds of the universe being created by an undirected source (as stated previously) is vanishingly small. It's based on the sum probability of many events needed for life, happening randomly. Both sides? I'm showing you someone on you're side. The other side will be worse = ).

as long as you know that we don't know and are unable to figure out the probability of god creating the universe.

and we know that the odds of our particular universe occuring is very small because there are so many variables involved, like you were saying.  but that is because you are starting from where the universe already exists, and going back to see the chances that this universe came to be.  thats like rolling three dice and getting 3 sixes, then saying that it had to be intelligently directed because the chances are so small.

this kind of belief makes it look like scientists are dealing with randomness and chance, when they are not.  they are dealing with physical evidence of what has actually happened.  the universe developing (as an undirected process) is not random.  it is not a throw of the dice.  it is the specific effect of a specific cause.  the universe is fine-tuned because what created it was fine-tuned because what created that was fine-tuned ad infinitum...  that is how the naturalistic view of the development of the universe claims things are (and how i personally believe it is).

Quote from Milken at 02:43 AM on March 2, 2006 :
Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
go ahead and inflate your self-esteem by being condescending.  you don't need to call me out when i'm already arguing your points.  nowhere in my posts have i said that it doesn't require an explanation.  nowhere am i trying to dodge your questions.


Whoa! I wouldn't intentionally do that, my self-esteem is already inflatedlol! Do not take my comments too seriously. . . .

sorry, just seemed like you were not taking me seriously.

Quote from Milken at 02:43 AM on March 2, 2006 :
Quote from RoyLennigan at 12:27 PM on March 1, 2006 :
again; you shouldn't believe in an explanation soley because it explains everything.  in fact, you should not believe any theory or idea that claims it explains everything.  it is impossible to know everything and explain how everything works, we can only get closer and closer.


I agree that we'll never know everything, and there's almost no such thing as a universal law (as Entwi&I mentioned, gravity, atomic, electro). If an explaination explains everything, I'll probaly believe it.

i feel more comfortable with those who know they are not completely correct, but i'm glad you understand what i was saying.


 


Posts: 152 | Posted: 08:23 AM on March 2, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 07:30 AM on March 2, 2006 :
To the topic, if Evolution is exclusively taught it should not be taught as fact. I would disagree with ID being taught as fact. I disagree with the strong undertone of automatically suggesting God does or does not exist. If E theory was taught with a pinch of theism, I'd go for it.


Evolution is a fact, just as the spherical shape of the earth is a fact. There are people who still argue that the earth is flat, but that's no reason to "teach the controversy" about earth's shape in science.

And, for the 50th time this week, Evolution says nothing about whether or not God exists. That can be left completely up to the students and their parents to decide on their own, and it wouldn't change any facts of Evolution.

(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/2/2006 at 10:02 AM).


Hey give me some credit, I said "undertone" lol.

Evolution does not touch the origin of life and ID theory does. Both fields are "soft science" and will never be fact because they're subject to be subjective. ID, if proposed does not have to mention the G-word, but an unknown directed process.


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 04:48 AM on March 3, 2006 | IP
EntwickelnCollin

|        |       Report Post



Junkie
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Evolution does not touch the origin of life and ID theory does. Both fields are "soft science" and will never be fact because they're subject to be subjective.


Evolution is no more subjective than Chemistry, but if you'd like to argue that Chemistry is a soft science too, I guess my point is moot.

Of course, that's ignoring that Evolution already is a fact.

I also note your use of the word "field." What field is there for ID? There hasn't been a single scientist to this day willing to conduct a single experiment, or publish a single scientific paper on ID, including the big-headed Behe and Dembski who are still wasting their colleague's valuable time by lobbying for it in the public schools.

ID, if proposed does not have to mention the G-word, but an unknown directed process.


Good point. ID explains nothing. Yeah, we can scientifically infer that there is a force of some kind... but that's all we'll need to know, right? We don't need a unit of measurement for it, a definite way to detect it, or a set of principles that would disprove it. Science is all about inference, after all. Like Chemistry. No one's actually seen an atom. We're all just inferring that it's there.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/3/2006 at 07:45 AM).


-------
http://ummcash.org/officers.html
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/wow_1.php
http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/08/a_triumphant_beginning.php
We're official!
 


Posts: 729 | Posted: 07:43 AM on March 3, 2006 | IP
Milken

|     |       Report Post



Member
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from EntwickelnCollin at 07:43 AM on March 3, 2006 :
Evolution does not touch the origin of life and ID theory does. Both fields are "soft science" and will never be fact because they're subject to be subjective.


Evolution is no more subjective than Chemistry, but if you'd like to argue that Chemistry is a soft science too, I guess my point is moot.

Of course, that's ignoring that Evolution already is a fact.

I also note your use of the word "field." What field is there for ID? There hasn't been a single scientist to this day willing to conduct a single experiment, or publish a single scientific paper on ID, including the big-headed Behe and Dembski who are still wasting their colleague's valuable time by lobbying for it in the public schools.

ID, if proposed does not have to mention the G-word, but an unknown directed process.


Good point. ID explains nothing. Yeah, we can scientifically infer that there is a force of some kind... but that's all we'll need to know, right? We don't need a unit of measurement for it, a definite way to detect it, or a set of principles that would disprove it. Science is all about inference, after all. Like Chemistry. No one's actually seen an atom. We're all just inferring that it's there.


(Edited by EntwickelnCollin 3/3/2006 at 07:45 AM).


Name all the math based theories of Evolution, please and match those up with the math based theories of chemistry. You're actually disagreeing with other Eist with that statement, no big deal though.

Because it's not hard science evolution has facts on some levels and "facts" on others. Evolution/ID analsis the past and make inferences based on the observations.

I don't keep up with Behe or Deminiski much.

If ID proves a directed process, to falsify it by proving things are the result of an undirected process. Thank you for your support *waving to all my fans* = )


 


Posts: 96 | Posted: 3:23 PM on March 3, 2006 | IP
Apoapsis

|     |       Report Post



Fanatic
Post Score
Adjustment:
n/a

Rate this post:

Quote from Milken at 3:23 PM on March 3, 2006 :
Name all the math based theories of Evolution, please and match those up with the math based theories of chemistry. You're actually disagreeing with other Eist with that statement, no big deal though.


Probably the best mathematical treatment is for population genetics, modeling the fixation of mutations within a population.


Mathematical Methods of Population Genetics




-------
Pogge:” This is the volume of a sphere with a 62 kilometer (about 39 miles) radius, which is considerably smaller than the 2,000 mile radius of the Earth.”
Wikipedia:” For Earth, the mean radius is 6,371.009 km(≈3,958.761 mi; ≈3,440.069 nmi).”
Wisp to Lester (on Pogge): Do you admit he was wrong about the basics?
Lester: No

 


Posts: 1747 | Posted: 12:51 PM on March 6, 2006 | IP
    
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]

Topic Jump
« Back | Next »
Multiple pages for this topic [ 1 2 ]
Forum moderated by: admin
    

Topic options: Lock topic | Unlock topic | Make Topic Sticky | Remove Sticky | Delete thread | Move thread | Merge thread

 

© YouDebate.com
Powered by:
ScareCrow version 2.12
© 2001 Jonathan Bravata. All rights reserved.