jeffgreen wrote:
What religion would congress be establishing by allowing two theories to be taught?

Why stop at two!? Why not 10?! Hey, I know, they should stop teaching science entirely and just spend a year teaching kids about the 50,000 different creation "theories" that ignorant people have come up throughout human history. That way american kids can be ignorant, too!

Let's see, the Sumerians believed that the earth was created by Nammu in the form of a giant mountain rising from a sea of chaos. Because the sumerians didn't know there was such a thing as the universe they didn't bother coming up with a theory for that. But, hey, it's just as valid a theory as christian creationism. They should require schools to spend a week teaching that theory!

And, hmm, the Kalahari bushmen believe that all life originated from the center of the earth, with Kaang (Käng), the Great Master and Lord of All Life. That's just as valid (and likely) a theory as christian creationism. They should spend a semester on that don't you think?

And, what if I told you there was a theory of creation that said that earth and the universe were created 1,000 years after the Sumerian invented beer? You'd probably think that was a pretty poor theory, wouldn't you? I would. Oops, that'd be the christian theory.

Next, let's get "in god we trust" off of the money and postage stamps! I think "In Käng, the Great Master and Lord of All Life we trust" has a more dramatic flair to it.

mjr.

jeffgreen wrote:
Well good.  So one theory is allowed while another theory is barred.  Where, exactly, is seperation of church and state found in the constitution.  "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free speech thereof".  What religion would congress be establishing by allowing two theories to be taught?  If one is barred, why not both?  I would prefer that since those teaching evolution would obviously do a horrible job teaching I.D.

Precisely! Some much is assumed in our Constitution & so few read it. As I recall from my college physics classes, no evolutionists can explain what exploded in their 'Big Bang Theory'. Something had to be there to explode. What was it & how was it created? According to the Laws of Conservation of Energy & Matter: Energy/Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Why stop at two!? Why not 10?! Hey, I know, they should stop teaching science entirely and just spend a year teaching kids about the 50,000 different creation "theories" that ignorant people have come up throughout human history. That way american kids can be ignorant, too!

Well how about if refuse to teach both sides of an issue we just not teach that issue!  Evolution is not based in facts yet it is being taught in such a way.  My point is there are two possibilities for the beginning of the world: 1) it was created by some intelligent design 2) it evolved.  If you don't teach both of those you are not providing the students with the necessary information and are presenting them with a biased view.  It would be better to exclude the teaching of evolution than to teach only one side of this issue.  Why are you opposed to this?  You don't want teachers teaching the "theory" of I.D., so why are you so supportive of teachers teaching that energy came from nowhere and life gets better through time(something science contradicts).

jeffgreen wrote:
You don't want teachers teaching the "theory" of I.D., so why are you so supportive of teachers teaching that energy came from nowhere and life gets better through time(something science contradicts).

Well, that's because a scientific theory is very different from a religious one.  When you can show me a single scrap of evidence in said higher power, I'll allow you to pollute the minds of the rest of America legally.

Until then, in Ra I trust.

StudioD wrote:
no evolutionists can explain what exploded in their 'Big Bang Theory'.

This is a perfect example of why we need to spend more time teaching our kids science and logic, instead of religion.

Science doesn't claim to explain everything. In fact, scientific thinking is a framework that allows people to reason logically about things that are not understood, so that they may eventually be understood. Witness, for example, how we have come to slowly understand a fair bit about how the human body works. Scientists, for a long time, didn't understand how blood worked, for example, but understood it was important. Now, we understand it fairly well and are working on greater detail. The scientific process is one of constant seeking and discovery. Indeed, scientists seek and discover because they know they cannot explain everything.

That's why we have a science of cosmology, at all. After all, if scientists just sat back and accepted the religious explanation for how the universe came about, we'd be stuck sifting through thousands of mutually contradictory creation myths -- that'd be great, wouldn't it?

Religious people, in their ignorance, attack science because it doesn't offer them the same kind of complete, simplistic, and dogmatic view of reality that they are accustomed to. If you expect that scientific thinking is going to offer you a convenient world-view that never changes. That's not what science is about. In fact, unlike religion (with its dogma that is handed down whole cloth from a divinity) science accepts that massive paradigm shifts occur and that we must adapt to them. Remember, we literally did not understand the physics of motion in macroscopic objects until a few hundred years ago. Now, Newtonian physics has been further refined, etc. Science, unlike religion, is not scared of the threat of change, so your challenge that "no evolutionists can explain" is a source of intense excitement and curiousity, not fear, to scientists.

Since you appear to believe you understand logic, let me try a counter-argument on you:
Throughout human history there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of major religions. Virtually all of the religions that have ever existed have made the claim that they are the one true religion, and are complete and correct in all respects. Obviously, they cannot all be right, since they contradict each other in many important details.

How do you, personally, resolve that contradiction?

mjr.

Tim Baker wrote:
Well, it looks like we're not in Kansas anymore:

"HARRISBURG, Pa. - In one of the biggest courtroom clashes between faith and evolution since the 1925 Scopes Monkey Trial, a federal judge barred a Pennsylvania public school district Tuesday from teaching “intelligent designâ€? in biology class, saying the concept is creationism in disguise.

U.S. District Judge John E. Jones delivered a stinging attack on the Dover Area School Board, saying its first-in-the-nation decision in October 2004 to insert intelligent design into the science curriculum violates the constitutional separation of church and state."

Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10545387/

Looks like me and Tim agree on something else!

jeffgreen wrote:
Well good.  So one theory is allowed while another theory is barred.  Where, exactly, is seperation of church and state found in the constitution.  "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free speech thereof".  What religion would congress be establishing by allowing two theories to be taught?  If one is barred, why not both?  I would prefer that since those teaching evolution would obviously do a horrible job teaching I.D.

We've been over all this in a thread that was running last month.  As a summary, (in all states except Kansas, apparently)

A theory is a well tested hypothesis.  A philosophy is a belief system.  Biology is a science.  ID is a philosophy.

The Intellegent Design movement was started in the U.S. in the late 1980s by Phillip E. Johnson (born 1940) a retired UC Berkeley American law professor and author. A born again Christian, he is considered the father of the intelligent design movement, which criticizes the theory of evolution, and promotes creationism as an alternative. Johnson has also participated in a movement challenging the scientific orthodoxy that HIV is the cause of AIDS. In both of these areas his critics accuse him of promoting pseudoscience.  Despite the fact that he has no formal background in the biological sciences, Johnson has become a prominent critic of evolutionary theory. He is a critic of naturalism, and espouses a philosophy for which he has coined the term theistic realism.

Johnson is a Christian and elder in the Presbyterian Church (USA).

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phillip_E._Johnson

Second, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that the implications of the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution forbids the teaching of any religion's dogma in a public school.  I think that issue was settled in 1952 in Everson v. Board of Education, in which the Court, without dissent on this point, declared that the Establishment Clause forbids not only practices that ''aid one religion'' or ''prefer one religion over another,'' but as well those that ''aid all religions.''

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/cons … 1.html#f10

Eliminate science courses in school?  Fail to see the logic here, unless you're attempting to just further reduce our future 'scientists' chance of being competative in the world economy.   /Tim

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Why stop at two!? Why not 10?!

Why not 10???  I say teach any theory that has science behind it!  Creationism has no science.  Only faith and reason.  So, no creationism in school.  I don't think this a seperation issue.  It is a science and education issue.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Why stop at two!? Why not 10?!

I personally like the North West Native American tribes theories of the origins of life and man. http://www.eldrbarry.net/rabb/rvn/first.htm

jeffgreen wrote:
Evolution is not based in facts yet it is being taught in such a way.

'Intelligent' design is not a theory.  It can not be because it is not based on any observable evidence.  Contrary to what most ID proponents say, even though evolution is a scientific 'theory' it *is* based in observable fact and was postulated through scientific reasoning, not faith in anything.

When creationists come up with scientific reasoning for 'intelligent' design it can be advanced as a scientific theory, but just by the mere fact that 'intelligent' design requires the faith in the idea of a higher invisible un-observable being, it can never be a scientific theory.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Throughout human history there have been hundreds, perhaps thousands, of major religions. Virtually all of the religions that have ever existed have made the claim that they are the one true religion, and are complete and correct in all respects. Obviously, they cannot all be right, since they contradict each other in many important details.

How do you, personally, resolve that contradiction?

You look for contradictions within the religions.  If the religion contains contradictions then it obviously is a flawed religion.  The same with science.  If a theory contradicts known laws of science then it can not be true.  If a theory says that life is created from non-life and science says that can not happen and has never been even remotely shown to happen then the theory is false.  If a theory says that organisms increase in complexity throughout time and science contradicts that, it can not be true.  If theory teaches that something evolves from species to species and science contradicts that and through many years of observation have shown it to be false then the theory is flawed.  Do we still teach that the world is flat?  No, because science has proven that is FALSE.

StudioD wrote:
Precisely! Some much is assumed in our Constitution & so few read it. As I recall from my college physics classes, no evolutionists can explain what exploded in their 'Big Bang Theory'. Something had to be there to explode. What was it & how was it created? According to the Laws of Conservation of Energy & Matter: Energy/Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another.

Logic flaw. Just because 'something had to explode' doesn't mean "God" or "ID" did it.  Physicists are honest - they will admit they don't know and it remains an area of study.

Religious leaders (particularly Christian ones) will say God did it, fogetting Buddha and the various Hindu Dieties, without explaination, except 'stories' or 'anecdotes' from the Bible.  Pretty egocentristic, in my opinion.

On correction, evolutionists aren't involved nor do they try to explain the "Big Bang Theory" - that comes from the discipline of Physics.

/Tim

bencook2 wrote:
Looks like me and Tim agree on something else!

LOL...Hey Ben. We actually agree quite a bit more than you think - (as freighting as that may sound!).  Happy holidays ... or IDmas?   /tim

raveneyes wrote:
When creationists come up with scientific reasoning for 'intelligent' design it can be advanced as a scientific theory, but just by the mere fact that 'intelligent' design requires the faith in the idea of a higher invisible un-observable being, it can never be a scientific theory.

Good point.  Show me where anything in science gets created from nothing. 

I.D. comes from 1980's?  I thought for sure it was older than that when I read "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".  That is when the movement started, long before scientists started trying to disprove it and have been trying every since, unsuccessfully. Why?  Because evolution contradicts science.

Tim Baker wrote:

Logic flaw. Just because 'something had to explode' doesn't mean "God" or "ID" did it.  Physicists are honest - they will admit they don't know and it remains an area of study.

Religious leaders (particularly Christian ones) will say God did it, fogetting Buddha and the various Hindu Dieties, without explaination, except 'stories' or 'anecdotes' from the Bible.  Pretty egocentristic, in my opinion.

/Tim

Explain where my flaw lies. Evolutionists want all of us to believe what they believe; I merely ask for their proof. They point to some event & say that is exactly how if happened, yet can show no evidence. Our schools are only allowed to give their unproven theory, based in a religion called humanism. This 'big bang' is one that physics requires some proof before it can be valid. If claiming to use science, follow their rules & laws.

jeffgreen wrote:
Evolution is not based in facts yet it is being taught in such a way.  My point is there are two possibilities for the beginning of the world: 1) it was created by some intelligent design 2) it evolved.

Yet another example of why we need to teach people science and logic in school.

Read this carefully:
There are a potential infinity of theories that can be applied to attempt to explain anything.

Unless the theories overlap, somehow (contain eachother) only one can be right. You with me so far?

So there are plenty more theories:
1) it was created by some intelligent design
2) it evolved
3) my dog threw it up yesterday
4) we all live inside a computer and are just a simulation
5) I'm tripping on acid and only I exist
etc. I could come up with a lot more. But the "universe was created" theory is just another theory along with "evolution" and "dog puke" and whatever.

These theories are all, as theories, the same - because they are theories.

Science argues that we should evaluate the worth of theories based on the evidence for or against them.  Where you're tripping yourself up is you're equating lexical equality with evidentiary support. I.e.: you're assuming that because we call two things "theory" that they are somehow equal.

Another place where religious logic completely fails to mesh with scientific thinking is on the issue of proof. Science does not prove very many theories. Actually, what science does is disprove theories and scientists tend to accept the ones that have survived for a long time without being disproved. So, scientists aren't interested (or really trying to...) prove that evolution is accurate.

So, a less contentious example: scientists believed at one time that the sun rotated around the earth. A bunch of other scientists proved that was wrong. One of the ways they proved it was wrong was by presenting a series of theories that earth actually moved around the sun. Interestingly, those theories matched observable reality better than the theory that the sun revolved around the earth. Eventually the old theory was conclusively disproved but it took a fairly long time for evidence against it to accumulate, and the alternative to be accepted.

A tremendous amount of effort has been expended on trying to conclusively demolish the theory of evolution and it's still with us. Unfortunately, similar effort has not been expended in attempting to conclusively demolish religious faith. I think if you subjected religious faith to the kind of intellectual rigor that science expects of itself, it'd dry up and blow away. Eventually, that will happen, but it's going to be a very long hard haul. Getting religious nonsense out of our schools is a big step forward. The next big battleground is going to be the Islamic world, which is retreating back to the 14th century, intellectually. In the long run that won't work, because living in the dark ages is not a viable economic, military, or political strategy.

mjr.

jeffgreen wrote:
Good point.  Show me where anything in science gets created from nothing.

Nothing in evolution theory says something was created from nothing.
Nothing in science says that life can not come from non life.
Life, all existence really, is just an expression of energy in different forms...that is what science says.  Energy's forms can be changed and re-expressed differently with the addition or subtraction of energy.

jeffgreen wrote:
I.D. comes from 1980's?  I thought for sure it was older than that when I read "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".  That is when the movement started, long before scientists started trying to disprove it and have been trying every since, unsuccessfully. Why?  Because evolution contradicts science.

Scientists have NEVER tried to disprove the bible...in fact most scientists have spent some time in their career trying to prove the bible in one part or another.  The grand majority of scientists however give up after a while and just accept that the bible is faith and science is observation and logic.

Evolution does not contradict science.

StudioD wrote:

Tim Baker wrote:
Logic flaw. Just because 'something had to explode' doesn't mean "God" or "ID" did it.  Physicists are honest - they will admit they don't know and it remains an area of study.

Religious leaders (particularly Christian ones) will say God did it, fogetting Buddha and the various Hindu Dieties, without explaination, except 'stories' or 'anecdotes' from the Bible.  Pretty egocentristic, in my opinion.

/Tim

Explain where my flaw lies. Evolutionists want all of us to believe what they believe; I merely ask for their proof. They point to some event & say that is exactly how if happened, yet can show no evidence. Our schools are only allowed to give their unproven theory, based in a religion called humanism. This 'big bang' is one that physics requires some proof before it can be valid. If claiming to use science, follow their rules & laws.

Your logic flaw is that the Big Bang has been observed with telescopes.  Evidence of the theory is observable and is the basis for a scientific theory and logic allows us to explore the theory further.  Faith has no observable evidence, nor is logical exploration of faith encouraged.  Simple statements like "the ways of God are mysterious" are all the logical exploration that is allowed in faith.

Our schools do not give the theory as proven fact either.  Schools teach that evolution is a theory and show the observations that theory is based on.  If children learn their lessons properly they will learn to explore those observations logically and prove or disprove the theory themselves.

jeffgreen wrote:

You look for contradictions within the religions.  If the religion contains contradictions then it obviously is a flawed religion.  The same with science.  If a theory contradicts known laws of science then it can not be true.  If a theory says that life is created from non-life and science says that can not happen and has never been even remotely shown to happen then the theory is false.  If a theory says that organisms increase in complexity throughout time and science contradicts that, it can not be true.  If theory teaches that something evolves from species to species and science contradicts that and through many years of observation have shown it to be false then the theory is flawed.  Do we still teach that the world is flat?  No, because science has proven that is FALSE.

Thanks for supporting our point regarding science and religion.  If we didn't teach science in schools and/or people were ignorant of the scientific process of inquiry, and relied upon religious teachings, we would still be teaching our children that the world was flat.

Galelleo, a devout Christian revolutionary astrotomer (just like Father Capernacous), said eloquently: "The Bible tells you how to get to heaven, not how the heavens go up."

/tim

By the way, do a Google Search on Bible Contradictions and you will find over 1.8 million hits (not all are appropriate, however).

Tim Baker wrote:

LOL...Hey Ben. We actually agree quite a bit (as freighting as that may sound!).  Happy holidays ... or IDmas?   /tim

Ah yes! the IDmas holiday season.  Complete with Nativity scenes of the "Holiday Infant" formerly known as the "Christ Child".

bencook2 wrote:
Complete with Nativity scenes of the "Holiday Infant" formerly known as the "Christ Child".

Should that be "Complete with naiveté scenes..."?

jeffgreen wrote:
Well good.  So one theory is allowed while another theory is barred.  Where, exactly, is seperation of church and state found in the constitution.  "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free speech thereof".  What religion would congress be establishing by allowing two theories to be taught?  If one is barred, why not both?  I would prefer that since those teaching evolution would obviously do a horrible job teaching I.D.

If Id was science, it could be taught.  I.D. has shown repeatedly that it isn't science.

raveneyes wrote:
Your logic flaw is that the Big Bang has been observed with telescopes.  Evidence of the theory is observable and is the basis for a scientific theory and logic allows us to explore the theory further.

That is like saying there is evidence that I will get laid this week so the theory of "ben getting laid" must be true.  Actually the theory is very weak.  Just like the Big Bang theory. (which I happen to believe in over the literal 7days/Adam&Eve theory)

The truth is there is NO real credible theory on Creation.  NONE.  You can only assume.  And we know what happens when we assume.  We make an ASS out of U and ME.

PS...the first 28 pages of "Conversations with God" has the best explination of God and Creation I have EVER come across.  The rest of the book is so so.

raveneyes wrote:
Evolution does not contradict science.

I think you meant "Evolution does not contradict religion"... yes?

Science actually does contradict religion. That's what the whole battle is about. As science encroaches further and further into areas where religion used be authoritative, religion grows increasingly marginalized. That excites the fervor of the faithful because it's a direct threat to their beliefs.

The current crop of religions that we have (primarily Islam, Christianity, Hinduism, and Buddhism) are the result of organized religions' backing further and further away from making direct assertions about divine impact on observable reality. That's a trend that has been going on for a very long time and, as you can imagine, it's accellerating as our understanding increases. The medieval church was trying to claim that heaven was in the sky and hell was someplace in the center of the earth. Well, oops, science blew a big hole in that one, so, now organized religion has gotten quite vague about these things. This is one of the big problems that Islam is subliminally trying to cope with right now - their holy book says that divinity will involve itself in human affairs and deliver them victory in there here-and-now. Except, unfortunately, that doesn't appear to be happening. Oops! So they're going to either have to adjust their beliefs or - what? I'm somewhat reminded of the native americans who believed that their sacred rituals would make them immune to the cavalrymen's bullets. Oh - too bad - time to adjust your expectations, guys.

Anyhow, science and religion co-exist largely because science has been very careful (so far) not to directly attack religion. For two reasons:
- lots of scientists are also religious
- religious people have a bad habit of trying to kill you as an argument of last resort

mjr.

raveneyes wrote:

Should that be "Complete with naiveté scenes..."?

It should be.  But I do not have the spelling jean (Gene).

StudioD wrote:
Explain where my flaw lies. Evolutionists want all of us to believe what they believe; I merely ask for their proof.

Science doesn't claim to be able to prove everything. Science collects evidence for, and discards theories that have evidence against them.

For example, I think that virtually all real scientists would discard the Theory of Evolution if the old guy with the beard and the chair and all the angels came down and gave a couple lectures or published a few papers explaining how he did that whole "7 days, heaven and earth" trick.

mjr.

jeffgreen wrote:

Good point.  Show me where anything in science gets created from nothing. 

I.D. comes from 1980's?  I thought for sure it was older than that when I read "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".  That is when the movement started, long before scientists started trying to disprove it and have been trying every since, unsuccessfully. Why?  Because evolution contradicts science.

Intellegent Design does not mention the word 'God.'  The Biblical phrase you quoted from Genesis is what Christianity (or the Bible, from where Christianity gets it origin) uses to explain the beginning of the earth and heavens.  The first use of the term "Intellegent Design" has been traced back to an 1847 issue of Scientific American, in an 1868 book, and in an address to the 1873 annual meeting of the British Association for the Advancement of Science by Paleyite botanist George James Allman.  The term was again resurrected when in 1987 the Supreme Court of the United States, in the case of Edwards v. Aguillard, ruled out teaching creationism in schools in the U.S.A. The 'Movement" in the U.S. is credited to Phillip E. Johnson following his 1991 book Darwin on Trial which advocated redefining science to allow claims of supernatural creation. Johnson went on to become the program advisor of the Center for Science and Culture, and is considered the "father" of the intelligent design movement.

Leading intelligent design proponents have made conflicting statements regarding intelligent design. In statements directed at the general public they state that intelligent design is not religious, while they state that intelligent design has its foundation in the Bible, when addressing conservative Christian supporters. Barbara Forrest, an expert who has written extensively on the movement, describes this as being due to the Discovery Institute obfuscating its agenda as a matter of policy. She has written that the movement's "activities betray an aggressive, systematic agenda for promoting not only intelligent design creationism, but the religious worldview that undergirds it." Source: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ … wedge.html

jeffgreen wrote:
I.D. comes from 1980's?  I thought for sure it was older than that when I read "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".  That is when the movement started, long before scientists started trying to disprove it and have been trying every since, unsuccessfully. Why?  Because evolution contradicts science.

Jeff, I have no idea where you get the idea that evolution contradicts science.  And honestly I have no idea what kind of science training you have.  My mother happens to be a classification biologist and I work partly in genomation (PhD bound).  Evolution is science, it does not contradict science.  Theory like evolution is constantly refined, peer-reviewed and make better.  The evolution theory today is not as simplistic as the one Darwin put forward.  I respectfully suggest you to read the latest academic journal to see what the latest "evolution" of the evolution theory is.  It is based on the best available data we have.

ID is not science.  There is no data to support anything in ID.  If we teach ID, we may as well teach Flying Spagetti Monsterism.

StudioD wrote:

Precisely! Some much is assumed in our Constitution & so few read it. As I recall from my college physics classes, no evolutionists can explain what exploded in their 'Big Bang Theory'. Something had to be there to explode. What was it & how was it created? According to the Laws of Conservation of Energy & Matter: Energy/Matter can neither be created nor destroyed, only converted from one form to another.

Science only deals with natural forces and events.  The supernatural has no part in it.  For that reason, although we don't currently know what exploded in the Big Bang, we can be very sure that it did happen based upon the natural evidence.  Science does not now nor should it add in a guiding hand unless there is direct evidence for one.  Just because science doesn't have all the answers, doesn't mean one should blindly throw away centuries of direct observation of the universe because it upsets some religious zealots.

bencook2 wrote:
Ah yes! the IDmas holiday season.  Complete with Nativity scenes of the "Holiday Infant" formerly known as the "Christ Child".

Ah, him. Jesus, of the Christ family.  You know, I have no problem what so ever if someone wants to throw a doll of Baby Jesus on their front lawn ... seems kind of strange, buy hey, it's the holidays.  /tim

bencook2 wrote:
That is like saying there is evidence that I will get laid this week so the theory of "ben getting laid" must be true.

Actually though you threw it out facetiously, this is a perfect example.

Let's change it to the "James is getting laid this week" theory because I don't know your particular circumstances but I do know mine.

So...the theory is something like this:

In the past it has been observed that with his current girlfriend, James gets laid, on average, 4.5 times a week.

It has also been observed that there are times when this does not happen consistently, these times can be directly correlated with certain events.  James' girlfriend's menstrual cycle has a repeatable and measurable effect, as well as James' fuck up quotient.

Now assuming this week is not one in which one of the negatively affecting events is occurring, we can assume that James will be getting laid at least once, but more than likely he will be getting laid about 4 or 5 times.

Now it's only theory that I'll be getting laid that much, but through logic and observation I can theorize that will happen.  The passing of the week will lead to further observation with which I can modify my theory of when James gets laid.  So if I didn't get laid this week, the theory isn't necessarily wrong, but it may be incomplete or inaccurate.



A faith in getting laid however would ignore the observable things that I have measured.  While I was having sex I would have faith in the fact that I'm having sex because someone out there really likes me, but I would have no idea why I was getting laid.

raveneyes wrote:
Your logic flaw is that the Big Bang has been observed with telescopes.

Well, that statement, by itself, is not entirely accurate.

It has been speculated that evidence of the Big Bang (but not the Big Bang itself, as that would be impossible) has been observed using telescopes. In other words:

a) the Big Bang is a theory created by humans regarding the creation of the universe,
b) telescopes have been created to aid humans in observing things that exist in the universe, and humans have interpreted certain observed things as evidence to support the theory of the Big Bang, and yet
c) none of the above proves that the Big Bang actually took place.

Just another creative approach to supporting a belief system!

Tim Baker wrote:
Thanks for supporting our point regarding science and religion.  If we didn't teach science in schools and/or people were ignorant of the scientific process of inquiry, and relied upon religious teachings, we would still be teaching our children that the world was flat.

By the way, do a Google Search on Bible Contradictions and you will find over 1.8 million hits (not all are appropriate, however).

1) I didn't say "don't teach science in schools".  What I am saying is don't teach evolution is school.  You criticize I.D. because of the inability to prove it therefore it can't be science.  Then you turn around and say that Evolution is a theory and that scientists are still trying to prove it and are continuing to study it.  So evolution can not be proven.  I.D. can not be proven.  Logic fails.

2) a google search provides no proof of contradictions.  The 1.8 million contradictions that you quote, how many are put in context?  How many take one phrase compared to another despite different circumstances?  I'm sure one of the contradictions would be "bear one anothers burdens" then a couple verses later is says "bear your own burdens".  Context is everything in the Bible.  I'm glad that Google holds such a high moral value to you.  I bet if you type in "model" into the "image" portion you would turn up high quality models that we find on sites like this, right?

jeffgreen wrote:
Evolution is not based in facts yet it is being taught in such a way.  My point is there are two possibilities for the beginning of the world: 1) it was created by some intelligent design 2) it evolved.  If you don't teach both of those you are not providing the students with the necessary information and are presenting them with a biased view.  It would be better to exclude the teaching of evolution than to teach only one side of this issue.  Why are you opposed to this?  You don't want teachers teaching the "theory" of I.D., so why are you so supportive of teachers teaching that energy came from nowhere and life gets better through time(something science contradicts).

Please state which facts evolution threw out?  Evolution ties all of the observations together into a comprehensive theory that fits.  As new discoveries have been made, they have been incorporated into evolution.  Further evidence is welcome.

I.D. says I don't want to look any further, it might hurt my head, so I'll just say a supernatural force is the only possible answer and my work is through.  No further evidence is needed.

Scientific theories must always be tested against the observations.  Newtonian Gravity was shown to be in error by Einstein.  The Earth centered beliefs were replaced by Sun centered beliefs and now we're no where near the center of the universe.  It is the observations that drive science.  Theories have to agree with the observations.

StudioD wrote:
Explain where my flaw lies. Evolutionists want all of us to believe what they believe; I merely ask for their proof. They point to some event & say that is exactly how if happened, yet can show no evidence. Our schools are only allowed to give their unproven theory, based in a religion called humanism. This 'big bang' is one that physics requires some proof before it can be valid. If claiming to use science, follow their rules & laws.

Your logic flaw is that your physics professor must show you 'evidence' - however, a scientist will be the first to admit they don't know, but that many scientists are working on the answers to your question. It's a theory because of physical, observable evidence that the galaxy is presently expanding.  Science will not be so egotistic to say that is was because of God or ID, or some other deity, nor will they say it cannot be because of some deity.  They don't get into supernatural explanations for what they are observing; just that something happened and the observable evidence confirms that.  Where science welcomes questions to their answers; religion demands you believe their answers to your questions.

I've said this before, but will repeat it.  When was the last time you saw a scientist going door-to-door trying to convert you?  Believe if you will; don't if you desire. But even the Bible teaches you to be open minded, "Proverbs 18:15
The mind of the discerning acquires knowledge, and the ear of the wise seeks it.

/tim

bencook2 wrote:
That is like saying there is evidence that I will get laid this week so the theory of "ben getting laid" must be true.

Well... it depends on the evidence, right??

If there was evidence that seemed sound, and no contradictory evidence, we'd probably say the theory looked OK. But if someone came forward and presented evidence that you're just a computer program, and therefore can't "get laid" we'd all discard the theory. Another nice thing about that theory is we could re-assess it in light of measurements taken next sunday.

bencook2 wrote:
Actually the theory is very weak.  Just like the Big Bang theory. (which I happen to believe in over the literal 7days/Adam&Eve theory)

Uhm... You appear (judging from your earlier statements) to have a flimsy grasp of the scientific method and a relatively poor understanding of logic so....   Can you explain why it's "very weak" considering that there appears to be no strong evidence that it contradicts observable reality? When you couple the fact that we can observe species change through the same mechanism that evolution theoretically operates on, I think you're making a very strong overstatement.

Cosmology's really interesting. Indeed, the history of how science has approached cosmology is a great case study of the scientific method in action. We may never understand how the universe came about, but I think it's amazing how far we've managed to push our understanding. What a tremendous feat!

I like to contrast how science has pushed and revised our cosmology with how religion approaches cosmology: "There's this book. It was written by god. Or inspired by god. And it's 100% right. And it says god made the universe. And god made the book, too. See? It says so right here."  How f*cking stupid is that, I ask you?

mjr.