bencook2 wrote:
BUT, you have twinge of disrespect towards alternative beliefs.  The very thing you try to protect...

Imagine you live 2000 years ago.  Ok, now prove that space travel is real.  You can't.

Of course not. 2000 years ago, we didn't understand enough about basic physics to even figure out that we were on a planet with a gravity well we'd need to overcome, etc, etc. We didn't even know the stuff we didn't know in order to figure out what we didn't know about space travel.

bencook2 wrote:
Prove that Nano tech/science is possible.  You can't.

Sure, it's something we think might be possible, but (depending on how you choose to define "nanotechnology") we haven't done it, so at this time there's no proof. (Some people might argue that the guys who formed the IBM logo in 1989 out of 35 xenon atoms was "nanotech" but I'm not going to try to distract from your basic argument
)

bencook2 wrote:
Prove that Adrianna Lima Should Sleep with ME!  You can't. (and if you can email me!)

I can work on that, but...

bencook2 wrote:
The lack of proof is never enough to total dismiss a theory.

You're right!.. But - wait - there's more...

bencook2 wrote:
Especially when that theory has been around for thousands of years.  That merit alone is proof enough to the "possibility".

Well, that's what's interesting. A theory that's been around for thousands of years, in the face of zero objective, documented, evidence... Hmm... At a certain point it's time to discard the theory, no?

I'm not going to appeal to Popper and falsifiability, but I'd argue, instead, that a theory is useless unless you can think of some way to gather evidence for or against it. Consider the following 2 propositions:
- There are purple flying monkeys on a planet in another galaxy
- There are purple flying monkeys in my transverse colon

In the first proposition, it's a big "so what?" because there's no evidence to support or refute the theory, and given our understanding of the universe and physics it's likely mankind will be dead and gone before we can get there and either see or not see purple monkeys. So, the purple monkeys in another galaxy theory is pointless. Indeed, it's not worth arguing about, unless there were millions of politically active believers in the extragalactic purple monkeys who wouldn't shut up about them. Now, for the second theory - we could find evidence in favor or against it fairly simply with a rather invasive procedure that we don't need to talk about. While it's a silly theory, it's one we can discuss sensibly and, if we cared to, resolve to our satisfaction.

The important distinction is (and here I do have to nod to Popper) that some theories are tied to things that can conceivably be tested and reasoned about. In that case we can keep them around for a long time while we work on them. I'm sure that Galileo never dreamed of proving that the earth revolved around the sun by blasting out of our gravity well in a rocket and looking at the damn thing! But the notion of space-flight, even 2000 years ago, was an extension of an observation about reality (throw things, and they fly for a ways) perhaps. That's a stretch.

bencook2 wrote:
After thousands of years of trying to convience people that there is NO God...people still believe.

Yup. I can't prove a negative. I.e.:  you can't prove god doesn't exist.

You, however, can fail to prove god exists.

Remember - our understanding of logic is fairly recent. Of course, you could say that logic is, like religion, a system of circular reasoning that reinforces itself. In which case, you and I exist simply in different spheres of reality and we're incapable of communicating because the underlying rules by which we see the world are so different that it's literally not the same place for either of us. At the point where our language and ability to communicate (which, perhaps, we can agree is based on convention and consensus) are a matter of "faith" and "belief" then we have to stop because there can be no shared meaning between us.

bencook2 wrote:
What other "theory" has had thousands of years of skeptics yet has survived?

That _is_ amazing.

Remember, there have been thousands of religions that have come and gone before the one I think you're referring to. They didn't survive thousands of years of skeptics.

Now that religion has survived thousands of years, without offering any good evidence, don't you think it's time to trot out a few angels, or turn some water into wine (again?) or, even, smite all of us unbelievers into piles of dust? I guarantee you, if the archangel gabriel comes down and plants his angelic boot in my backside, and threatens me with his flaming sword, I'm easy to convince under those circumstances. It'd be easier if only there hadn't been so much fake/manufactured "evidence" over the years (shroud of turin!) to wade through. It's getting old. It's getting tired.

However, with the lack of evidence supporting religion, at this time, I think it's time to maybe give it a rest.

bencook2 wrote:
Talk about your vast conspiracy.

Yeah, well, if you look at the economics of religion, it's been "berry berry good" to the guys who have been out front perpetrating the scam. Economic motives for perpetuating religion are pretty clear, depending on which side of the tithing process you sit.

bencook2 wrote:
Atheism is the denial of the possibility of God...Agnostic is the denial of religion. I understand one...not the other.

I'm not sure I agree with your characterization, there.
Agnostics say "I'm not sure, so... well.. the jury's out."
Atheists say "What are you even talking about?"

I'm not denying the possibility of god; I simply don't want to hear about it unless I've got a shred of evidence to get it on my mental radar screen. Like the purple monkeys in another galaxy. "What are you talking about?" Whatever.

mjr.

bencook2 wrote:

Totally misrepresented what I said.  Your example does not even come close.  What in the world are you talking about?  You can't disprove something because of a lack of evidence for it.  You need evidence AGAINST it.  THAT my friend is basic science.  (that is all I said, I have no clue what you are talking about and how that has some association with my post.)

You said this "Especially when that theory has been around for thousands of years.  That merit alone is proof enough to the "possibility".  After thousands of years of trying to convience people that there is NO God...people still believe.  What other "theory" has had thousands of years of skeptics yet has survived?"

I showed you a theory that has been around longer, has suffered even more persecution / people trying to convert them away, Skeptics etc...
That by it's very nature proves that your theory has to be false, using your own logic.

Polytheism has been around longer than monotheism.
Therefore your own argument does not hold water.

If you can not put it together, then I can understand why you can not see your "logical argument" above is illogical to begin with.

When Science fails, you go to longevity argument, when that fails you go to what? Science again.

Science has proven there is no God. Science has shown that a Big Bang did take place.
Science has shown that Evolution has and does occur.

So either accept the science argument, and therefore there is no God (ID) or try the longevity argument you did, in which case, please let me know which of my Gods was kind enough to create us, Or short of that, give it up already.

tgimaging wrote:

Are you thinking I have to convince you of something, or prove something to you?  You are mistaken.

My whole premise here is that anything that can happen by 'chance,' is more likely to happen with planning or design - and that is ID. For the courts to rule one as unconstitutional, is an unbalanced bad decision.

Yes, you do have to prove something to me. If you want ID to be taught on an equal footing with evolution, than you will need to provide PROOF that is at least as compelling as the proof that has been lined up for evolution. There cannot be a "teaching of both sides" when one side has evidence and the other does not.

And you said once again that anything that can happen by chance is more likely to happen by design. This is what I was referring to when I said you deny randomization. You are saying, in effect, that ANYTHING that can be ascribed to chance is now in the realm of the designer. Kid gets cancer, it's the designer. Dude draws a straight flush in a game, the designer is at work. I tell my computer to seek a random number and the number is 4, the designer is at work again?

I can't buy that, because then you need to define who or what the designer is. As soon as you answer that next logical question you are teaching religion, which is not science, which will never be science.

And...if all random chance is in the hands of the designer then we have to teach...
1. WHen the Spanish armada went to invade England and was wrecked in a series of storms, it was the will of the designer.
2. In any mathematical equation involving a random element in the equation, the designer will have a hand in the outcome.
3. In observing very small particles at high speeds many unanswerable, yet designer guided, things seem to occur.
4. When you are playing a game and you roll the dice, the result of the roll is the will of the designer. (Therefore the winner is the Chosen One of the designer?)

It goes on and on.

So, should we REALLY be teaching "both sides" of the issue in Science class? Would that not be promoting a religion in public school?

Habenero Photography wrote:
You might want to consider that most of those people have someone else managing their financial affairs.  Sometimes they even have to find new money managers when they the manager is not giving them as much money as they think they should be getting.  A good education is still your best defense against getting ripped off.

Yes, but the people managing their financial affairs are beholden to the people who make the money. Without people making money, people with MBAs are doorstops. And those people can be just as easily ripped off by people with less education. Being crooked is education-agnostic... see the nice folks at Enron, WorldCom and Halliburton.

A good education doesn't hurt. A working brain is far better. And a good education cannot fix a malfunctioning brain.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
Now you're attempting to create semantic confusion by using the word "faith" to describe something that follows as a logical consequence of a definition with your belief in something for which there is no evidence. In other words, you're trying to argue
- that scientists have 'faith' in mathematics
- therefore scientists are as stupid as religious people, just in a different way

Faith is often misinterpreted, because, as a universal metaphysical experience common to all humans, it's a doozy to define. Scientists have faith, but faith is not necessary for the application of the scientific method. 

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
The problem with that is that it's purely a semantic argument that relies on using language differently from the rest of us.

Actually, many of us do understand the actual manifestation of faith, and also understand that it cannot be applied, like the scientific method, towards the definition of some aspect of what one could call 'objective reality'. The reason is that 'objective reality' is, in fact, a flawed concept. Reality, by the very existence of the term, by the very fact that I can utter the word and have meaning attached to it, is subjective.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:
The science of statistics is a sub-set of math. Math is built upon (in general) observable properties of things and extensions thereof. When we say "the probability a coin toss will come up heads is 50%, assuming an ideal coin and randomizing toss" we're not saying that the science of mathematics is what causes the coin to land on one side or another. What we're saying is that the science of mathematics describes how coin tosses would behave whether we understood them or not. Indeed, people appear not to have understood probability distributions in 2 dice throws until well after biblical times. The fact that they did not have a mathematical notation with which to describe the probability didn't change the fact that it was there to observe. There's nothing to have "faith" in, in other words, since you're actually using your language to describe our understanding of objective reality, not the other way around.

Ironically, this paragraph actually argues in favor of ID, rather than against it. It implies that there is an objective reality which we simply must either come to understand, or remain ignorant. In essence, the argument that 'math exists, whether we understand it or not' goes directly to ID's own concept of the 'fine-tuned universe', wherein everything is part of a plan, and everything is going according to plan, and we simply must become aware of the aspects of the plan in order to gain understanding and thrive within.

Our observations tell us that repeating a coin toss will result in a finite number of outcomes (heads, tails, or, in the almost-impossibly extremely rare case, the coin lands on its edge... it's remarkably, unimaginably improbable, but it is NOT impossible). ID agrees that this is true, because the fine-tuned universe requires it to be. It has been designed that way. In fact, science, when it is pure, is in fact saying "no, the coin toss is simply a human construct used to explore the manufactured concept of probability. It's all artificial, and there's nothing 'objective' about it'... the coin toss says nothing about reality, it simply speaks to our perception of reality..."

It is when we assume that the coin may very well vanish completely during one toss, yet reappear perfectly still, on the heads side, that ID begins to crumble. This anomalous behavior implies that the plan is flawed, it suggests that something which does not fit the pattern is actually possible, and that reality is not, in fact, objective. Science succeeds in defeating ID when it accepts the unknown, the unplanned, and the anomalous, and forges forward with observation regardless. Even Einstein knew that, when, as he considered the implications of the General and Special Theories of Relativity, he understood that he'd most likely shut the doors completely on a Unified Theory. And yet, these facts were acceptable to him, because they brought further understanding to science.

In ID terms, the Unified Theory exists (assuming the plan accounts for Einstein at all, which, in a fine-tuned universe, it should), but humans are still not smart enough to grasp it, just like math 'existed' until we came upon it. While comforting, the idea is still a rabbit hole.

In fact, math or probability are not objective manifestations of reality, waiting to be discovered; they are practical, arbitrary sets of rules that we have dreamed up and agreed upon to provide useful application of our observations. The fact that we have a means of describing the behavior of a coin toss does not imply that coin-tossing has an absolute behavior which we are simply observing and describing. The only reason we are able to describe the behavior of a coin toss is because we have agreed on what constitutes a coin, and what constitutes a toss, and the fact that the coin must have different sides in order for the experiment to have any value, etc. Math and probability do not 'exist'; we have brought them into existence as a way of describing what we observe, with the assumption that our observations are reliable.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

bencook2 wrote:
BUT, you have twinge of disrespect towards alternative beliefs.  The very thing you try to protect...

Imagine you live 2000 years ago.  Ok, now prove that space travel is real.  You can't.

Of course not. 2000 years ago, we didn't understand enough about basic physics to even figure out that we were on a planet with a gravity well we'd need to overcome, etc, etc. We didn't even know the stuff we didn't know in order to figure out what we didn't know about space travel.

bencook2 wrote:
Prove that Nano tech/science is possible.  You can't.

Sure, it's something we think might be possible, but (depending on how you choose to define "nanotechnology") we haven't done it, so at this time there's no proof. (Some people might argue that the guys who formed the IBM logo in 1989 out of 35 xenon atoms was "nanotech" but I'm not going to try to distract from your basic argument
)

bencook2 wrote:
Prove that Adrianna Lima Should Sleep with ME!  You can't. (and if you can email me!)

I can work on that, but...

bencook2 wrote:
The lack of proof is never enough to total dismiss a theory.

You're right!.. But - wait - there's more...

bencook2 wrote:
Especially when that theory has been around for thousands of years.  That merit alone is proof enough to the "possibility".

Well, that's what's interesting. A theory that's been around for thousands of years, in the face of zero objective, documented, evidence... Hmm... At a certain point it's time to discard the theory, no?

I'm not going to appeal to Popper and falsifiability, but I'd argue, instead, that a theory is useless unless you can think of some way to gather evidence for or against it. Consider the following 2 propositions:
- There are purple flying monkeys on a planet in another galaxy
- There are purple flying monkeys in my transverse colon

In the first proposition, it's a big "so what?" because there's no evidence to support or refute the theory, and given our understanding of the universe and physics it's likely mankind will be dead and gone before we can get there and either see or not see purple monkeys. So, the purple monkeys in another galaxy theory is pointless. Indeed, it's not worth arguing about, unless there were millions of politically active believers in the extragalactic purple monkeys who wouldn't shut up about them. Now, for the second theory - we could find evidence in favor or against it fairly simply with a rather invasive procedure that we don't need to talk about. While it's a silly theory, it's one we can discuss sensibly and, if we cared to, resolve to our satisfaction.

The important distinction is (and here I do have to nod to Popper) that some theories are tied to things that can conceivably be tested and reasoned about. In that case we can keep them around for a long time while we work on them. I'm sure that Galileo never dreamed of proving that the earth revolved around the sun by blasting out of our gravity well in a rocket and looking at the damn thing! But the notion of space-flight, even 2000 years ago, was an extension of an observation about reality (throw things, and they fly for a ways) perhaps. That's a stretch.

bencook2 wrote:
After thousands of years of trying to convience people that there is NO God...people still believe.

Yup. I can't prove a negative. I.e.:  you can't prove god doesn't exist.

You, however, can fail to prove god exists.

Remember - our understanding of logic is fairly recent. Of course, you could say that logic is, like religion, a system of circular reasoning that reinforces itself. In which case, you and I exist simply in different spheres of reality and we're incapable of communicating because the underlying rules by which we see the world are so different that it's literally not the same place for either of us. At the point where our language and ability to communicate (which, perhaps, we can agree is based on convention and consensus) are a matter of "faith" and "belief" then we have to stop because there can be no shared meaning between us.

bencook2 wrote:
What other "theory" has had thousands of years of skeptics yet has survived?

That _is_ amazing.

Remember, there have been thousands of religions that have come and gone before the one I think you're referring to. They didn't survive thousands of years of skeptics.

Now that religion has survived thousands of years, without offering any good evidence, don't you think it's time to trot out a few angels, or turn some water into wine (again?) or, even, smite all of us unbelievers into piles of dust? I guarantee you, if the archangel gabriel comes down and plants his angelic boot in my backside, and threatens me with his flaming sword, I'm easy to convince under those circumstances. It'd be easier if only there hadn't been so much fake/manufactured "evidence" over the years (shroud of turin!) to wade through. It's getting old. It's getting tired.

However, with the lack of evidence supporting religion, at this time, I think it's time to maybe give it a rest.

bencook2 wrote:
Talk about your vast conspiracy.

Yeah, well, if you look at the economics of religion, it's been "berry berry good" to the guys who have been out front perpetrating the scam. Economic motives for perpetuating religion are pretty clear, depending on which side of the tithing process you sit.


I'm not sure I agree with your characterization, there.
Agnostics say "I'm not sure, so... well.. the jury's out."
Atheists say "What are you even talking about?"

I'm not denying the possibility of god; I simply don't want to hear about it unless I've got a shred of evidence to get it on my mental radar screen. Like the purple monkeys in another galaxy. "What are you talking about?" Whatever.

mjr.

Remember, there have been thousands of religions that have come and gone before the one I think you're referring to. They didn't survive thousands of years of skeptics.

Actually, unlike others, I am only refering to the existence of God.  Not a Christian God only.

Now that religion has survived thousands of years, without offering any good evidence, don't you think it's time to trot out a few angels, or turn some water into wine (again?) or, even, smite all of us unbelievers into piles of dust?

"think it's time"  In our limited view of "time" I think it might be persumptive to assume it is "time" for the angels.  My view of God rejects assigning human frailty to God.  Like our limited concept of time.  Two totally different frames of reference.  If we lived our life in the span of a billionth of a nano second, wouldn't it be odd to say "don't you think it is about time the earth went around the sun?"  A bit presumptive to request that in our life time.

Yeah, well, if you look at the economics of religion, it's been "berry berry good" to the guys who have been out front perpetrating the scam. Economic motives for perpetuating religion are pretty clear, depending on which side of the tithing process you sit.

And you will recieve NO argument from me!  Organized religion today is definition of hippocracy. 

I'm not denying the possibility of god; I simply don't want to hear about it unless I've got a shred of evidence to get it on my mental radar screen.

Isn't that what they told Galileo before they put him in prison?

bencook2 wrote:
Imagine you live 2000 years ago.  Ok, now prove that space travel is real.  You can't.

Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Imagine I live 2000 years ago, and 'prove' space travel is real? How about I tell you "people 2000 years ago knew that space travel was real"? Cuz it's true.

bencook2 wrote:
Actually, unlike others, I am only refering to the existence of God.  Not a Christian God only.

Then don't you mean "gods"?? What about the pantheists? Or did you mean "gods and spirits"? What about the animists?

Animism's been around a lot longer than monotheism, as far as we can tell.

"think it's time"  In our limited view of "time" I think it might be persumptive to assume it is "time" for the angels.  My view of God rejects assigning human frailty to God.  Like our limited concept of time.  Two totally different frames of reference.

I'll buy that. We basically live on two completely different worlds.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

bencook2 wrote:
Actually, unlike others, I am only refering to the existence of God.  Not a Christian God only.

Then don't you mean "gods"?? What about the pantheists? Or did you mean "gods and spirits"? What about the animists?

Animism's been around a lot longer than monotheism, as far as we can tell.


I'll buy that. We basically live on two completely different worlds.

mjr.

I can't fathom a reason for two supreme beings....but I don't deny the possibility.

kickfight wrote:

Wait, wait, wait. Hold on. Imagine I live 2000 years ago, and 'prove' space travel is real? How about I tell you "people 2000 years ago knew that space travel was real"? Cuz it's true.

???? 

Congrats!  Glad you know that.  But, that has nothing to do with my supposition.

bencook2 wrote:

???? 

Congrats!  Glad you know that.  But, that has nothing to do with my supposition.

Oh, I see. You just phrased it wrong. You said:

"Imagine you live 2000 years ago.  Ok, now prove that space travel is real.  You can't. "

when you meant to say:

"Imagine you live 2000 years ago.  Ok, now prove that space travel is real TODAY.  You can't."

Habenero Photography wrote:
Try this site
http://www.dcn.davis.ca.us/vme/hgt/Tren … yr1986.PDF

Each site shows you what evolution is.  If you choose to extropolate further, it can challenge your belief system.  Evolution is science not faith.

Tim and Habenero, I have been busy this week (as one can imagine during a holiday season) so I haven't had much of a chance to read all the articles posted.  I will as I get time, however.

The link posted above by Habenero was quite telling with one of the first sentences "...this theory remains as speculative as the day I wrote it...".  How is an article that is a speculative writing considered evidence?
Also, a big issue with me is how these are observed.  Are any external forces used?  I'm not talking specifically about this article, but in general.  If they are observed in nature it is one thing, but controlled environments tamper with natural selection and tamper with normal course of events for any organism, complex or simple.

Tim Baker wrote:
Mike. Glad to see you again. Hope things are alright.  /Tim

They will be hitting her with another dose of chemo today. Hopefully it won't knock her on her butt like the last time.

Had to replace the fuel pump on the truck...  weeeee fun.

Recieved a large check from my mom for Christmas and a $50 bonus from work. So all in all every thing is pretty even.

jeffgreen wrote:

Tim and Habenero, I have been busy this week (as one can imagine during a holiday season) so I haven't had much of a chance to read all the articles posted.  I will as I get time, however.

The link posted above by Habenero was quite telling with one of the first sentences "...this theory remains as speculative as the day I wrote it...".  How is an article that is a speculative writing considered evidence?
Also, a big issue with me is how these are observed.  Are any external forces used?  I'm not talking specifically about this article, but in general.  If they are observed in nature it is one thing, but controlled environments tamper with natural selection and tamper with normal course of events for any organism, complex or simple.

The scientific observations that form the foundation upon which evolution is based are done in nature and in labs.  The hypothesis has been tested and refined mulltiple times.  It holds up quite well as the best explanation of the observed events.

Ty Simone wrote:
Evolution has NOTHING to do with the BIG BANG.
the only reason the two are linked together is because they form a logical chain.

Sorry. I disagree. The have everything to do with each other.

The only way the evolutionary model can exist is if there is an infinite amount of time. The Big Bang Theory offers up a finite starting point.

The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson convinced most scientists of the validity of the Big Bang Theory. Further observations reported in 1992 have moved the Big Bang Theory from a consensus view to the nearly unanimous view among cosmologists: there was an origin to the universe, perhaps 13-15 billion years ago. Not only is life itself overwhelmingly improbable, but its appearance almost immediately (in geological terms), perhaps within as short a period as 10 million years following the solidification and cooling of our once-molten planet, defies explanation by conventional physical and chemical laws.

Now I don't think that ID is science. If so it is junk science. But there is no way that evolution explains the very basic question of "Where did we come from." Evolution indeed may take place, but it most certainly does not explain the origin of life. Mathematically, it is impossible. Most mutations of organisms are harmful. Even so, on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available.

Interesting though, how the big bang not only mirrors the biblical creation theory, that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing, but also provides some support for the never ending cycles of existence taught by orthodox Hinduism. Gotta love those hips of Shiva!

Schools should be teaching all possibilities. Not just the politically correct ones. Not only should they be taught science, they should be taught how to think for themselves.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

Many of the things in the bible are manifestly true, yes. For example, there was a Rome. There was a Palestine. There were Egyptians. There was almost certainly a historic figure who was the basis for the myth of Jesus. Etc...

The bible is a mixture of things that are highly likely to have occurred, and about which you'll get no argument, and things that are somewhat more debatable. Was there a Sodom and Gomorrah? Well, maybe. There are ruins of ancient cities in what used to be Sumeria and one of them may be one of those cities. Were they wiped out by a heavenly host? Did angels come down with flaming swords and all that bullsh*t, or was it just a fire that swept out of control? We don't know - although you're welcome to introduce evidence - maybe the angels lost a few wing-feathers. Was there a Jesus? Probably. Heck, there are thousands of Jesuses right now in the hispanic community. Was there a single, particular Jesus who was the son of a diety? You'll need to offer some proof before I'll buy that last bit. Was he killed and resurrected? You'll need to offer some proof before I'll buy that.

Saying that the bible is full of evidence of it's truth - because it's grounded in measurable facts is ridiculous. By the same token, spider-man is real, because the spider-man comics describe sky-scrapers (we have those!) and buses (we have those too!) and his girlfriend MJ (there are girls nicknamed MJ!) and he worked for a newspaper (by golly, we have those, too!!)

Unlike the others who are participating in this discussion, I am not going to lie to you and say the politically correct nonsense about respecting your religion. It's a pack of lies. Prove your god is real or stop talking about it.

mjr.

Marcus. I didn't say that.  That was another's post.  Don't make me sound like and IDist. Oh, and when is my carmal corn going to arrive   Cheers and happy IDmas, Tim

Timm wrote:

Sorry. I disagree. The have everything to do with each other.

The only way the evolutionary model can exist is if there is an infinite amount of time. The Big Bang Theory offers up a finite starting point.

The 1965 observation of the microwave background radiation by Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson convinced most scientists of the validity of the Big Bang Theory. Further observations reported in 1992 have moved the Big Bang Theory from a consensus view to the nearly unanimous view among cosmologists: there was an origin to the universe, perhaps 13-15 billion years ago. Not only is life itself overwhelmingly improbable, but its appearance almost immediately (in geological terms), perhaps within as short a period as 10 million years following the solidification and cooling of our once-molten planet, defies explanation by conventional physical and chemical laws.

Now I don't think that ID is science. If so it is junk science. But there is no way that evolution explains the very basic question of "Where did we come from." Evolution indeed may take place, but it most certainly does not explain the origin of life. Mathematically, it is impossible. Most mutations of organisms are harmful. Even so, on a theoretical level, it does not seem possible for mutations to account for the diversity of life on earth, at least not in the time available.

Interesting though, how the big bang not only mirrors the biblical creation theory, that a parallel exists between the big bang as an event and the Christian notion of creation from nothing, but also provides some support for the never ending cycles of existence taught by orthodox Hinduism. Gotta love those hips of Shiva!

Schools should be teaching all possibilities. Not just the politically correct ones. Not only should they be taught science, they should be taught how to think for themselves.

Actually, you should have continued to read about self-creation...

But, disagree all you want, No where in the "Big Bang Theory" does it ever mention Evolution.
They are two seperate and distinct theories linked up solely because they make a logical chain.

But, as mentioned before, both "The Big Bang" and "Creationism" are mathematically impossible theories. (or at best incomplete)

bencook2 wrote:
Here is where you lost me.

I have REALLY enjoyed this IMPORTANT debate.  I think this thread started by Tim has done more than the whole of every political thread on this forum.  BUT, you have twinge of disrespect towards alternative beliefs.  The very thing you try to protect...

Imagine you live 2000 years ago.  Ok, now prove that space travel is real.  You can't.

Prove that Nano tech/science is possible.  You can't.

Prove that Adrianna Lima Should Sleep with ME!  You can't. (and if you can email me!)

The lack of proof is never enough to total dismiss a theory.  Especially when that theory has been around for thousands of years.  That merit alone is proof enough to the "possibility".  After thousands of years of trying to convience people that there is NO God...people still believe.  What other "theory" has had thousands of years of skeptics yet has survived?  Talk about your vast conspiracy.  Atheism is the denial of the possibility of God...Agnostic is the denial of religion.  I understand one...not the other.

Marcus, two things: Respecting another's religion is not the same as accepting another's religion.  I respect all people's beliefs.  I have friends from all of the major religious beliefs and friends who don't believe or question the existance of God/Jesus/ID/all that superstition.  I respect and love 'em all.  I also respect my cat's belief that the world revolves around his food dish (YF 'Theory' = Yummy Food). I just don't want them shoved down my throat.

Ben, second point.  You cannot have a theory with evidence (mathematical or physical).  You can have a belief without evidence (and most beliefs fit that definition), but that does not make a belief a theory.  /tim

bencook2 wrote:

I can't fathom a reason for two supreme beings....but I don't deny the possibility.

Ben, what does the First Commandment say? He says he is the only true God and we shall place no other God before him.  Seems to suggest that God believes there are other Gods.  Or, two other IDs or 'supreme beings.'

/Tim

bencook2 wrote:

Which religion?  I ask again.

Any and all religion.

Why should religions get tax breaks, etc, that other corporate entities or social organizations do not get? If I buy a building for the express purpose of just having a bunch of people I like come in and have a nice party every Sunday, I'd have to pay property taxes, I'd have to get parking exemptions, and my enterprise would be subjected to a blizzard of bureaucratic buffoonery.

But if the purpose of the party is to talk about God, suddenly I'm untouchable. Why is that?

Incidentally, the "entanglement" test used by the courts specifically contemplates conduct which promotes *any* religion or *no* religion: we can't make things harder for specific churches *or* churches in general, and we can't make things *easier* for specific churches or churches in general.

M

tgimaging wrote:
One of the best 'debater's trick' is to use labels like 'debater's tricks.'

Aha!! But the secretests most powerfullest of debater's tricks is to claim that someone's claimed debaters tricks are debater's tricks!! And then there's the seventh level "power slam body twist" debater's trick which is to claim that my claim that your claim that I claim that my aunt's cat is using debater's tricks!!!

We are obviously both master debaters and, uh, huh... um...

mjr.

Tim Baker wrote:
Or, two other IDs or 'supreme beings.'

That would be Brahma and Vishnu.










That's said with a wink.

Justin wrote:
That would be Brahma and Vishnu.


That's said with a wink.

You Hindus ... get out of my yard!  Buddha is the only ID that should be taught in schools. If you don't agree, then you're going to come back as a GWC!

StMarc wrote:

Any and all religion.

Why should religions get tax breaks, etc, that other corporate entities or social organizations do not get? If I buy a building for the express purpose of just having a bunch of people I like come in and have a nice party every Sunday, I'd have to pay property taxes, I'd have to get parking exemptions, and my enterprise would be subjected to a blizzard of bureaucratic buffoonery.

But if the purpose of the party is to talk about God, suddenly I'm untouchable. Why is that?

Incidentally, the "entanglement" test used by the courts specifically contemplates conduct which promotes *any* religion or *no* religion: we can't make things harder for specific churches *or* churches in general, and we can't make things *easier* for specific churches or churches in general.

M

Again, no arguement on taxing churches/temples.  I just don't think it is unconstitution to exempt them.  Either way I think they should pay taxes.  But what if they fall under a non-profit?  Then to deny them exempt status would definately be unconstitutional.  That is infringing on religious rights (maybe).

None of this establishes a state religion.  I think we error too much on the side of seperation (which is not in the constitution).

tgimaging wrote:
Thanks for your opinion. Since you have seen DNA mutation, what did it turn into?

Depending on what was under experiment.  We worked on bacteria and extracted DNA from it.  After profiling, it showed that the bacteria had gone through DNA mutation.  In that case, it turned into a new form of bacteria, just like what Tim has talked about before.  It could be a resistant strain to the antibiotics that you are taking.  DNA mutation for bacteria is the major reason why doctors are reluctant to prescribe antibiotics unless it is absolutely necessary.

I keep hearing a smiliar argument over and over - The probability is small, but given enough time (samples, DNA mutations, or whatever....), IT WILL OCCUR. And the funny part is that it's said with such absolute faith.

This is not faith, it is an observation.  It is verifiable, observable and repeatable.  We can repeat the experiment any day and have the same result.  What faith is involved?

Until something verifiable comes along in the ID vs evolution debate, I'll wonder how you can apparently state that I have "absolutely no understanding of the notion of probability or genetic mutation." That takes a lot of faith on your part. And it's a good example of flawed observations leading to a wrong conclusion.
(No disrespect intended.)

Flawed observation?  If you have any understanding of probability, you can understand why DNA mutation exists and why it works.  It is an observable, repeatable fact that is observed.  The probability is calculated AFTER it is observed, not the other way round.  Doing it the other way round would be faith, but that's not how peer-reviewed science can be done.

ID is exactly this reverse argument.  We "think" it was done by some intelligent form, but we have no proof.  It's a philosophy, almost, wouldn't even pass as a theory.  And a baseless philosophy at that.  Want to read some strong, logically worded philosophy?  Try Bertrand Russell.

The faith asserted by proponents of evolution is commendable indeed, and impressive.

Absolutely.  And I have no problem with that, just keep it out of our science classrooms.  Teach it in religious classes, I don't have a problem with it at all.

I have to say - it is amusing to read what you've said. Especially the part about ruining the country. That's really funny! Thanks!!

Amusing only if you have no perception at how far we are behind from other countries in terms of science education.  When the Maths and Science level of garduating high school students in China rival our Freshmen and Sophomore, I think we have a serious problem, especially in math.  All the major economics advantage in the next century will be leveraged through technology, which is based on sound solid science.  Without a strong foundation and if we keep wasting time debating this ID-nonsense, we will be further behind.

lll wrote:
When the Maths and Science level of garduating high school students in China rival our Freshmen and Sophomore, I think we have a serious problem, especially in math.  All the major economics advantage in the next century will be leveraged through technology, which is based on sound solid science.  Without a strong foundation and if we keep wasting time debating this ID-nonsense, we will be further behind.

In reference to this thought process (which is becoming increasingly apparent)...

Massimo Pigliucci rocks.

Nihilus wrote:
Massimo Pigliucci rocks.

Thanks for the excellent information.

Tim Baker wrote:
If you don't agree, then you're going to come back as a GWC!

You should be so lucky as to be like me! I am the baddest! I am the slammin'est! I am LIVING PROOF that there is a god because a photographer as great as me couldn't just happen by like randomly pointing a camera at stuff, huh?

GWC!

RStephenT wrote:
What amazes me is that Mike Cummings isn't in the middle of this thread... this is right up his alley!

He's most likely out doing his last-minute IDmas shopping ... /tim

Tim Baker wrote:
You Hindus ... get out of my yard!  Buddha is the only ID that should be taught in schools. If you don't agree, then you're going to come back as a GWC!

Buddha wasn't a Designer - he was merely (merely?) Enlightened.

Did you look at my page? I am a GWC. However, I'm not the GWC. There is only one (by design!), and he's the slammin'est.

bencook2 wrote:
I can't fathom a reason for two supreme beings....but I don't deny the possibility.

I didn't say "two" I said "gods"

I don't know if anyone's kept score but there have been hundreds or thousands of divinities dreamt-up by humans, since the invention of religion. The ancient greeks, alone, had dozens. The romans (because their emperors were divine, see...) had hundreds. Virtually every civilization invented its own; the ones that have lasted and grown in popularity are the ones whose followers are the best at killing the followers of other gods.

That's one of my favorite questions for the believers: "How do you know you're right that XYZ is the one true god? There are so many to choose from and they ALL say they're the one true god?"  Compounding faith upon faith!! And I've even talked to people of faith who have no problem saying "The greek gods were myths - but my god isn't!!"

What a crock.

mjr.

Marcus J. Ranum wrote:

I didn't say "two" I said "gods"

I don't know if anyone's kept score but there have been hundreds or thousands of divinities dreamt-up by humans, since the invention of religion. The ancient greeks, alone, had dozens. The romans (because their emperors were divine, see...) had hundreds. Virtually every civilization invented its own; the ones that have lasted and grown in popularity are the ones whose followers are the best at killing the followers of other gods.

That's one of my favorite questions for the believers: "How do you know you're right that XYZ is the one true god? There are so many to choose from and they ALL say they're the one true god?"  Compounding faith upon faith!! And I've even talked to people of faith who have no problem saying "The greek gods were myths - but my god isn't!!"

What a crock.

mjr.

I can't fathom a reason for multiple supreme beings....but I don't deny the possibility.

Justin wrote:
I see all the different "gods" of different monotheistic beliefs as one God, but with different attributes that different people with different biases wish to attribute to that one God.

Meh. That's certainly not how the deities themselves are intended to be portrayed. That the whole concept of one is insubstantial and vague as to its 'natural aspects' just makes it so that all monotheisms can be shoveled together to form the foundation of an argumentum ad populum.

Humans keep trying to define God, but that's arrogant futility. Assuming that God exists, it's actually God that defines humans.

(emphasis mine)
In order not to assume, one needs to ascertain the likelihood of this entity being in existence, we need to set parameters of definition to examine what exactly we're talking about. So, defining it is necessary...and it's not futile. Every individual can, with near total assurance, describe to you what characterisitcs this being supposedly has (the more fanatic the zealot, the greater the assurance). To stick the deity into the realm of 'the unknown' is simple special pleading.

I've always been confused about how if 'humans cannot fathom the mind of god', they are so sure it's even there (nevermind what it's apparently thinking).

Nihilus wrote:
In reference to this thought process (which is becoming increasingly apparent)...

Massimo Pigliucci rocks.

Good argument, but flawed conclusion. I was surprised that Pigliucci didn't correct one of the most glaring fallacious statements attributed to Johnson: "The Wedge strategy document starts out with predictable rhetoric to the effect that belief in a personal God has been the bedrock of Western civilization, implying that if people should abandon such belief the end of the world would surely follow shortly thereafter."

That's utterly inane. The belief in a Personal God (or Gods, or Creator) has been the bedrock of human civilization, not just 'Western' civilization, in that it is the one consistent and observable thing that is common to all human kind. To abandon such a belief would be to become less human. It wouldn't be the end of the world by any means, either; it would just result in an incomplete (and therefore impaired) human. The Wedge's core statement is as clueless and wrong-headed as stating that the belief in a Creator implies adherence to religion, or stating that science and belief in a Creator are incompatible concepts.

It is the intellectually impaired human who is unable to both sustain the notion of a creative source *and* acknowledge scientific evidence. One of the most reliable tests of fundamentalism is the persecution of or attack on knowledge, and one of the most reliable tests of academic dullardism is the ever-failed exercise of making God 'disappear' in a puff of 'reason'.

Unfortunately, Pigliucci fails to convince in the end, because he makes the error of assuming that the problem of ID is specific to the United States, and he also forgets that the situation is more easily correctable in the US than in most other countries (evidenced by his own example of the non-collapse of the US economy after its most important cornerstone --slavery-- was made illegal). All we need is the resolve to stop voting puppets of the good ol' boy network into office.

Nihilus wrote:
Meh. That's certainly not how the deities themselves are intended to be portrayed.

I just hypothesized that a deity exists. My hypothesis doesn't carry on to know what the deity (or deities) intend - in fact, if I did hypothesize further, it would be that the intentions that we attribute are our own intentions we wish it to have, not the deity's own intentions. So I'm not even in the same rhetorical arena here.

In order not to assume, one needs to ascertain the likelihood of this entity being in existence, we need to set parameters of definition to examine what exactly we're talking about. So, defining it is necessary...

Well, I can "define" what I mean by the hypothetical God in the context of my statement. But it doesn't impute motivations or personality or intentions or abilities or actions.

It would be generally the Creator, the Prime Mover, the One. That's what my statement meant to encompass.

Tim Baker wrote:

He's most likely out doing his last-minute IDmas shopping ... /tim

Opps I missed his postings, looks like he is busy... and you are so very very bad...