From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 09-17-2007 14:06
quote: SleepingWolf said:
quote:WebShaman said:However, if we really wanted to prove it's existence or not, we could build a spacecraft to go out there and find it.WebShamanSorry, but it does exist - because I already flew there myself in a spacecraft - this craft had ultra-stealth technology so that even the highest resolution telescopes could not detect it....but I did go there, and I will soon document my voyage so that it can become part of the history program in schools around the world.Nature & Travel PhotographyVisit the Sleeping Wolves
So...you obviously have evidence of this, of course. Please provide it.
quote:poi said:
quote:WebShaman said:Who cares if the teapot exists or not? Obviously, it has no effect whatsoever on things.
Gravity pull.
One day baby celestial teapot will become a full blown teapot shaped asteroid/planetoid that might harbor life. Mmmh I wonder what it's like to live on a teapot planetoid. Is it tea and cookie for every meal ?
Well, if it is causing gravity pull, it is measurable. Thus, we should be able to measure this.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Suho..I have been terribly busy putting out many small fires and then one huge one. What a relief.
...forgive me for not responding sooner.
quote:How could she consider to just forsake those who are not in a communion. Is this an official position?
Yes.. The official position of the chruch is that she will NEVER forsake those who are not in communion for whatever reason. Though separated, all the community of the Christ believers are one in the Spirit. This is also based in our holy scriptures.
"One body, one spirit, one Lord, one faith, one baptism; One God and Father of all. Ephesians 4:46"
We are obliged to believe and to maintain that the Church is one, holy, catholic, and also apostolic going all the way back 2000 years to Peter as our first leader. We believe in her firmly and we confess with simplicity that outside of her there is neither salvation nor the remission of sins, as the Spouse in the Canticles (Sgs 6:8) proclaims: 'One is my dove, my perfect one. She is the only one, the chosen of her who bore her,' and she represents one sole mystical body whose Head is Christ and the head of Christ is God (1 Cor 11:3). In her then is one Lord, one faith, one baptism [Eph 4:5]. There had been at the time of the deluge only one ark of Noah, a protype of prefiguring the one Church, which ark, having been finished to a single cubit, had only one pilot and guide, Noah, and we read that, outside of this ark, all that subsisted on the earth was destroyed.
quote:Oh, one more question: what is the current thinking on the infallibility of the pope?
Papal infallibility is defined when that the Pope speaks on matters in dogma of faith and morals ex cathedra (that is, officially), does not have the possibility of error.All Catholics must believe in the infallibility of the Pope. This is defined dogma.
Unfortunately many Catholics do not understand this teaching. Almost no non-Catholics understand it. First point is that infallibility does NOT mean impeccability. In other words, the charism of infallibility does not make the Pope any more holy than anyone else. A Pope can be corrupt and still be infallible.Second point is that infallibility applies only to matters of faith and morals. Thus, if the Pope's opinion is that apples are better than oranges, this is not infallible. Third point is that the charism of infallibility does not make the Pope automatically correct on other matters. Thus, if the Pope were to say that 1 + 1 = 5 or that the world is flat he would be wrong. Mathematics and science are not about faith and morals and thus the Pope's charism of infallibility does not apply. So what is the charism of infallibility? The first hints to the charism of infallibility come from the words of Jesus in Matthew 23:2-3. In this passage Jesus is telling the he must be obeyed.
Per our Teachings, the Papacy itself did not start with the Catholic Church. It goes all the way back to Adam in the Garden of Eden. The word Pope means "father" and "father" is a term that was used in ancient times to refer to a Prime Minister (see Isaiah 22:21). God has ALWAYS had a Magisterial Prime Minister (representative of the King) on this planet. His first such representative was Adam. With each Covenant God established a visible administrator (Prime Minister). At the time of Jesus, the Prime Ministry in place was the CHAIR OF MOSES. The High Priest and the Pharisees were the Magisterium. What the Mosaic "pope" taught had to be obeyed (Mt 23:2-3
When the New Covenant was put in place by Jesus, he established a new "chair" of authority, just like had been done under the Old Covenant. The old chair of authority was established under Moses. The new chair of authority was established under Peter. Christ made this appointment himself in Matthew 16:18-19. This is NOT about merely the faith of Peter, this is about appointing Peter the First Prime Minister of the New Covenant. The proof of this is that Jesus quoted Isaiah 22:22. The passages in Isaiah 22 are about the secession of the Office of Prime Minister. The King is the King, but a King has his administrator, the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister is given the keys to the kingdom and given the authority to bind or loose.
God is not so cruel as to leave us without a definitive way to know the faith. When opinions differ about theological issues the buck must stop somewhere. There must be a way to settle theological disputes in a defined way. Otherwise we cannot ever know for sure what the Faith is. God establishes his "supreme court" in his magisterium founded upon the CHAIR of authority for each Covenant He has made with Man. That was the CHAIR OF MOSES, now it is the CHAIR OF PETER.
Without this authority to absolutely settle differences of opinion, the Church would be splintered into thousands of factions with each faction having its opinion about the faith that varies with other faction's opinion of the faith.
The charism of infallibility requires three things:
1) The Pope must be speaking as the universal Paster, from the CHAIR;
2) the issue must be on faith and morals
3) the teaching must apply to the whole Church and not to just part of the church
A document from the Pope, even authoritative, about the celibacy of priests, for example, is not infallible as that is a disciplinary issue, not an issue of faith and morals. I might add here that no pope can declare women to be priests because that is an infallible teaching of the Church and does relate to the faith as taught specifically by Jesus and his apostles.And finally, the teaching must apply to the whole church, East and West.
THE Charism of Infallibility is a gift from God to ensure that the Faith remains on course. It is an assurance that personal opinions do not stray the Church away from that which is fundamentally required for belief, that which defines are central identity as Christians. God would be cruel indeed if He did not provide a way for us to KNOW for certain what the faith is or is not.This charism is guaranteed by the Holy Spirit. At no time in the history of the Church has this infallibility ever been broken. No pope, no matter how corrupt has ever violated or changed infallible doctrine.
Remember just relating our beliefs, not trying to change anyone's opinion
On anoter note I wonder DL or Web if you attended this :
This kind of discussion always leads to nowhere, as i never saw anyone gain or change anything in their personal opinion through them.
Here's my 2 cents anyway:
Intelligent design, just declares that if you find something that in its complexity and functionality, if detached from one of its parts, becomes completely useless and unfunctional (along with this detached part), then it is plausible to say that that something was planned, or better yet, that that something had an intelligent designer.
From a perfectly cold scientific perspective, you shouldn't just throw away theories that seem to be constructed logically (and to me this one does).
So, i'm just saying your whole initial statement is in need of complete reformulation, and that i finish writing here.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-20-2007 14:58
quote:Intelligent design, just declares that if you find something that in its complexity and functionality, if detached from one of its parts, becomes completely useless and unfunctional (along with this detached part), then it is plausible to say that that something was planned, or better yet, that that something had an intelligent designer.
Except that it is in no way, shape, or form logical!
It starts off logically - "If one finds something that in its complexity and functionality, if detached from one of its parts, becomes completely useless and unfunctional (along with this detached part)" (this is hard to prove, first of all, but let us establish it first here as a given for the sake of argument) - that part is logical, provided one can prove factually that it is completely useless and unfunctional along with the detached part.
HOWEVER, this part "then it is plausible to say that that something was planned, or better yet, that that something had an intelligent designer." has absolutely nothing to do with logic.
Just because A -> B, does not necessarily imply C! This is the major stumbling point, and is in fact a fallacy. If something has no functionality and is complex, and becomes totally useless and unfunctional along with the detach part, that says or implies what about how it came to be?
Nothing.
True here would be to say one possible explanation could be that it had an intelligent designer or was planned. But that it is not the only explanation (random chance could be another, for example).
As long as there is any remote possibility of another explanation, then it is not plausible to state or logical to state that it then must be only one specific thing and no other without providing evidence to the contrary that supports that one AND discredits all others.
As such, ID does not even make it into the Theory stage - it is at best only a postulation (and a shakey one, at that).
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
We had someone at work here discussing the big bang theory and I found it so interesting. I got the tail end of the conversation but what I did hear was that the bang led the temperature in space to be the same all over the universe and this was cause for deeper study because they didn't understand why. Then upon further study a scientist found that the big bang happened in an instant like in the snap of a finger and this is why all the temperature in space in the same.. Does this make sense? Being that I am not really into the science of things, I may have not explained myself to make sense, but can anyone elaborate on this so I can understand it better? Or direct me to a site to read.
quote: Arthemis said:
Here's my 2 cents anyway:Intelligent design, just declares that if you find something that in its complexity and functionality, if detached from one of its parts, becomes completely useless and unfunctional (along with this detached part), then it is plausible to say that that something was planned, or better yet, that that something had an intelligent designer.
1) This is not entirely accurate as far as what ID is saying
2) It does not stand any sort of scientific test, and it has been shown repeatedly that many so called irreducibly complex forms do indeed follow an evolutionary path where parts of performing one function are adapted to a new function as part of some other apparatus.
ID is not casually thrown aside, it has been scrutinized ad nauseum and found completely lacking merit and completely lacking in a scientific foundation.
Being that I am not really into the science of things, I may have not explained myself to make sense, but can anyone elaborate on this so I can understand it better? Or direct me to a site to read.
Hi Jade,
I would recommend you get a copy of Bill Bryson's *A Short History of Nearly Everything. He has a pretty good explanation of how The Big Bang is understood to work that is very understandable to the non-physicist. He starts out by explaining the big-bang theory and moves on to other fields of study, so you can start reading the book at chapter one and quit when you get to a point where he veers off into other subjects, if you want.
I also think that last chapter of John Gibbons' Almost Everyone's Guide to Science is a pretty good explanation of the creation of the universe. He tends to be a little harder to understand though, so you might want to try Bryson's book first.
quote: jade said:
... was that the bang led the temperature in space to be the same all over the universe and this was cause for deeper study because they didn't understand why. Then upon further study a scientist found that the big bang happened in an instant like in the snap of a finger and this is why all the temperature in space in the same.. Does this make sense?
I think you may have misunderstood what they were saying, or maybe, they didn't know precisely what they were talking about.
The Big Bang theory says that the Big Bang happened in less than a second and we can calculate the instant when particles and matter were formed. We also know, based on the average temperature and the estimated size of the universe today and our understanding of how matter spreading out in a volume will affect temperature, approximately how hot the temperatures around the universe must have been just after the big bang. The temperature of the universe itself caused all that matter to want to spread out. Because it was spreading into what we believe was empty space, it spread to a more or less uniform distribution. But, it was not the Big Bang itself that caused the temperature of the universe to be uniform.
I hope that has helped a little. Try reading the books I suggested. If you want to continue to discuss this further, maybe we should start a new thread so as not to disrupt the conversation in this one
quote:I would recommend you get a copy of Bill Bryson's *A Short History of Nearly Everything.
Ditto. I'm right in the middle of it now. Bryson does a great job of explaining scientific concepts to the layman. And I can be about as lay as they get.
Temperature is just a measure of the linear momentum (velocity and mass) and collision rate of particles. It's completely relative because you must have something for them to collide with. So there's nothing special with someone saying a big BOOM made them all go around with the same kinetic energy. It kinda falls into place.
@webshaman
I can't believe i'm getting myself into these affairs again.. -_-
-----Okay, let's take the idea, instead of the theory.----
Let's look at a car. What makes the car? Well, LOT'S OF THINGS!
Thermodynamics, mechanics, materials science, animals that died and became oil, etc. You look at a car and immediately you see that it was created?
Well, the car wasn't exactly created. It was put together. It was worked on.
What was created was the need to move faster. And that was what created the car.
Like Webshaman in an above post said, A->B does not imply C. Well, no, lot's of things could have created a car.
But the idea of the car, does not precede the car itself, that's the bottom line.
This is shown in this Argument between Plato and Diogenes:
quote:Plato was discoursing on his theory of ideas and, pointing to the cups on the table before him, said while there are many cups in the world, there is only one `idea' of a cup, and this cupness precedes the existence of all particular cups.
"I can see the cup on the table," interupted Diogenes, "but I can't see the `cupness'".
"That's because you have the eyes to see the cup," said Plato, "but", tapping his head with his forefinger, "you don't have the intellect with which to comprehend `cupness'."
Diogenes walked up to the table, examined a cup and, looking inside, asked, "Is it empty?"
Plato nodded.
"Where is the `emptiness' which procedes this empty cup?" asked Diogenes.
Plato allowed himself a few moments to collect his thoughts, but Diogenes reached over and, tapping Plato's head with his finger, said "I think you will find here is the `emptiness'."
Funny, non?
Well, i know i'm going a bit fast, and lack some cleanness in what i'm writing, but try to stay with me a bit longer.
Now, we know all things go through a design process. The word design, here means purposefulness. After that purposefulness is fulfilled, then the idea appears.
We also know Evolution is blind. It can't see a "purpose". But it fulfills these purposes all the time. By being redundant, by being error prone, by trial. But it doesn't guess. It can't conceive or imagine.
So, it is plausible to assume, that if you can find something complex, made of functional parts such that you, the observer, can see that those parts must have been "imagined" together for them to work. For them to fulfill a purpose. Then you can also wonder who or what "imagined" them.
Not "created".
There is this difference between advocates of intelligent design and creationists.
Creationists try to look for God through the extreme perfection and complication of things.
ID tries to look for some inert "consciousness" in the most simple of very simple things, in that they are too well adjusted to one purpose to have been created by mere chance.
In other words, ID proposes there is an irreducible factor in simplicity. A complexity which cannot be separated into its composing parts.
I would like to carry on. But i don't trust myself to be more clearer than i have been.
I only wrote this because of webshaman's post. DL-44 argumentation was pure decorum.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-27-2007 14:29
quote:We also know Evolution is blind. It can't see a "purpose". But it fulfills these purposes all the time. By being redundant, by being error prone, by trial. But it doesn't guess. It can't conceive or imagine.
So, it is plausible to assume, that if you can find something complex, made of functional parts such that you, the observer, can see that those parts must have been "imagined" together for them to work. For them to fulfill a purpose. Then you can also wonder who or what "imagined" them.
That is in no way, shape, or form plausible! That is leaping to conclusions without any evidence. One is here looking at the whole, and then stamping a "well this has to have been put together to fulfill a purpose" opinion on it.
Because you forget one of the properties of Evolution - chance. Random chance. And when that randomness also coincides with favorable conditions, it leads to more (this can also go backwards, btw - that leads to regression, and at the end, extinction).
You have conviently left out that an environment exerts pressures that are favorable to certain conditions (meaning that, for example, in water, if you have a streamlined form, you will have more efficient movement than the opposite, which gives an advantage above and beyond a form that is in every other way similar except for being streamlined).
That means that a random change that gives a form more streamlined attributes than another that is at home in water, for example, will have an advantage. Now, this is not fulfilling a purpose, in the sense that an intelligence created something to do just this, but it is a form of something evolving into something else that is better suited for that environment as it currently is (meaning that if the environment changes, that may not be the case anymore).
All that says that you have posted, is that one lacks the understanding (or lacks the factual evidence) of how all those parts came to be as they are, and from what origins they originally came from - it supports no other thing scientifically!
The car is a very poor example, because it does not possess the ability to reproduce and change of and by itself. The only change that will come to it, is either through the forces of the environment (corrosion, wear and tear, etc, which is basically negative) and from humans themselves, the creators.
Use an example from Nature and you will see the fallacy in your argument.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
You know those links at the very bottom of the page, on the left? The ones that say "Admin, Preserve, Manage"? When are we going to get one that says "Take this thread out back and shoot it in the head"? 'Cause I think that would be cool.
Please spare the ad hominem. I didn't say i agree with Intelligent Design. I'm trying to advocate from a neutral stand. Please respect that.
Evolution is not random chance.
Evolution can be more easily defined as the process that acts over randomness. A selection of the existing mutations.
quote:(meaning that, for example, in water, if you have a streamlined form, you will have more efficient movement than the opposite, which gives an advantage above and beyond a form that is in every other way similar except for being streamlined)
A streamlined body isn't a good thing by itself. Randomness only, cannot justify it. What will justify the streamlined body, is the benefits it begets, and if it can beget them. But no planning towards it, or to those benefits is ever made.
In fact. You HAVE randomness and mutations without having evolution or selection.
And i'm strictly only talking about evolution.
Darwin himself, on the "Origin of Species", was self-critical, as the true scientist (and free thinker) he was. He saw a problem with the immense and unjustifiable variety and diversity of the fauna of certain fossil eras, and also, he did have an enormous problem with the complexity of the eye and the way vision affected everything physical in the animal and floral world. He saw those as arguments of creationism.
Neo-creationists, use them several times, if you care to read about it, and neo-darwinists try to debate them, in books such as "Seven Deadly Colours" by Andrew Parker.
There are still 2 other movements. There is Intelligent Design, and the other one, Neo-Lamarckism, which has gained a second breath with recent discoveries.
Intelligent design has one severe problem. It is highly an antropic point of view. And if you start allowing those into scientific debates, there is no limit. Still.. they have something with which they can prove their point.
As the emergence of a flagellum could not be explained by evolution. They presented it as being something with complex parts which were useless when separated, and chance would not bring them together. Mind you it is possible. But very very unlikely. It would be an immense energy gap for an evolutionary jump.
Like a chemical reaction you know? Molecules don't know they are getting the better off of a reaction: they just do it. If they can. And they go back and forth all the time. It isn't exactly random, and that's why you need extreme energies to force molecules into some forms. And then sometimes, molecules find they LOVE to be in some of those low-energy-hard-to-reach forms and stay there. Or they just get trapped in those. There is a beautiful parallel between chemical reactions and life. =P
But this idea wasn't well accepted, of course. Still, it left a bit of a dent, and outdated as most of the opinions in this thread are, they are a result of this dent.
Why, i can think of an argument against it right now. The flagellum could have taken billions of years to evolve on another planet, and then came to earth on the wrecks of that planet. Or better yet, since we're talking about probability, mere chance, even if astronomical, made the flagellum evolve hours after life appeared in the primordial soup.
quote:The car is a very poor example, because it does not possess the ability to reproduce and change of and by itself. The only change that will come to it, is either through the forces of the environment (corrosion, wear and tear, etc, which is basically negative) and from humans themselves, the creators.
Im sorry you think so. This is clearly on of those "looking at the finger pointing at the moon" cases. Then i hope you can disregard the car example and concentrate on everything else.
You have a tendency to use the "if i prove the other guy is wrong, then i am right" debate strategy. As you could see, i'm using that now. I haven't defended ID, instead, i tried to clarify on what i think are your misconceptions. Not that they are entirely wrong, but sometimes "the ballerina is really spinning both ways"
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-28-2007 12:53
I stated that one of the properties of Evolution is random change, not that Evolution only consists of it!
I will refrain from ad hominem remarks in this case (sorry about that), but in return, please refrain from putting words in my mouth.
quote:You have conviently left out that an environment exerts pressures that are favorable to certain conditions (meaning that, for example, in water, if you have a streamlined form, you will have more efficient movement than the opposite, which gives an advantage above and beyond a form that is in every other way similar except for being streamlined).
A streamlined body isn't a good thing by itself. Randomness only, cannot justify it. What will justify the streamlined body, is the benefits it begets, and if it can beget them. But no planning towards it, or to those benefits is ever made.
Did you read everything that I posted? I did not say it was a good thing by and of itself - there was a comparison done.
quote:That means that a random change that gives a form more streamlined attributes than another that is at home in water, for example, will have an advantage.
quote:You have a tendency to use the "if i prove the other guy is wrong, then i am right" debate strategy.
No, I am going along the lines of what is actually scientifically sound or not. I could care less if I am right or wrong. I hope to be accurate.
As for this
quote:As the emergence of a flagellum could not be explained by evolution.
As the emergence of a flagellum could not be explained by evolution. They presented it as being something with complex parts which were useless when separated, and chance would not bring them together. Mind you it is possible. But very very unlikely. It would be an immense energy gap for an evolutionary jump.
Once again, this is an argument for ID that is simply incorrect, and has been proven so. Just becuase separating the parts as they exist now might make them useless (which in itself is not an established fact), does not mean that they did not serve some purpose prior to being adapted to their current function. This, in fact, is exactly how evolution does things.
This is a very well covered area, for which a simple web search will provide weeks worth of quality reading material...
I'm just a girl that read a few books, and wrote a few things.
But i *do* know well what i know, and it was only from that i wrote what i wrote above.
quote:which gives an advantage above and beyond a form that is in every other way similar except for being streamlined
This made me point out you have a misconception in your definition of evolution. Actually, you miss a step in your definition. So i was worrying about that, before working around to ID. But thank you for pointing out i didn't read what you wrote, i really appreciate it.
quote:I hope to be accurate.
You are mistaking "precision" with "accuracy". A common malady in rationality. I'll admit to needing a bit more precision in my constructin, but, i am willing to sacrifice a bit of precision in the search for accuracy.
quote:I suggest reading these :
Irreducible Complexity and Michael Behe
and
Irreducible Complexity Demystified
All from here - Talk Origins FAQs
The flagellum use by ID advocates took quite a beating after everyone started screaming "WITCH!", i'm also quite aware of that. Thats a good thing. It will make the other party work harder and so on and so forth.
quote:I stated that one of the properties of Evolution is random change, not that Evolution only consists of it!
You can even throw a dictionary at me, but once again i point out: that is wrong. Evolution can occur without random chance, and there can be random changes without any evolution.
Evolution is about finding the way of best leaping the entropy barrier that allows for producing entropy producing machines. (from Rudolph Clausius)
quote:
Evolution in (Brownian) space: a model for the origin of the bacterial flagellum
Now, excuse me for not reading this article now, but it starts with the "in Brownian space" in its title and that throws me a bit off. As it should throw off anyone. It also lacks an abstract and seems to have a bloated bibliography. Both are a bit of a turn off.
Still, in 4.3 of this article you can see where the authors wisely self-criticize and try to validate these kind of models trough their usefulness.
In modern science, i would put ID side to side with every other concept such as the string-theory, they are both searching for validation.
You could say it belongs with something like Phrenology, which is now only pseudo-science, but, ID is a bit fresher, and i for one, am totally open to what it may bring.
It is no coincidence that most more recent nobel prizes have been awarded to those who could show that what we think is true, is not.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 11-29-2007 14:18
quote:You can even throw a dictionary at me, but once again i point out: that is wrong. Evolution can occur without random chance, and there can be random changes without any evolution.
Obviously.
I never said the opposite.
So why are you pointing this out and then somehow suggesting that I said something contrary to it
As I said, one of the properties of Evolution is random change. This does not mean that all Evolution and change is based on it.
I find that a very odd thing for you to point out or dwell upon - it makes no sense to me.
quote:Evolution is about finding the way of best leaping the entropy barrier that allows for producing entropy producing machines. (from Rudolph Clausius)
Ermmm...no.
Evolution only describes and defines a process - the process itself does not necessarily lead to a "best" way of doing something. Indeed, in Evolution something can evolve for the worst, and die out, especially should the environment change (as it is prone to do).
quote:Now, excuse me for not reading this article now, but it starts with the "in Brownian space" in its title and that throws me a bit off. As it should throw off anyone. It also lacks an abstract and seems to have a bloated bibliography. Both are a bit of a turn off.
Well, since you have not read it, wouldn't it be prudent to refrain from commenting about it until you have?
quote:You could say it belongs with something like Phrenology, which is now only pseudo-science, but, ID is a bit fresher, and i for one, am totally open to what it may bring.
All I have to say to that is There's a sucker born every minute - unknown. That, and you are of course entitled to your opinion.
As for being "stuck up", well, thank you for the personal insult. That was very nice of you to stoop down to my level from your obviously high perch for at least a moment, even if it was to insult me
You see, I have already done my investigations into ID (long ago, we had many a debate here on the boards back then on it). As TalkOrigin shows beyond a shadow of a doubt, ID simply fails to meet criteria to be a scientific theory. Until it gets to that stage, it is not worth considering as such, or in competition with such.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
ID simply fails to meet criteria to be a scientific theory. Until it gets to that stage, it is not worth considering as such, or in competition with such.
And that is really *all* there is to it...
If you really do not understand why ID fails on every level scientifically, and need to know the details, the reading materials are out there in abundance, and the discussions of the details have been had here in abundance as well.
If you're just playing devil's advocate...well, again we've been through it all before...
As for ID being "fresher"....it really isn't that either. It is simply a couple of new phrases tacked onto biblicial creationism (again, this is established fact, not merely my opinion...)
{{edit -
meant to add that the "new" parts that make it ID are not new either, as it is jsut the old WatchmakerArgument
Read this one a couple days ago. Looks like we may be looking at Dover all over again...
quote:Ms. Comer's e-mail implies endorsement of the speaker and implies that TEA endorses the speaker's position on a subject on which the agency must remain neutral.
What???
The director of science curriculum must remain neutral on issues of what should be taught as science???
The education agency must remain neutral on issues of education???
That makes about as much sense as anything else in this devolving world. Pretty soon, children will be taught that if they can't explain it, they should just assume something/someone made it that way and be done with it.
Arthemis...I must say you seem quite educated on the subject and its evident you have done your research. I am still disecting what your trying to bring to light and will make an attempt to study to make it clearer in my mind as you seem to explain your view very well.
Are you passionate about this kind of study? What do you do for a living?
Arthemis...I must say you seem quite educated on the subject and its evident you have done your research.
Except for, you know, the whole...being wrong about it all part...if that's important to you at all
Anyone who has done their research will understand why ID is not in any way a valid scientific theory and offers no "alternative" to evolution.
Once again I'll add that we've discussed all of the reasons in depth before (check the archives), and the literature is abundant online.
quote:Except for, you know, the whole...being wrong about it all part...if that's important to you at all
Well...I know I am no science buff but it seems to me if I were to take a more deeper interest in ID/evolution theories, Arthemis would be a good persons to make it more understanding as she explains herself well and no doubt comes across as being more knowledgable than you and webshaman.
Is there a read thread on black holes/worm holes back when on the asylum? I was looking at the series The Universe on cable last nite and was so fasinated by what the scientist related about time travel being possible thru worm holes. .
Just like that "you're all dumb" post above, this one took me a long while to write (that one took 1 hour or so before i deleted everything and wrote that one line).
I was about to expose myself but then i re-wrote (yei for writing as a medium of communication).
All i will tell in a public conversation about myself, is that my current field is materials science: the study and manufacturing of metals, ceramics, polymers, composites, semiconductors, organic materials and bioimplants.
and no doubt comes across as being more knowledgable than you and webshaman.
Do the research, Jade.
It is established fact that a great many things Arthemis posted are completely wrong.
If you consider being completely wrong "more knowledgeable" that's up to you I guess.
Webshaman, myself, and many others have repeatedly put the facts out there, and have provided countless links to source information. ~shrug~ take it as you will...
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 12-06-2007 10:50
quote:Arthemis would be a good persons to make it more understanding as she explains herself well and no doubt comes across as being more knowledgable than you and webshaman.
I can understand your reticence to accept my or DL's explanations and attempts to inform you, but that you (and Artemis) throw away all the knowledge collected on the TalkOrigins site (among others), is a total mystery to me.
It is more than baffling. It is like putting on blinders, intentionally. It is like a little child that claps its hands over its ears so that it cannot hear something it does not wish to.
The more I think about it, the more I tend to think that this is intentional on your and Artemis' behalf.
I mean, ok, in your case, Jade, I can see that you could genuinely be confused. Certainly possible, especially considering past conversations with you. So perhaps it is not intentional on your part (though the subtle slight certainly is ) That you would put that in there, throws doubt upon the genuinness of your confusion, IMHO, but I will give you the benefit of the doubt here.
As for Artemis, well...
Artemis is well-known for trolling behavior on these boards, playing Devil's Advocate, and just being a pain. A search through the Archives will reveal this. In the case of Artemis, this is an intentional "confusion", of that I am sure.
To put it bluntly, in your case Jade, your confusion about the facts is understandable. But when it comes to Artemis, it is not only not understandable, but a farce. Especially considering the background in hard Science (if true).
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Oh dear; it looks as though this is degenerating. That was predictable.
I for one, would like to express my support for WS and DL in this argument. The only problem is that I see you both falling into the trap of arguing with those who will simply not see reason. You put it quite succinctly with that analogy, WS, in that it is like a child clapping her hands over her ears - and you really should know by now that nothing is gained by arguing with those who simply refuse to see logic.
AND it is all about logic. The nature and definition of science are inarguable; the course of scientific understanding is based upon experimentation, observation and reproduceability. Faith, on the other hand, is a question of... well... faith. The problem here is that faith, rendered unshakeable by indoctrination, dictates a selective logic; encouraging the blank denial of anything that questions its foundation. You cannot argue logically, when even 'logic' itself is an ethereal concept to those with whom you argue.
While you demonstrate an admirable capacity for critical thought, WS, you really do seem to fall into the trap of assuming that others may also be capable of it.
As for the "you're all dumb" comment, Arthemis; surely you meant "you're all heretics"!?
I have Henry VIII to thank for giving my country's people an early chance to evolve intellectually and socially. I can only imagine what sort of oppressed and ignorant state I would have grown up in if it hadn't been for his landmark separation of church and state. Of course, with arguments such as these reaching a level of open debate in governmental authority (albeit, in the US), it seems that social and scientific progress are destined to take a step or two backward.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 12-06-2007 13:57
Oh, I know, and normally it doesn't "get under my skin" - but when such are actually changing actual systems that effect our learning systems, that tends to perk up my ears immediately.
If one does not defend what one has, it will be taken.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson
quote:To penetrate and dissipate these clouds of darkness, the general mind must be strengthened by education
and
quote:The moment a person forms a theory, his imagination sees in every object only the traits which favor that theory
and of course
quote:It is always better to have no ideas than false ones; to believe nothing, than to believe what is wrong.
I think this thread has demonstrated that rather well.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Yeah, you'll notice I gave up the actual arguing...just had to make sure that some small form of rebuttal was present...in case someone with genuine interest and confusion needs to know that the info is out there...
Especially, as WS said, with all the cases still happening of our educational systems being hijacked by people who would impose their religion on our science classes...
When i got into the asylum, back in the day, i was fascinated. I came here trying to figure out Doc Ozone. And i was fascinated by the insight and knowledge shared around. I must have made 100 posts in the first month,
Then i found out the "insight" was just apparent, and most of the "knowledge" was just peacocking and vanity .
Disappointed as i was, i found out this is the common trend in the internet.
Here at least, there is knowledge to be shared, and that is why i stick. It's a good place to ask things.
Even with all the buddies-only-closed-circle-action going on.
As for me being a troll: sure, while it's fun. I've been known to be banned even from troll-only forums and channels. I take pride in my trolling skills; i don't follow rule or stereotype. I haven't trolled around here in a long while. It's not very fun or appropriate.
As this place gave to me, i give to it. That was the post above. Out of respect to the guys that still stick around and keep this place going, like DL-44 and webshaman.
I'm happy my opinion caused dissent. Volatile a thing as these short lived threads are, i'm happy with what i wrote.
You know, I think I want to be an astronaut...but I don't believe in the liberal secular view of cosmology, so I only want to visit the planets that orbit the earth...
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 12-07-2007 17:19
That is one messed up article, DL.
First of all, it is not "refuses to believe in Evolution" but rather "refuses to ACCEPT Evolution" that should have been written by the Author.
The first insinuates that Evolution is on a belief basis, whereas it is a Scientific Theory supported by Factual Evidence - so it is on the level of acceptance/non-acceptance.
Next, this blew me away
quote:Creationists reject the notion that humans evolved from apes and that life on Earth began billions of years ago
I applaud any Creationists that rejects the notion that humans evolved from apes - because they didn't.
Humans and Apes share a common ancestor.
Well, unless you are a Creationist
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
however: http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC050.html
is a good start to understanding the very basic premise, with links in abundance that reach whatever level of complexity and detail you might wish.
You'll also notice that the page links back to the list that it is from, which is a (very long) list of responses, explanations, and evidences that answer and/or refute a great number of common misconceptions, accusations, and arguments from those who do not understand or accept evolution.
As has been mentioned, the talkorigins site is an excellent resource for this topic, and anyone interested in understanding it would do very well to spend a good deal of time there.
It is great for several reasons:
1) it draws from a very wide base of experts in relevant fields
2) it draws from many years of very active discussion on the topic(s)
3) it draws in resources from many different areas and links abundantly to alternate sources of information
4) everything is well cited, allowing you to find the original research that is being used as examples
posted 09-17-2007 14:06
