From: The Leather Wheeliechair Insane since: Dec 2004
posted 02-13-2007 09:10
Intelligent Design, in case you haven't heard, is a movement to have a sort of creationism taught in science classes. The logic goes something like this:
"You can't explain something. That means [God/a 'Designer'/the cosmic consciousness/Aliens] did it."
If you believe this based on your faith and your personal relationship with whatever power, so be it. How, though, can people for one second be persuaded into believing that this is science!? Falsifiability is one of the major underlying concepts of science, and we strive for verifiability. How do you falsify "God did it."?
---.sig-----------------------------------------
I have not fallen from grace; Grace has fallen from me.
"If I close my mind in fear, please pry it open"
- Metallica "Outlaw Torn"
'intelligent design' is also (was first, AFAIK) just the notion that the design of things in nature is intelligent, plain and simple. While the creationists have certainly hijacked this terminology, you don't have to believe in "intelligent design" _and_ creationism (or anything religious or supernatural, for that matter).
Resio - there are an awful lot of thigns in that statement that could be subject to large debate, but the bottom line is - whatever anyone's concept of 'intelligent design' is, 'Intelligent Design' is a very definite thing, and one that must be dealt with if we wish to keep religion from being taught as science.
Science has always been based on credible evidence, whereas creationism is base on theological ideas which have no evidence whatsoever. Also science explains the nature of the universe whereas religeon gives an opinion as to what the scientific explanation may mean.
quote:Science has always been based on credible evidence...
Disagree.
The doctoring of findings, or simply ignoring said findings, in studies and experiments happens all the time in order to swing corporate and government grant money, gain political positioning, etc...
Everything is propaganda, whether good or bad is in the eye of the beholder; but a lot of science has an agenda behind it these days too.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-09-2007 16:45
quote: jade said:
I wonder if threads like these have magical powers, that draw peeps like Jade to them as a light does a moth?Does this mean you kinda miss me WS????
They really do!
Ram - while true (wag the dog by the tail is everywhere), I think what is meant here is that the principle (or foundation, if you will) of Sciene is that it is based on credible, reliably repeatable evidence.
So if I make claims about something and want it to be Scientific, I have to provide the proof that can be reliably repeated by others. This method basically includes it's own error checking - for surely others will want to reproduce reliably my findings as well (especially if the claims I am making are either refuting others already made, or are extraordinary or controversial in nature).
If they can't, then I have a problem.
Of course, I can put spin on the findings, bamboozle the Faithful, pull the wool over the eyes of the Masses...but this often means having to go to extraordinary lengths to do so, which in and of themselves becomes telling.
At some point, the house of cards fall - the advantage of Science.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
The scientific community is full of people, just like any other. And people are fundamentally flawed...
Political organizations and corporations have a lot at stake in manipulating scientific findings, of course, and have done so ad nauseum. Manipulating and covering up the findings doesn't change them, however, and engaging in bad science doesn't change what science is actually about.
and so is nature, which is why the Design is anything but intelligent.
For one thing, the overall concept of "eat or be eaten" is pretty lame - not a very intelligent start.
I think "nature red in tooth and claw" is more fitting.
Michael Behe was on Jon Stewart - listening to Behe you realize that all the ammunition he has is in bashing Darwin. In other words you start with the premise that Darwin's work is analogous to the bible, it's to be taken as gospel. Bullshit, Darwin conceptualized in the 19th century, not the 21st - so it's to be expected that many of his premises are wrong and/or outdated - the core ideas, however, survive and have evolved (no pun intended).
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 08-09-2007 23:23
Its actually not even "eat or be eaten" it is pretty much just "survive".
Which makes things so much more interesting.
You can have an object like a tree which sits there siphoning things from its surrounding environment while you also get something like a lion which has to hunt over a large area in order to survive.
quote:
DL-44: And people are fundamentally flawed...
SleepingWolf: and so is nature, which is why the Design is anything but intelligent.
Just to take a single comment here and play Devil's advocate for a moment... so any design that is flawed is anything but intelligent? You've just relegated the vast majority of human design to the "unintelligent design" bin.
Just because (for example) Microsoft software has more bugs than the Amazon doesn't mean it wasn't designed by intelligent beings, does it?
From: Rochester, New York, USA Insane since: May 2000
posted 08-11-2007 16:38
You then find yourself debating what is intelligent. And I am sure many would make the argument that Microsoft software was not intelligently designed.
I think you are onto something Suho, and I believe many people will become rather uncomfotable with the comparison of God/Intelligent Design to Microsoft...
I find it a very apt comparison, though I haven't the time right now to properly expand the metaphor =)
quote:It is not even about surviving per se - it is about surviving long enough to reproduce.
The more one can reproduce, the better the chances are that those particular genes will be passed on to the species
WS
I see a similarity with this comment and Genesis scripture in " God telling Adam and Eve to be "fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth." Can you explain reproduce to better the genes passed to the species as whole and for what specific reason?
On another note regarding the reproduction, maybe deep down, your old Christian ideologies are coming to the surface.
To me, all beings are in the making to becoming more perfected humans rather than intelligent humans existing in a more intelligent technological world. Not all are born to become rocket scientist or Rhodes scholars. Some of us are not highly intelligent. And future earthlings not born yet will still become more intelligent than others if we are talking about book smart stuff. What then is it to be intelligent? According to who or what standard? I believe some are called to be different in roles all woven to become a functioning prospering subdued earth. Who is going to clean up our homes and makeup our hotel beds and prepare our take out food? Or work highway construction. And clean our toilets. I don't think we were all created to be highly intelligent. Not that these persons are not intelligent in their field of work. This is why to me evolvement of the stat of the soul is more important that the evolvement of the intelligent mind. Besides, one big atomic terrorist bomb detonated and all the intelligence is out the window.
jade: if you're interested in the idea of gene-centered reproduction, you might want to give The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins a read. It's a well-written book that explains the subject very well.
I am not an advocate of intelligent design being taught in schools either. The evolution theory is ok. As I belive God could work thru this theory as well. For me, the Adam and Eve story is just a biblical story to send a message to us. I think faith matters should be taught at home or at religious education of the parents choosing. I went to Catholic schools because my parents preferred this way of education. We had religion/bible courses. Not really any in depth theology. Just basic Baltimore catechism. Even though these subjects were taught to me growing up..I was not really ready to connect the dots or try to figure out who God really was for me till I got to be an adult. I was focusing on kid matters then teenage matters. So I wonder how much stock the child will put into the intelligent design course in science.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-14-2007 14:30
quote: jade said:
quote:It is not even about surviving per se - it is about surviving long enough to reproduce.The more one can reproduce, the better the chances are that those particular genes will be passed on to the speciesWSI see a similarity with this comment and Genesis scripture in " God telling Adam and Eve to be "fruitful and multiply and subdue the earth." Can you explain reproduce to better the genes passed to the species as whole and for what specific reason?On another note regarding the reproduction, maybe deep down, your old Christian ideologies are coming to the surface.To me, all beings are in the making to becoming more perfected humans rather than intelligent humans existing in a more intelligent technological world. Not all are born to become rocket scientist or Rhodes scholars. Some of us are not highly intelligent. And future earthlings not born yet will still become more intelligent than others if we are talking about book smart stuff. What then is it to be intelligent? According to who or what standard? I believe some are called to be different in roles all woven to become a functioning prospering subdued earth. Who is going to clean up our homes and makeup our hotel beds and prepare our take out food? Or work highway construction. And clean our toilets. I don't think we were all created to be highly intelligent. Not that these persons are not intelligent in their field of work. This is why to me evolvement of the stat of the soul is more important that the evolvement of the intelligent mind. Besides, one big atomic terrorist bomb detonated and all the intelligence is out the window.(Edited by jade on 08-13-2007 19:41)
Ermmm...I never mentioned "subdue the earth"
Not sure why you threw that in there, or why you feel the need to quote the Bible.
I also never mentioned reproducing to better the genes passed to the species as a whole, either.
I said that a living being that lives long enough to reproduce has a better chance of passing its genes on to the species as a whole. This is in regards to a living being that does not live long enough to reproduce. This does not necessarily mean that the genes that are passed on are "better". In fact, it is possible that they are worse. Surviving to pass on genes does not necessarily mean that one has better genes.
Also, you need to seperate intelligence from technology and building on what came before.
State of the soul? Prove that a soul exists, first.
Or do you mean State of Being?
As usual, your ability to actually reason and think clearly and logically is sadly missing, Jade. You make huge leaps in your reasonings and postings - leaps that make no sense and are totally unsupported.
You do realize that your belief is exactly that - a belief. There is not one factual shred of evidence for it.
I hope you realize this.
This realization then leads to moderation - you will then realize that you have no right to impose your beliefs on others, for they are unsubstantiated. You will learn that your beliefs only apply to you and to no-one else.
Well, one can hope.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:This realization then leads to moderation - you will then realize that you have no right to impose your beliefs on others, for they are unsubstantiated. You will learn that your beliefs only apply to you and to no-one else
I never impose my beliefs on anyone. Plus my beliefs not only apply to me but to billions of others. Not to say I would, but if I really did want to impose I have the right to do so. We do live in a democracy in the USofA.
Didn't you believe in the tooth fairy or Santa when you were a tot? I would find it hard to believe if your parents did not make these pretend characters a part of your growing childhood. If they did, didn't it make your childhood more fun & special? In both, you were given a message that see, " if you have been good you?re going to get something as a reward." The child and the parent both relish in being a part of this pretending there is really a tooth fairy and a Santa. Except with God for us, its not pretense. For us,... there really is A God friendship that will reward us with a heaven we deserve. This makes life special for us in a very wonderful way. (Check out Miracle on 34ths Street Movie. John Payne the actor relates very well regarding the tangibles and intangibles to Maureen Ohara regarding Santa, etc.)
Since DL is speechless, let me comment on that line.
Actually, democracy is simply a form of government in which governing power is vested in the people. It has nothing to do with being able to impose your beliefs on anyone else.
That being said, what you probably meant to say is "We live in a free country," which is a line often used by people who feel that they have the right to do whatever they want. And they do--to a certain extent. Ideally, everyone would have the right to believe what they want to believe in a free country. To also allow everyone the right to impose their beliefs on everyone else would be contradictory to that. Perhaps what you mean is that you have the right to share your beliefs with others. If that is what you mean, then yes, you do have the right to share your beliefs with others (as long as they are willing to listen).
But if you truly mean that you have the right to force your beliefs on others, even if these beliefs are counter to their own beliefs, then let me ask you this: where is their freedom? For whom, exactly is the United States a free country?
(By the way, the systems of government most suited to imposing beliefs on others would be fascism or totalitarianism.)
I don't understand why. You preach the freedom to practice anything within the law DL. If one wants to follow the Dali Lama to Tibet because someone shared their faith. Where is the harm? To associate with a divine intelligence is a good thing.
Those who profess faith in any creed want to share their God. God could be represented in a tooth fairy and in Santa. So...This is the formation of a relationship with an intangible in early childhood. Did your children believe in Santa and the tooth fairy in their early childhood? Or did you deprive them of the pleasure an fun. It was so much fun for me and my husband to get the donut and hot chocolate ready for Santa. And write the letters from the tooth fairy. And I know I will do the same when I have grandchildren.
quote:But if you truly mean that you have the right to force your beliefs on others, even if these beliefs are counter to their own beliefs, then let me ask you this: where is their freedom? For whom, exactly is the United States a free country?
You are correct Suho, to share is a better way to explain ideally. Remember I did say I would not impose my beliefs on anyone. I am not that kind of person. But being that we live in a free society, if I were a different kind of person if I wanted to impose my religious beliefs on someone I could do so within the law. Those who I would try to impose my religious beliefs on would have the freedom to reject me and my beliefs. Lets look a David Koresh and his Davidian Sect as an example.
I am not that kind of person. But being that we live in a free society, if I were a different kind of person if I wanted to impose my religious beliefs on someone I could do so within the law.
You really don't - try to - understand what WS, DL-44 and Suho are trying to tell you -- with great patience, as far as I can tell, since it has been lasting for as far as I have been registered on the Asylum -- do you? I tend to keep out of threads like these because I really don't have a huge religious culture, although I am a (non-practising) protestant.
But come on, you don't really think democracy means the right to do anything you want, do you?
And as far as this goes:
quote: jade said:
Those who profess faith in any creed want to share their God. God could be represented in a tooth fairy and in Santa. So...This is the formation of a relationship with an intangible in early childhood. Did your children believe in Santa and the tooth fairy in their early childhood? Or did you deprive them of the pleasure an fun. It was so much fun for me and my husband to get the donut and hot chocolate ready for Santa. And write the letters from the tooth fairy. And I know I will do the same when I have grandchildren.
I really cannot believe that some people are unable to fathom the fact that there are other cultures and traditions in this world... Come on Jade, you don't mean what you're writing, do you? Do you realise the words you are using? "Deprive [our children]"?! Of believing in the Tooth Fairy or Santa??
So let me try and summarise your points:
1. Santa (and the Tooth Fairy) are necessary to a good religious education
2. Without Santa (and the Tooth Fairy) no child is able to develop his/her religious beliefs
3. Failing to make one's children believe in Santa (and the Tooth Fairy) will result in unhappy childhood, possibly paganism, because they will be unable to grasp the concept of religion
Did I get that right?
Also, do you leave Doughnuts in the church for God and his Apostles?
quote: jade said:
It was so much fun for me and my husband to get the donut and hot chocolate ready for Santa. And write the letters from the tooth fairy.
And this really makes me wonder who's getting the more fun with the Santa and Tooth Fairy thing in your family...
And it also strangely reminds me of something else: when I used to go to church -- not very often but enough to my liking -- I used to be not impressed at all to see that the priest was getting about in a Mercedes and his kids had the latest fashion clothes and items, while my dad was struggling to meet needs ends. So when we were asked to make "contributions towards the church" I couldn't help but wonder towards whom exactly we were making contributions. I'm not saying he wasn't earning a living in a honest way, but it did feel awkward anyway.
This is what drew me out of church: hypocrisy. And the same hypocrisy bleeds out of each and every post of yours, Jade. If this is religion, well, Thank you but no, thank you.
quote:This is what drew me out of church: hypocrisy. And the same hypocrisy bleeds out of each and every post of yours, Jade. If this is religion, well, Thank you but no, thank you.
As usual..some on this forum take post personal and resort to name calling. By constantly pointing the finger at my so called hypocrisy on this forum it only seems to deteroiate the direction the topic will lead to for me.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-16-2007 22:19
quote:Plus my beliefs not only apply to me but to billions of others.
So you are now to the point where you are admitting that your beliefs are only that, beliefs? Well, that is at least some progress.
BTW - it has been said before (and I believe DL-44 drove the point home many times, as well), that it does not matter how many believe in something - that will not make it true, if indeed it is not true. You are making a fundamental error here in logic. You seem to think that the more people that believe in something, the more valid it is, despite the fact that it is just a belief, without supporting evidence.
And without supporting evidence, it remains a belief.
There are many examples of large amounts of people believing in something, only to find out that what they had believed was wrong.
Just think about what Europeans used to think about the shape of the earth before, Jade. Well, it turns out that all who believed the earth was flat were all wrong. EVERY SINGLE ONE of them (and the Catholic Church at the time, as well. So much for the infallibility of the Pope).
The numbers supporting a Belief does not make it any more valid than the belief of one. Or none, for that matter.
Reliably produced evidence and facts, on the other hand...hey, the earth is round!
As for the Tooth Fairy and Santa - there was no tooth fairy in my house. I used to always regard kids in school who used to go on about some sort of imaginative little "thing" that took their teeth and gave them money as...more than a little strange. When I asked them what this thing looked like, they had no idea. And when I asked if they had ever seen such a thing, they were pretty uncomfortable about it. And when I started asking them how they knew such a thing existed, if they had never seen it, they would get angry.
My stepfather was jewish. We did not celebrate christmas, and thus, did not have any belief in "Santa". What a strange notion! A person that no-one had ever seen (well, except for people that were dressed up like him, ringing a bell and gathering money), all dressed in red with white trim, who flew about once a year in a sled pulled by flying reindeer?!
We used to laugh about kids believing this junk on the reservation.
Later in life I learned to keep quiet about such things, as they could get one beat up (after we moved off the reservation). Seems that the believing kids didn't like having their make-believe worlds questioned.
I found out early that disbelief or belief in something different was a threat to those who believed or believed differently than I did.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:So you are now to the point where you are admitting that your beliefs are only that, beliefs? Well, that is at least some progress.
I was relating the beliefs with intangibles in early childhood on how most children growing up believe in them.. Not to say all children are exposed to them as you evidently weren't. Though in dealing with our relationship to CHrist we can neither see him or touch him, but we can still profess to know him in the most personal way because he beconds us to him like a magnet 24/7. Santa and the tooth fairy don't call us in the inner "state of being" all through our daily life.
For me..I have a reserved space for him in my heart and that is where I make sure he has a place to stay. As he lives there I know I can bear anyting. Call it what you will but I know that. This can also be said about a person one loves dearly like a spouse. Her you can touch. (I forgot are you male? ) Her at your side with all the love you feel you can accomplish anything if she believes in you. But humans can fail you becasue they are weak. Whereas with Christ as your spouse he will never fail you.
How can a belief in a good higher being ever be a bad thing unless it comes in the form of a cult that professes the opposite of what really God is. And they use persons or things for the purpose of opposing God.
How can a belief in a good higher being ever be a bad thing
Very simply: when that "higher being" does not exist, and when countless numbers of people who stake their lives on that belief continually try to erode other people's freedoms in the name of that belief.
quote: jade said:
unless it comes in the form of a cult that professes the opposite of what really God is. And they use persons or things for the purpose of opposing God.
There are a lot of gods ouot there....surely most of them in some way "oppose" each other....which I guess makes all religions a "bad thing" according to your own logic. I will agree with you on that... =)
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-20-2007 14:17
quote:For me..I have a reserved space for him in my heart and that is where I make sure he has a place to stay. As he lives there I know I can bear anyting. Call it what you will but I know that. This can also be said about a person one loves dearly like a spouse. Her you can touch. (I forgot are you male? ) Her at your side with all the love you feel you can accomplish anything if she believes in you. But humans can fail you becasue they are weak. Whereas with Christ as your spouse he will never fail you.
Believe me when I say it is possible to bear anything without the crutch of Belief in a Greater Power.
Try Belief in yourself sometime.
Works wonders for me.
The incredible sense of freedom in knowing that you, yourself, are responsible for your actions and your life. You decide what type of person you want to be. Once out of the box of Religion and Belief in some Greater Thing, it is impossible to squeeze oneself back in. Of course, it is also alot of work - a daily one, to be honest. But anything worthwhile is alot of work.
For the record, I am male.
quote:How can a belief in a good higher being ever be a bad thing unless it comes in the form of a cult that professes the opposite of what really God is. And they use persons or things for the purpose of opposing God.
History has countless examples of how it can be a bad thing (we can start with the Spanish Inquisition by the Catholic Church, if you want - or how about the Witchhunts of Germany, also sanctioned by the Catholic Church for a time). Basically, it is as DL has said
quote:when that "higher being" does not exist, and when countless numbers of people who stake their lives on that belief continually try to erode other people's freedoms in the name of that belief
You will also notice that there are other Believers who are members of this forum, who for one or the other reason do not actively attempt to force their Beliefs on others. They have made this decision for their own reasons - but it is something that is respected by all, even if some of us do not agree with their Beliefs. I believe that they provide shining examples of their Faith by doing so.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:You will also notice that there are other Believers who are members of this forum, who for one or the other reason do not actively attempt to force their Beliefs on others. They have made this decision for their own reasons - but it is something that is respected by all, even if some of us do not agree with their Beliefs. I believe that they provide shining examples of their Faith by doing so
i respect others beliefs...
quote:The incredible sense of freedom in knowing that you, yourself, are responsible for your actions and your life. You decide what type of person you want to be.
Do you believe all persons evolve in their "state of being" with age? What you thought rearding your beliefs about God, were they the same 10 yrs ago. With age you are growing in the wisdom of things by life. Right? I believe 10 yrs from now you may have had a change in your ideals..Not that you may become a member of any sect in religion but circumstances, episodes or other reflections or a person may shape your belief in another direction.
I do have the free will to accept or reject what I want to believe.. I can be a free spirit like you in regard to beliving in Indian spirits inhabiting animals or having no belief in a God at all. It just so happens that I choose the faith I am in to exist. My God does not pull my strings. My God gives me the freedom to choose my own way and my own will even if it means to choose to be away from him.
quote:There are a lot of gods ouot there....surely most of them in some way "oppose" each other....which I guess makes all religions a "bad thing" according to your own logic. I will agree with you on that... =)
I don't believe Gods oppose each other for the simple truth is that there is only one God.
But if there is a message of opposition of one sect against another its because of human thought and action. It is not of God's choosing.
I don't believe Gods oppose each other for the simple truth is that there is only one God.
The simple opinion that there is only one god.
Many gods are worshipped throughout the world, and each worshipper believes as strongly and with as much reason to believe in theirs as you have in yours...
quote:The simple opinion that there is only one god.
Many gods are worshipped throughout the world, and each worshipper believes as strongly and with as much reason to believe in theirs as you have in yours...
I would venture to say its the same God we all worship but we all give the diety different names and ways of worship. Like Allah is another name for God, Buddah, or a higher spiritual conscience, etc. All practicing believers or believers but not practicing place their faith in a higher being. Allah is my God too. When we look to find a spiritual inner self we all connect with the same higher being. This is my belief.
When we look to find a spiritual inner self we all connect with the same higher being. This is my belief.
This is not a new argument, but it has not improved much with age. Allow me to play a little devil's advocate with the following question:
Do you believe that those who do not share your beliefs are spiritually doomed (i.e., destined to suffer for eternity)?
If your answer is yes, then obviously not everyone who believes in a god connects with "the same higher being." In other words, if it is really true that every religious person worships the same god, then there are no true religions and no false religions, and the only people doomed are atheists. After all, if everyone is worshiping the "right" god, then no one should be doomed.
If your answer is no, then you've abandoned the official stance of Catholicism, which is that salvation is only to be found through the Catholic Church and its teachings. You believe that there are many ways to salvation, all equally viable. I'm not making a value judgment on either answer, I'm just saying that you can't have it both ways.
Whatever the case, your qualification differs little from your original claim that there is only one god. It is still your opinion that there is only one god and all religious people seek him. I think you will find that many adherents of other religions (not to mention many adherents of your own religion) will disagree with you rather heartily. Try telling a Muslim that Allah is the same god as Jehovah and see what he says. Or how about a religion originating in my country of residence--the Unification Church (commonly known in the States as "the Moonies"). Rev. Moon and his followers believe that he is the reincarnation of Christ (the returned Messiah). Rastafarians believe the same of Haile Selassie. What are we to make of this?
If your personal beliefs reflect traditional Catholic beliefs, then what you are trying to say is probably that every religious individual is seeking Jehovah, but only Catholics know the true way to him. Everyone else is basically misguided. This is a more consistent position, and I suspect that this may be what you are trying to say.
I'm not trying to be difficult here, I'm just trying to clarify some things. I remained silent for the past few posts to respect your declaration of gracefully bowing out of the thread. But since you're still around, I figured I'd hop back in.
Jade - there are really many problems with your statements. Suho has done a great job of talking about some of them.
The fundamental flaw with that type of reasoning is very simple: it assumes that your particular view of god is the right one, and that every other view is trying to attain the truth that is yours.
Since there are so many views of what god is, and since there are so many examples of polytheistic beliefs, with so many different gods for different reasons, it just doesn't add up. It brings us right back to what I said - gods in opposition of each other.
To say that different religions, often with some drastically different requirements and beliefs, are just different ways of reaching the same thing is a view that ignores the great chasms between different faiths.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-22-2007 21:32
quote:Do you believe all persons evolve in their "state of being" with age? What you thought rearding your beliefs about God, were they the same 10 yrs ago. With age you are growing in the wisdom of things by life. Right? I believe 10 yrs from now you may have had a change in your ideals..Not that you may become a member of any sect in religion but circumstances, episodes or other reflections or a person may shape your belief in another direction.
My freedom came in the middle of a battle in a war.
You have no idea what sort of bizarre things runs through a persons mind as bullets are flying through the air, and your buddies, your comrades, your friends are dying around you, others are fighting, like you, and a detacted part of your mind is mechanically, coldly analysing all this.
It came to me clearly - there IS no God. I saw as those who believed as firmly in a Supreme Being bleed out their last dying breathes - and there was no God there, to save them. In fact, I saw those who did not believe survive. I heard alot calling out to a Supreme Being. I also saw those who thought that a Supreme Being would protect them die in a hail of bullets.
It dawned on me that my faith was just belief, and I realized just how shallow and hollow it truly was in the face of reality. I mean brutal reality, the kind that not many get to face anymore. IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE IN REALITY WHAT ONE BELIEVES! A bullet does not care.
That was the beginning. I later, after the war was over, had more time to sit down with myself and sort things out. I basically had to rebuild my whole belief foundation.
My reality check had nothing to do with age, or with wisdom. It had to do with finally accepting REALITY.
As DL has pointed out here
quote:
quote:
jade said:
I don't believe Gods oppose each other for the simple truth is that there is only one God.
The simple opinion that there is only one god.
Many gods are worshipped throughout the world, and each worshipper believes as strongly and with as much reason to believe in theirs as you have in yours...
Belief is just that - an opinion, a faith in something that one cannot prove, because there is no evidence to support it.
And it will not stop a bullet.
I know. I have seen that reality.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:Allow me to play a little devil's advocate with the following question:
Do you believe that those who do not share your beliefs are spiritually
doomed (i.e., destined to suffer for eternity)?
I am going to explain myself but feel free to direct me in a better
mode to explain if I do a poor job. As I admire and welcome your thoughts
on your way of zoning in and giving us your feedback. I speak for my personal beliefs and hope to give the impression I am not speaking in defense of my belief.. Just realting what believe in along with the magisetirum.
I want to note, for me, salvation is more than avoiding doom and
getting into a heaven. It is sharing the power of a divine love with God. I do
not believe those who do not share my beliefs are spiritually doomed... I
make no judgements on the souls of anyone. To evangelize with the good news that Christ comes to us is good and to say they are doomed if they reject my way of worshipping God is wrong. I believe for one to be without the spirit of good could doom them for eternity. So they could spritually doom
themselves. Its in their court, not Gods.... in like you reap what you sow...Because its to ones will..not God's that man separates himself.
For me there are different plateaus of the spirit, cold, warm, lukewarm and on hot fire with the love of God. If God in all his mercy allows this one person who denied good for evil, does not abandon and spares a soul, its divine will.
quote:If your answer is no, then you've abandoned the official stance of
Catholicism, which is that salvation is only to be found through the
Catholic Church and its teachings.
I think for you to better understand where I am coming from bear my explanation please.
The realm of the salvation issue according our faith is not complicated. I will try to explain why I have this view. The Church with the unending succession of its preachers is a constant spirit living & breathing revelation for us. Not just printed words from a holybook. What we call the magisterium of the church carries on the task of the apostles in (you share, you anoint, you forgive, you heal, you drive out demons) with the same divine power they possessed. The holy see and his bishops are not a sentencing judges, umpires, or traffic cops. That is Gods business. Instead they are involed in the unending 24/7 task to proclaim the news of salvation. Faith & bible scripture means all men are called to be universal in faith & in unity. And in different ways, belong or are ordered to be a universal faithful. This is for other sects who believe in Christ. And all mankind are called by God's grace to salvation. We accept all the means of salvation given to the Church together with her entire organization, and who with the bonds of the profession of faith come together in the visible/invisible structure. Though incorporated into the Church, one who does not however persevere in charity (love) could not be saved. He remains indeed in the bosom of the Church, but in body not its heart. We believe we are joined in many ways to the baptized who are honored by the name of Christian, but do not profess the Catholic faith in its entirety or have not preserved unity or communion under the successor of the apostle Peter. This is why those who are baptized ouside the Church in the name of father, son and holy spirit we have a common bond in Christian Unity. How can we not love and share in the name of Christ. This is contrary to the will of God.
Those who have not yet received the gospel are related to the Christians in various ways. Jews, Muslims, Jehovas, and other organized sects that adhere to loving principles though no fault of their own do not profess fellowiship. Jews are the first people of God in the new covenant. We are linked to them in they are the first to hear the word of God. Unlike other non-Christian religions, its already a response to God's revelation in the OT . They belong to the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises too. And when one considers the future, God's people of the OT and the NT people of God tend towards similar goals: awaiting of the coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ Jesus. The Church's relationship with the Muslims is in the plan of salvation also. They profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful Allah,mankind's judge on the last day. They believe Jesus a great prophet and Mary his mother they venerate and revere as the mother of a great messenger more than some Christian protestants do. When Jews, Muslims look up to the skies to call upon their God. Does only their God answer them or does mine answer them too. Yes. because I believe its the one true God of us all. My God is their God. The son Christ who extends himself as God man is the God of Abraham too. The God of Muhammud and the God of the Chrisitans are all one in the same God I believe hears us all.
We believe the church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the
first place the common origin and end of the human race. We believe all
nations of the world form but one community. Humanity is this community. This is so because we believe we all stem and migrate from the one stock which God created to peoples the entire earth, and also because we all share a common destiny, namely God. For us, his providence, beauty, evident goodness, and saving designs extend to all to the day when the elect are gathered together in a heavely city of where we do not know till our fulfillment comes. We believe that there is goodness in many creeds. God wants all men to be saved. How could she consider to just forsake those who are not in a communion. The church considers all goodness and truth found in these religions of good as a preparation for the gospel and given by him who enlightens all men that they may at length have life eternal.
quote:Try telling a Muslim
that Allah is the same god as Jehovah and see what he says. Or how about a
religion originating in my country of residence--the Unification Church
(commonly known in the States as "the Moonies"). Rev. Moon and his
followers
believe that he is the reincarnation of Christ (the returned Messiah).
Rastafarians believe the same of Haile Selassie. What are we to make of
this?
Your right.. Other sects may have the view that they worship a different God, but many do no. They believe in a brotherhood of all faiths
In some religious behavior, however, some men also display the
limits and errors that disfigure the image of God in them: Like Moonies and rastaferans, etc... Very often, deceived by service to themselves instead of leading persons to service to the true God they have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served a creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this world without God, they are exposed & expose others
to the ultimate despair. To reunite all scattered and led astray, God wills to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy Spirit, navigates safely in this world." And this is according to our Catholic belief.
quote:If your personal beliefs reflect traditional Catholic beliefs, then
what you are trying to say is probably that every religious individual is
seeking Jehovah, but only Catholics know the true way to him. Everyone else is basically misguided. This is a more consistent position, and I suspect
that this may be what you are trying to say.
I would say we all are trying to seek the ultimate truth and its a journey. Not all are given the same vision. Its according to the sincere heart. One who does find the hidden treasues will continually look for more of them. I would not say eveyone outside the my faith is misguided becasue that reflects that only I know the way. I believe I am in the right boat going on a journey. And if one prays for guidance he will find what he is seeking. And that would be truth in its fullness.
Remember.. I am not trying to preach. Just explaining the way of my church's belief.
quote:That was the beginning. I later, after the war was over, had more time to sit down with myself and sort things out. I basically had to rebuild my whole belief foundation.
My reality check had nothing to do with age, or with wisdom. It had to do with finally accepting REALITY.
What about people who have been in war and sufferd more than you had. What if they lost limbs or lost their children or whole families? If they are still a people of faith why do you think they still believe in God? They were not disillusioned. Some say their strength was their faith. Or their faith guided them. Maybe you feel their faith was a coping mechanism to get thru the terrible reality of war. My father was at war and lost lots of his friends. He tries not to talk of it. But deep down he has never forgot the pain of war. But wars have been with us since the beginning of time in the name of survival and preservance. All kinds of wars are referenced in scripture and the history of the world. I think for you, in your uniqueness a part of you suffered a great deal. And has left you scarred. Just like my father.
jade: Thanks for that detailed explanation. It gives me a better idea of what exactly you believe. I will readily admit that my knowledge of Catholicism is fairly superficial these days. A few points/questions:
quote: jade said:
The holy see and his bishops are not a sentencing judges, umpires, or traffic cops.
I have gotten the impression that the Pope does indeed see himself as a sentencing judge, based on some of his recent statements and Dominus Iesus, which he authored (or at least signed) before he became pope. I find this passage from Dominus Iesus to be key:
quote:22. With the coming of the Saviour Jesus Christ, God has willed that the Church founded by him be the instrument for the salvation of all humanity (cf. Acts 17:30-31). This truth of faith does not lessen the sincere respect which the Church has for the religions of the world, but at the same time, it rules out, in a radical way, that mentality of indifferentism ?characterized by a religious relativism which leads to the belief that ?one religion is as good as another'?. If it is true that the followers of other religions can receive divine grace, it is also certain that objectively speaking they are in a gravely deficient situation in comparison with those who, in the Church, have the fullness of the means of salvation.
Granted, it's not Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus (Outside Church No Salvation), but "gravely deficient situation" sounds very serious. For their part, leaders of other world religions have reacted very poorly at the Catholic Church's attempts to engage in what it considers "interreligious dialogue." Attempting to subsume all of the world religions under Catholicism's idea of faith and salvation is not interreligious dialogue, it is simply inclusivism. Again, no value judgments, I just think we should recognize it for what it is.
I noticed a particular phrase that you used in your reply: "through no fault of their own." I have heard this before in explanations of Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus, and I take it to mean that someone who is not aware of the salvific power of the Church and their own gravely deficient position cannot be held responsible for not being part of the Church (for the record, this argument is used by many Protestants as well). I understand that arguments like these are attempts to reach out to the worldwide religious community, but I don't see how true interreligious dialogue will be possible as long as the Church insists that everyone plays by their rules. Maybe I'm reading it wrong, but that's the way it looks to me at the moment.
quote:How could she consider to just forsake those who are not in a communion.
(emphasis mine) Nice. Is this an official position?
Oh, one more question: what is the current thinking on the infallibility of the pope?
And a quick note to WS: while I respect your right to believe what you choose, I hope that you realize your belief that God does not exist is just that--a belief. Just as the existence of God cannot be proven, neither can the non-existence of God be proven. You may feel that one side of the argument is better supported by the evidence, but unless you are omniscient you can not say that either the existence or non-existence of God is "reality." You cannot slam jade for mistaking belief for reality and then do the same yourself. Well, I guess you could, but it would be intellectually dishonest. If you're going to posit that your beliefs are reality, then jade has every right to do the same.
(Please don't bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument or things of that nature. I'm not trying to be solipsistic here, I'm just saying that, logically speaking, there are certain things that we cannot know for sure. The knife cuts both ways.)
(Please don't bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument or things of that nature. I'm not trying to be solipsistic here, I'm just saying that, logically speaking, there are certain things that we cannot know for sure. The knife cuts both ways.)
Well, if we're going to be looking logically, then it must also be said that such things as gods can be assumed not to exist, based on evidence and logic. We cannot know for sure, of course, but how sad an argument for the existence of something is that? Logically speaking...?
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-25-2007 03:14
While I understand and respect your stance, Master Suho, you have to recognize that belief does not stop a bullet.
That is the cold, hard fact of the matter. If you can prove otherwise, please do so.
That in and of itself is not an irrevocable fact that a god cannot exist. This is also not what I am saying. I am saying that no amount of Faith or Belief is going to cause that bullet that is going to hit you not to.
In fact, no amount of belief or faith will change any of the natural laws.
This is what I meant when I said that I had to accept reality, as it is.
In light of that realization, it leaves very little room for a god, especially the god that is mentioned in the Bible, or for that matter, other holy books (where it IS suggested that such a god can bend the natural laws, and in some cases, actually does so).
Now, if we want to talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster, sure. We can do that. After all, it is not going to try to bend any of the natural laws for you (or me, or anyone else, for that matter), regardless of how one pleads, begs, prays, or asks.
That neither proves, nor disproves, that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists.
@ Jade - I cannot (and will not) answer for those who have been through battle and war. I can only answer for myself. I do know some that became religious after their experiences in war (and equally, others who disposed of their belief). I can offer explanations for such behavior, but truly, they (and probably only they) know the true answers. I can only speak for myself (which I have).
I do have a question for you, Jade - what about those who believe in multiple gods? How do they fit into your "universal god" belief? What about those who believe not in gods, but in animal totems, spirits, etc?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
WS: I see what you're saying, but that was not the issue in question, and it was not what you implied with your original post. You said that you came to the conclusion there was no god because of what you saw, that you came to grips with reality.
Belief does not stop a bullet. OK, I can buy that. If this is the reality that you accepted, fine. But when you go from that to concluding that god does not exist, you have still made the jump from fact to belief. You get what I'm saying, right? There are facts, and then there are interpretations of those facts.
Let me give an example. Let's say a man is threatened by someone with a gun. To be more specific, let us say that this is happening in a country with no religious tolerance, and the man being threatened is a religious individual. He is told that he must give up his faith or die. He chooses death. But when his assailant pulls the trigger, nothing happens. Now this man believes that God spares his life by causing the gun to jam. His belief is based on a fact--that the gun jammed and he was not killed. He chooses to interpret this fact in such a way that it strengthens his faith. But this is just a belief. The only fact is that the gun jammed.
In your case, it is a fact that people died regardless of their beliefs. But once you begin interpreting those facts to come to a conclusion about the existence of god, you enter into the realm of belief.
I do understand what you are saying about natural laws, though. I think we are on the same page now.
DL: The logic I was referring to was the logic of the argument, although it would appear that I had misinterpreted what WS was saying.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-25-2007 11:36
quote:But when you go from that to concluding that god does not exist, you have still made the jump from fact to belief. You get what I'm saying, right? There are facts, and then there are interpretations of those facts.
If you have ANY evidence of the existence of a god, please present them. I mean factual evidence according to the natural laws and the scientific method.
It is not a belief to hold that something does not exist, if there is absolutely no evidence for it, and in fact all evidence points to the contrary. That goes a bit further than just belief here, Master Suho. What I witnessed does disprove the existence of a god that can bend natural laws. Remember, the Bible and other Holy Books are making the claim - not me. When one makes a claim, one has to provide the evidence and facts to back it up, or the claim is discredited. This is why it falls under the catagory of Belief in the first place!
Now, as I said, on the metaphysical level (where we can argue Do we truly exist? - and not come to a definitive conclusion, etc) - yes, you are correct. This is why I concur with DL about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If one chooses to move god to this level, then yes, your postulation is correct - one cannot prove or disprove that it truly exists. However, this goes for all things reduced to this level, to be honest.
But you know this.
quote:Let me give an example. Let's say a man is threatened by someone with a gun. To be more specific, let us say that this is happening in a country with no religious tolerance, and the man being threatened is a religious individual. He is told that he must give up his faith or die. He chooses death. But when his assailant pulls the trigger, nothing happens. Now this man believes that God spares his life by causing the gun to jam. His belief is based on a fact--that the gun jammed and he was not killed. He chooses to interpret this fact in such a way that it strengthens his faith. But this is just a belief. The only fact is that the gun jammed.
As for the gentleman who thinks that his belief saved him from being killed by the gun - it is quite the opposite. The natural laws saved him. We can repeat the experiment, and it is not reliably repeatable in his case (with different guns, different ammunition from a different manufacturer, etc) and I guarantee you he will be killed. If, however, we reproduce the exact conditions that happened before (same gun, exact same ammunition, conditions, etc) then I guarantee you that he will not be killed, belief or no belief.
But you know this, as well.
What my realization was, is that reality (the natural laws around us) preclude the existance of a god (or gods) that can change and bend the natural laws as they will in favor of those who believe in them.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
What I witnessed does disprove the existence of a god that can bend natural laws.
You know that I agree with you on most counts, but this statement is incorrect.
While it shows that people die regardless of faith or the lack of it, it does not prove or disprove anything about the existence of any gods. It could too easily be argued that 1) god simply did not intervene or that 2) god intervened and the outcome was one that he desired.
But I will reinforce that it is quite 'intellectually defensible' to assert that there is no god, for reasons that have been put forth repeatedly here...
quote:(Please don't bring up the Flying Spaghetti Monster argument or things of that nature. I'm not trying to be solipsistic here, I'm just saying that, logically speaking, there are certain things that we cannot know for sure. The knife cuts both ways.)
However not knowing, or understanding, things for sure is not a reason for giving up and invoking supernatural. Which is exactly what ID does, in addition to try as hard as they can to fit selected facts into the picture of their favorites tales.
WS: I don't know how else I can explain it. DL put it in far fewer words, so maybe that will help. That's all I'm saying.
I also cannot disagree with DL that it is intellectually defensible to assert there is no God. I never said it wasn't. On the other hand, I also believe that one can believe in God and not be stupid. I hope you'll agree with me there. If not, well, I suppose that's your right.
poi: I'm not going to argue the ins and out of ID, mainly because I do not know them. I do agree with evolution as a scientific theory (in the scientific sense of that term), but I do not believe that this precludes the existence of a God. Speaking on a personal level, I do not feel that my belief in the existence of God is "giving up and invoking the supernatural."
I kind of feel like I'm spinning my wheels here a bit. I respect everyone involved in this thread, and I hope the feeling is mutual. I try not to pass judgment on anyone, and I try to maintain intellectual integrity. I'm sure some of you think I am fighting a losing battle on the latter count, but at the end of the day, I need to come to grips with my own experiences of and views on the cosmos. I try not to accept things at face value, and I ask questions without the guarantee of finding an answer. Every day I spend on this earth will be one more day spent searching for the Truth. Will I ever find it? Probably not, at least not in full. But that will not stop me from searching.
Anyway, while I enjoy challenging discussions, I'm not sure if I can contribute any more to this particular thread--especially if we're actually going to talk about ID. My stance has always been that ID is not science, and if anything it should be taught in philosophy class. There may be aspects of science in ID, but once you start bringing in questions of the existence of God, you have moved into the realm of philosophy. That's pretty much all I have to say.
If someone wants to address me on something specific, feel free. If not, it's been fun, but I think I'll take my leave now if you don't mind.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-26-2007 16:27
quote:On the other hand, I also believe that one can believe in God and not be stupid. I hope you'll agree with me there. If not, well, I suppose that's your right.
I have never asserted, nor will I, that someone who believes in god is somehow not intelligent, or is stupid.
That would be indefensible, and it would do grave injustice to those like yourself and Bugs, to name a few.
Back to this :
quote:You know that I agree with you on most counts, but this statement is incorrect.
While it shows that people die regardless of faith or the lack of it, it does not prove or disprove anything about the existence of any gods. It could too easily be argued that 1) god simply did not intervene or that 2) god intervened and the outcome was one that he desired.
I disagree with you here, DL. If a god can bend the natural laws, and actually does so, then it should be measurable. If it is measurable, then it can be proven.
If it can be proven, then it is no longer belief.
Please provide me with proof that a god has bent the natural laws, please.
And a god has never "interviened" in such a conflict - there are no measured examples of one doing so. One can suggest it, but one cannot provide evidence that one ever has, at least, not to my knowledge. I am, of course, open to any evidence to the contrary.
Now, as I stated before, one can reduce (or raise, whatever) the whole god concept to the metaphysical level, to that of the Flying Spaghetti Monster - and of course then your statement would be correct - in fact, just about any statement could be correct.
I suppose there could be some sort of Supreme Being that exists, and is totally impartial to the natural world, laws, etc, and could intervene but chooses not to.
But then, what value should such a Being have to us? For all intents and purposes, it does nothing for or against us. It has the same value as the Flying Speghetti Monster, to be honest. It remains in the realm of the "what if..." and there is no evidence supporting the existence of it, nor will there ever be such forthcoming, for it exists outside of the natural world and the natural laws of that world. One could say that it has its existence outside of existence, itself.
Thus it is unmeasurable, unprovable, and is in that sense equal to the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Let me put it to you this way :
Picture yourself on a battlefield. A real one. This is not a movie, this is not a game, this is not a drill.
It is the real thing.
You have your buddies, your equiptment, and the enemy. At some point in time, it starts. Sometimes it is sudden, and all hell breaks loose. Other times it is a slow, building sort of thing. But there you are, in the thick of it.
In all of this, with life and death hanging in the balance (very real, not some sort of imagined thing), what is the value of believing in a Being that will not help or hinder you? Keep in mind throughout the battle, and every other one that you participate in, there will be absolutely a totaly LACK of any evidence, whatsoever, that the Being that you believe in is influencing things for your benefit (or not, as the case may be).
So after the war is over, you have survived. You know that it is not because of the benevolent good graces of the Supreme Being that you believed in, because nowhere was there any shred of evidence that there was such at hand.
And that is the point here. Reality really does stick it's blunt nose into things. I found it very difficult to keep of the veil of illusion of belief any longer. It became more and more hollow, when compared to the reality of the situations that I had experienced, firsthand.
It is the total lack of evidence, not just during the war (although that is when my eyes were first pried open), but since then. I learned alot more about the natural world and the natural laws afterwards, about the scientific method, and about logic.
I am 42 years of age, now. And I have yet to witness, experience, or behold one shred of evidence that a god exists.
Perhaps you have something different that you can present?
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
I disagree with you here, DL. If a god can bend the natural laws, and actually does so, then it should be measurable. If it is measurable, then it can be proven.
If it can be proven, then it is no longer belief.
Please provide me with proof that a god has bent the natural laws, please.
You are missing the point. You said that the circumstances in your story *proved* that there is no god capable of bending the laws of nature. They don't. THe other aspect of what I was saying is that a god capable of manipulating the outcome of something would not necessarily need to break any laws. After all, if there were a god, it could be said that those laws are his laws, and surely he would know how to use them
But that's all off the topic really. The only real point I have in regard to this is that the outcome of the situation you related above does not prove anything whatsoever in regard to a god or gods.
quote: Suho1004 said:
On the other hand, I also believe that one can believe in God and not be stupid. I hope you'll agree with me there. If not, well, I suppose that's your right.
Surely a belief in god does not require a person to be stupid, and clearly many very intelligent and well reasoned people have such a belief. This is a bewildering to me, however (and certainly, the stupid ones tend to get the better press ). I have no quarrel with any person who simply professes a belief in god, and find no reason to dispute such beliefs in and of themselves. The application of such beliefs is where things get interesting...
FWIW
As for the start of the topic, ID itself...surely we've covered all that needs to be covered on that front in our previous discussions. I don't see anyone arguing that ID should be taught in science class, or that it is a valid scientific theory, so....I'd say we're done with that
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 08-27-2007 15:53
quote:The only real point I have in regard to this is that the outcome of the situation you related above does not prove anything whatsoever in regard to a god or gods.
Then we will have to agree to disagree.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
quote:I disagree with you here, DL. If a god can bend the natural laws, and actually does so, then it should be measurable. If it is measurable, then it can be proven.
If it can be proven, then it is no longer belief.
Please provide me with proof that a god has bent the natural laws, please.
I disagree. You're assuming several things, including:
- Although having the power, God actively bends the laws of nature. What if He doesn't feel like it today?
- We currently have the means to observe the laws of nature being bent. For most of history we didn't have the means to observe most of our galaxy, it doesn't mean it didn't exist.
quote:For most of history we didn't have the means to observe most of our galaxy, it doesn't mean it didn't exist.
Except that galaxies make sense if you consider, be it only for one second, gravity and electromagnetism, some laws of physic each and every one experience daily since dawn. On the contrary, gods, neither make sense nor are supported by anything tangible. You'd think that after all that time there would be the slightest shred of a proof to support their ( gods, fairies and other imaginary friends ) existence, but nope.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 09-01-2007 21:47
quote:quote:
WebShaman said:
I disagree with you here, DL. If a god can bend the natural laws, and actually does so, then it should be measurable. If it is measurable, then it can be proven.
If it can be proven, then it is no longer belief.
Please provide me with proof that a god has bent the natural laws, please.
You are missing the point. You said that the circumstances in your story *proved* that there is no god capable of bending the laws of nature. They don't. THe other aspect of what I was saying is that a god capable of manipulating the outcome of something would not necessarily need to break any laws. After all, if there were a god, it could be said that those laws are his laws, and surely he would know how to use them
But that's all off the topic really. The only real point I have in regard to this is that the outcome of the situation you related above does not prove anything whatsoever in regard to a god or gods.
I think either you are misunderstanding me, or you really disagree.
I will try to better explain my point here.
What I experienced proves that there is no god or gods ACTIVELY altering natural laws in a manner that we can measure.
Thus, that puts any god or group of gods into the mystical realm of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Remember, the Flying Spaghetti Monster could be manipulating the Laws of Nature as well - because they are ITS laws. Or perhaps the Flying Spaghetti Monster just was not interested in intervening and saving all those lives for that war. Just out of spite. Or whatever.
Same argument, same validity. Same total lack of evidence.
It does not disprove that a god or group of gods exist, in the same manner that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists or doesn't.
What it does disprove, is that there is an active god or group of gods that will intervene and alter natural laws, especially when the situation is most dire (I only consider two other cases to be more important than the lives of individuals - that being the eradication of an entire folk, ethnic group, etc, and the top one, the extinction of the entire species).
quote:quote:
quote:I disagree with you here, DL. If a god can bend the natural laws, and actually does so, then it should be measurable. If it is measurable, then it can be proven.
If it can be proven, then it is no longer belief.
Please provide me with proof that a god has bent the natural laws, please.
I disagree. You're assuming several things, including:
- Although having the power, God actively bends the laws of nature. What if He doesn't feel like it today?
- We currently have the means to observe the laws of nature being bent. For most of history we didn't have the means to observe most of our galaxy, it doesn't mean it didn't exist.
No, I am not assuming anything, here. A god that does not do anything is as tangible and as useful as the Flying Spaghetti Monster. It is just as valid. See my comments above.
True, we currently have means to observe the laws of naure being bent, and for the most part of history we did not have the means to observe most of our galaxy - and true, it did not mean that it didn't exist.
But the lights in the skies from those galaxies could be seen, were cataloged, and named. We know that Mankind has always looked to the Heavens, probably since the first time he could stand and look up. We also know that the light from those galaxies has been shining for x amoung of time, and that it has been shining back then.
Thus, we can prove that those lights that we saw before, were actually stars and galaxies. Back then, Mankind did not know this, but COULD STILL SEE THE EVIDENCE OF SUCH with their own eyes, did so, and recorded this as they could.
This is a case where our science has advanced to a point that it allows us to also prove things that have happened before and predict what will happen in the future.
None of it has found one single SHRED of evidence supporting that a god or group of gods exist. In fact, in the light of the lack of evidence, it is prudent to conclude that there isn't any that are measureable by our science, and that do not alter the natural laws in a manner that we can detect or observe.
Keep in mind that a god or group of gods that can alter, bend, manipulate, etc the natural laws without leaving any evidence thereof is not measurable, observable, nor detectable. It thus becomes a thing that exists purely in the metaphysical realm that also houses things like the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
This means, for all intents and purposes, that a god or group of gods are moved into that Metaphysical realm that is also occupied by the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Note that for the record, I am NOT SAYING that my experiences have disproved that a god or group of gods can actually exist - on the contrary, they can easily co-exist alongside the Flying Spaghetti Monster in the metaphysical realm quite happily.
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 09-11-2007 04:51
About this "Flying Spaghetti Monster," did South Park first coin that term or did they just steal it from someone?
I like this quote by C. S. Lewis. He is talking about Communion and Baptism, but I think it applies here, too: "God never meant man to be a purely spiritual creature. That is why he uses material things like bread and wine to put the new life into us. We may think this rather crude and unspiritual. God does not: he invented eating. He likes matter. He invented it."
I like that last part, "He likes matter. He invented it." So if God likes the things he invented, then why should he use supernatural things all the time? Why should he work outside of the laws and nature he has already created? Do you think God is a romantic? I do. He created sunsets and waterfalls and music. He created aromas that make your head spin. He even created the way of smelling them. He made chocolate. How awesome is that?!
I think we sometimes overspiritualize God and ask for signs and wonders and lightening from above...why not just let what God has already made speak to you? Why not let that little whisper from God speak to your heart, instead of waiting around for some loud sign?
1 Kings 19:11-13
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
quote:So if God likes the things he invented, then why should he use supernatural things all the time?
To fix his broken creation, and the mess he and his minions has made. But I could be wrong, I don't know your imaginary friend very well: never saw him, never talked to him, never felt him, never heard or saw a single thing making me doubt that he is not made up.
quote:Do you think God is a romantic? He created sunsets and waterfalls and music. He created aromas that make your head spin. He even created the way of smelling them. He made chocolate. How awesome is that?!
Super awesome! And Al Gore created the informations super highways.
quote:I think we sometimes overspiritualize God and ask for signs and wonders and lightening from above...why not just let what God has already made speak to you? Why not let that little whisper from God speak to your heart, instead of waiting around for some loud sign?
1 Kings 19:11-13
I don't think it is overspiritualizing of asking for evidence. Rocks and sunset don't come with a "Made by God" tag.
Your contemplation is noble but IMHO your interpretation is mislead. You seek meaning and purpose where there is most likely none. Man seek meaning because he can, not because there is one.
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 09-12-2007 00:03
Thanks for the Wiki link. My roomate is on there all the time and I didn't even think to use it.
Wow, Poi, that last post looks like an "anti-theist" post. Seems chalked full of hatred towards God. Why do you hate the idea of God so much?
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
Gideon: My post was down to earth. Btw s/minions/creatures
Your quote about chocolate was too funny, I could not resist cracking a come back.
quote:Seems chalked full of hatred towards God.
I don't hate your god. How could I hate something that, to me, do not exist
quote:Why do you hate the idea of God so much?
Easy : I simply don't understand religions.
I understand spirituality : the wishful thinking in something greater or a deep humility towards nature at large ( as in the physical world and our understanding of it ).
On the other hand, to me religions are delusions. Delusions and endoctrination ( mostly due to cultural pressure ) based on made up and touched countless time stories.
The fact that some people are torn apart between their nature and their beliefs ( or those imposed to them ) is beyond me. Another thing I never understood about religions, even as a child, is the rituals : do deities ignore or punish their minions if they don't burn a candle, gather every X days/hours, blindly repeat X times a prayer, ... I thought deities were omniscient and compassionate therefore why do they need their minions to act like sheeps ?
[edit] Not being a native English speaker and not formalizing my view on the topic everyday, I hope I managed to get my point accross. [/edit]
poi, I understand your theological views however I think you should try to be more understanding and accepting of theists. The anger that you may feel comes from you not accepting that other people may perceive world differently. Of course to you it just looks stupid but thats because from the perspective of your perception of reality theirs is untrue. If a blind man wants to think that the sky is yellow trough no argument can you convince him otherwise. However you can accept his perception of it because maybe it's the yellow sky that keeps him happy. He can't see it anyway - whats the difference to you?
One's perception of reality do not change reality itself.
As for blind people and the color of the sky, they're not stupid they can understand wavelentghs and radiations. And eventually accept that the wavelengths of the visible spectrum not absorded by the sky correspond to what is called Blue. But I'm fine with them calling it yellow against all odds ... as long as they don't push their yellow sky agenda.
quote: DL-44 said:
When theists stop trying to dominate the world in the name of their specific deities, come back and we'll talk about it...
Yeah ... I felt like this too for a long time ... maybe I'm like this just because I'm not under pressure from any religious groups and I can live my life free of those troubles or maybe I have just given up. Anyway I have thought things through for myself, found confidence in myself and come to accept others along with all their differences. Or at least this is what I like to think. However I can't be truly successful in this until I accept those who haven't done the same.
I can accept people and their differences with no problems. Hell, some of my best friends are theists
But respecting people's differences, and respecting and accepting people who *refuse* to accept anyone's differences, and actively work to change your ability to "live my life free of those troubles" are two different things.
When I have to be worried that my daughter is going to come home with her new "Intelligent Design" science curriculum, and when the president of the United States can tell me I shouldn't be considered a citizen because I am an atheist, and when that president's son becomes president, and sends us off to war that he "knows god wants him fight", then it becomes a very real issue that is beyond my needing to just "accept people and their beliefs".
From: rooted on planet Mars, *I mean Earth* Insane since: May 2004
posted 09-15-2007 04:34
Thank you for being so candid with me poi. I guess for the few years I was bickering back and forth about creation/ID/evolution I never really stopped to try and understand where you were coming from. Thank you for sharing with me.
[side note]
quote: poi said:
One's perception of reality do not change reality itself.
AMEN! I know that you may consider me as some psycho for going to religion and God for truth, but I'm after the same thing you are: truth. I want to know what reality is about and what it means. Not what someone tells me it is. That's why I'm starting to question some things I once took for granted: in science, my religion, and my relationships. Just thought you'd like to know that some of us "theists" aren't completely blind sheep either. ;-)
[/side note]
You brought up a ton of really good questions about religion. I don't think I have many, if any, of the answers. But I did like the question about rituals. My church didn't really have any rituals except communion and baptism, but they did have traditions. TONS of them. I grew up Baptist, so there were tons of things that I wasn't allowed to do, or I was at least frowned down upon for doing: dancing, not dressing up for church, gambling, drinking, etc. Just to name a few. I decided to look into them myself to see why they didn't want me doing these things. I found out that most of them were rooted in really good reasons. The only problem was that they blew the good reasons out of proportion. The traditions were meant for a few people to help them...it ended up hurting the crowd when it was applied to everyone.
Just for curiosity's sake, do you have a church background or did you get these ideas from watching other people?
"For reason is a property of God's...moreover, there is nothing He does not wish to be investigated and understood by reason." ~Tertullian de paenitentia Carthaginian Historian 2nd century AD
Well I had never heard about the FSM, so I did - LOL - and great photoshop take on the Sistine Chapel's masterpiece.
The same article, references the origin of the FSM -Russel's Teapot, this I was very familiar with having been a student of evolutionary biology.
So here's the quote by the brilliant Bertrand Russel followed by a quote from the much less brilliant Kathy Griffin when she won her emmy.
quote:"If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time."
- Bertrand Russell
quote:"A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus...Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now."
Following the remark, Catholic League President Bill Donohue called on the TV academy to "denounce Griffin's obscene and blasphemous comment" which he then thanked them for doing.
quote:"A lot of people come up here and thank Jesus for this award. I want you to know that no one had less to do with this award than Jesus...Suck it, Jesus. This award is my God now."
Personally, I think that's hilarious. As God ever has anything to do with winning a meaningless award.
Reminds me of a routine some comedian used to do about pro sports players always thanking God for a win. You never hear a reporter interview someone on the losing side, asking, "So what happened out there?" and get the response "... Jesus made me fumble!"
quote:AMEN! I know that you may consider me as some psycho for going to religion and God for truth, but I'm after the same thing you are: truth. I want to know what reality is about and what it means. Not what someone tells me it is. That's why I'm starting to question some things I once took for granted: in science, my religion, and my relationships. Just thought you'd like to know that some of us "theists" aren't completely blind sheep either. ;-)
You're not a psycho, just delusioned ( notice I see no reason beside political correctness my a** for this definition to put religions aside ). Glad to see you stop acting like a sheep/slave.
quote:My church didn't really have any rituals except communion and baptism, but they did have traditions. (...) Just for curiosity's sake, do you have a church background or did you get these ideas from watching other people?
I grew up in a small village in France, a traditionnaly catholic country. Baptism, the ritual, is the archetype of traditio^Wendoctrination. Although a thin minority of the people I know actually believe, virtually all of them got baptized by their parents when they were ~3 months old. So long for the respect and acceptance of other's, escpecially people's own children, difference and beliefs or lack thereof.
I've been baptized, needless to say I was not consulted in the process. I attended catechism for a year ( the good thing about it was having to make drawings, the rest was a mix of comon sense and nonsense ), again without being asked if I wanted to. I did my comunion, why I don't know. Tradition and cultural pressure I guess.
End of the story.
AFAIR my parents were not religious. My mum is agnostic or atheist. During his last year(s) my dad hooked up with some protestants. I don't know the details. I think he was dating a protestant woman. Next thing I know he had an ichthys sticker on his car. Note that the little guy didn't save him from a lethal car accident.
I never bought those religions, beliefs, holy books thing. It just doesn't fly for me. It never did, even when I was a kid. My questions were answered with circular reasoning. Not the most convincing way of selling one's view of the world.
I seriously consider doing my apostasy and have my batpism cancelled, but couldn't be bothered so far to write to the diocese where I got baptized.
Oh I agree Wes, just was alluding to the fact that Russell was brilliant, while Griffin is just funny.
Poi: very nice teapot, now we have proof it does exist. - took me a few seconds to realize if my FF was rendering it properly as well - since it didn't appear to be animated, it wasn't obviously.
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.WebShaman
Sorry, 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.
quote: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 ?
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
I think you've highlighted a common problem, DL. It seems all too easy to confuse the evidence of a common ancestor with the mistaken notion that man evolved directly from apes, but whether common ancestry can be proved beyond a doubt isn't really the point anyway.
That evolution occurs is an observable fact. Genetic commonalities are a fact. Where the confusion begins (for some) is the point at which science becomes theory. That we have a common ancestor is theory based upon observable facts and empirical evidence; it is scientific theory.
Creationism is a theory (as is FSM) but it simply isn't scientific. This is the crux of the debate for me, and everything else is hot air.
quote:AUSTIN ? Biology professors from across Texas stressed the importance of educating students about evolution in a letter to the state education commissioner and said Texas Education Agency employees shouldn't be required to stay neutral on the subject.
More than 100 faculty members from the universities of Texas, Texas A&M, Texas Tech, Texas State, North Texas, Houston, Rice and Baylor signed the letter. It was sent Monday to Texas Education Commissioner Robert Scott.
I think that, to date, evolution is the best theory we have as to the origins/development of life on earth. I don't believe that intelligent design should be taught in school because it a) does not answer the question of how life arose or developed, and b)having a creationist curriculum will discourage questioning and scientific exploration.
Evolution doesn't even know it has a name, and it doesn't care if you defend it or not.
But i guess Memes can be as Selfish as the Selfish Genes.
It really requires a indepth knowledge of all the fields of biology (and basis to them) to be able to actively participate in this debate.
It's not something you can actively discuss, without cutting your mind and heart open through a few dozens of technical books.
Because there really isn't anything to discuss, unless you have read those technical books, digested their content, and still think there is room for something like ID.
When Science today, is affected by public opinion, that's when you fanboys are useful. As you always were, with whatever you were defending (religion, nationalism, politics, etc).
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 12-28-2007 10:05
*slams a rock on top of Arthemis*
Have fun reading those technical books and digesting their content under your rock
And for the record, I have an indepth knowledge of all the fields of Biology (though an indepth knowledge of ALL the fields of Biology is NOT necessary to have to discuss the Theory of Evolution, obviously - another of your transparent trolling attempts).
quote:What happened? You can start with the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
The satirical religious Web site asserts that an omnipotent, airborne clump of spaghetti intelligently designed all life with the deft touch of its "noodly appendage." Adherents call themselves Pastafarians. They deluged Polk school board members with e-mail demanding equal time for Flying Spaghetti Monsterism's version of intelligent design.
"They've made us the laughingstock of the world," said Margaret Lofton, a school board member who supports intelligent design. She dismissed the e-mail as ridiculous and insulting.
That just tickles me pink!
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
Hu-uh. Look hun, again, i never said i am part of the pro-ID movement. I like the idea. It's preety nifty. But i don't like the christian bandwagon that it is currently carrying.
Two posts above, I said one has nothing new to add to this debate, unless one is studied, and can provide evidence for the ID theory, against or according the Evolution theory (which currently reigns as the sole default).
I wasn't talking to you in particular WebShaman, but since you mention it: i really doubt you know your stuff, since you don't even know your biology ABCs, and have this stoic perception of what the experimental method is, as i noted previously.
I could go on and ask for your credentials now. But bullocks to credentials, i say.
Bah, this is futile. You're not going to change my mind, i can't change yours. Nothing like a face to face fast exchanging debate.
i never said i am part of the pro-ID movement. I like the idea. It's preety nifty.
Ok - what about it do you like?
why?
Do you actually find it to be valid scientifically, or do you just like the philosophical implications? (this is the only really important part of the "debate" in the first place...)
For my part, I've not too averse to the philosophical implications - leads to some interesting debate on the matter, in the right company - but there is no question that ID simply isn't scientific. How could anybody argue otherwise?
ID should be restricted to philosophy/theology - if such a thing were part of the curriculum.
Well, I see two issues : one of the AWESOME implied political impact of this decision. Common sense has not left America, and it must ring
"pride" inside sincere patriotic minds. They're in line with their beliefs, and thank God, their children won't have to learn "ID".
Respect.
---------------------------------
I didn't read the whole thing, but I see Arthemis has a point, and (hope she) plays the "challenge the minds around" game Devil's advocate.
She does have a point though : philosophical (hence the title of the forum ,)
AND scientific : does the fact "ID could be" negate the fact "evolution happened"?
Do they really negate each other?
Respect for that too. She may be in line with her belief that a real man can take a challenge.
And she may be in line with her scientific beliefs as well - she sounds like someone who is inclined on facts as well.
---------------------------------
...If pulled off from a frame of "regular controversy", acting this way may raise tension in other parties - a natural reaction for most including me.
*grabs some popcorn and ponders the way he just challenged the minds around with a sly smile on his face, still...*
(of course I could have got it all wrong and Arthemis could be defending ID for Christ's sake,
in which case I'd go get the tar and feathers myself)
Fact is, world society is finally accommodating to the evolution theory (after a few initial bumps with Nazism, the Holocaust, Wild Capitalism and all that other stuff done in name of Evolution) and refuse to let it be confronted - i'm not even talking about change.
As for me being defending ID for Christ's sake...
i do wish i had the memory of billions of years passed, right here inside my head. I dont have faith, but i dont deny it.
From: Happy Hunting Grounds... Insane since: Mar 2001
posted 01-09-2008 09:38
quote:Fact is, world society is finally accommodating to the evolution theory (after a few initial bumps with Nazism, the Holocaust, Wild Capitalism and all that other stuff done in name of Evolution) and refuse to let it be confronted - i'm not even talking about change.
Ridiculous, and non-credible.
You can do better than that!
WebShaman | The keenest sorrow (and greatest truth) is to recognize ourselves as the sole cause of all our adversities.
- Sophocles
@Arthemis, the second part was about guidance to you - watch for the emotional state of the other party when communicating, it's a tough call to make a positive impression
on people who are tense about a given situation.
It was about humor also - you'll only get shock therapy for nagging that much, tar and feathers is the next stage.
And about MY personal belief that a real lady can handle a challenge as well ,)
posted 02-13-2007 09:10
oh let's not do this again....
Celestial Teapot
