Long-time readers know my views on the pseudo-science movement behind intelligent design. Occasionally I get a reader who is unfamiliar with my views, or how long I have been tracking the issues.
So, for those readers new to the blog, I point to this post in which I discuss why it is not legal to teach intelligent design at present, since there is such a great lack of data, hypothesis, or anything else, in support of intelligent design in science. In heated discussion with Dr. Francis Beckwith of Baylor, several months ago, I felt compelled to find a good analogy for his advocacy that it would be legal under the Constitution for a state board of education or other educational entity to put intelligent design into public school science classes. This gives a link to that post.
I hope I’m not being too subtle for anyone: Intelligent Design: A pig that won’t fly.
To quote myself:
And the second you say “There’s a creator” the next obvious question becomes “Well who is that creator?”
Sorry, I’m not inclined to have all the non-Christian kids get their asses kicked by their fellow students who happen to be Christian when some student asks “Who is the Creator?” and some right wing Christian teacher is dumb enough to answer “God.” because that is exactly what will happen at the end of your mad little quest, Don Quixote.
Or some non-Christian teacher will be fired when he/she answers that the identity of the Creator is someone other then the Christian God and the parents of some Christian student kvetch to the school board.
Science should remain neutral and your idea blows that concept out of the water. That and ID is under no circumstances science. It’s fake science.
To quote:
I believe I’ve presented cogent proof that ID is a science, based on that it in fact does have labs, and does publish a number of pro-ID papers
Ok first off those supposed “papers” are nowhere in any peer reviewed and credible scientific journal. Those papers are passed around a small group of supposed scientists who believe that ID is science. That is by definition having the foxes guard the chicken coop. Sorry, if you only have your fellow discovery institute members look at your papers then you’re setting up a situation that is entirely biased.
Until they’re willing to put those papers up for critique by scientists who aren’t IDers those papers are meaningless.
And no ID is not science. It assumes there’s a creator and yet they never provide any evidence of it. Sorry, you can’t negatively prove something. Meaning you can’t say “Well since I can’t disprove a Creator that means there must be a Creator.” Else you just “proved” the existance of unicorns, Dragons, Puff the Magic Dragon, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Cthulu, Sauron, Dunklezahn, Gandalf, Hobbits, Elves, He Who Must Not Be Named, Hogwarts, Vulcans, Romulans, Mimbari, Asari, Shadows, Vorlons, Cylons, etc.
ID is nothing more then religious belief. It is Creationism by another name. It is nothing more then Creationists attempt to get into the science classrooms of public schools by the back door when they’ve been blocked from coming in the front door.
And the second you say “There’s a creator” the next obvious question becomes “Well who is that creator?” And religion finds enough reasons to want to engage in oppression, persecution, discrimination, murder and wars without being stupid enough to have science pick sides.
Then there is the fact that the only supporters of ID are right wing Christians. ID appears nowhere else, in no other culture, in no other part of the world…only in the United States. Sorry it’s kind of hard for you to claim that it isn’t a religious belief when the only supporters of ID are my fellow Christians who are on the far right wing of the spectrum.
So my suggestion to you and all those other Christians is quit being stupid enough to think that the theory of evolution is somehow a threat to God or Christianity.
Sort of a quick hit; still really cramped for time.
Mudz said:
Marxist? Not much evidence of that, and wholly irrelevant to this discussion, so long as he’s not a Stalinist in accepting creationism, like Lysenko. You’re arguing the Stalinist view, so I suspect that wasn’t your intention to impugn such nonscience.
Yeah, I know, you didn’t read Lewontin’s book, nor any of his essays, and you think you can dismiss him by citing his politics.
I’ll wager you’re from the anti-science wing of the GOP. What’s the point? Stick to the facts, and don’t make half-citations, and don’t strip quote.
Lewontin said nothing against religion. He was talking about the scientific method, and you still don’t get it.
You didn’t even read his position, and you misdescribed it. Confession is good for the soul, you know.
He’s saying that scientific methods are materialistic, because you can’t disprove something that doesn’t exist, and you can’t disprove a hypothesis you don’t even make.
There’s a difference between materialism as a method of study of things, and materialist philosophy. We’re talking science, you’re confusing it with philosophy and ignoring the science.
If you have a quibble with the scientific method, make it known. But don’t hide behind philosophical misunderstandings, and claim to be indicting science. You’re indicting religious belief, and that’s not science.
You don’t know what Lewontin’s views are, is my point. For all you know, he was critical of people who religiously accept science knowledge.
You’re on foreign ground, pretending to speak the language and know the lay of the land, though all you have is a compass you keep pinned with a magnet.
The only way to test something scientifically is to use materialist methods, yes. It’s not only unfair to ask how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, it’s not measurable. Consequently, any answer you propose to that question is not science, regardless how many angels may actually dance on pinheads (pun intended).
You’re reading stuff I didn’t write, and drawing conclusions falsely. I didn’t say the methods of science are not materialistic. I said if you want to study angels, feel free.
Got any evidence?
No, I didn’t think so.
I’m disputing your misquoting what Lewontin said, and misinterpreting on the basis of that misquote what you claim he said. He didn’t say God doesn’t exist. He didn’t say we can’t study efficacy of prayer in healing, nor the existence of angels. He said in order to make a case in science, you must have evidence.
Got evidence that is solid, verifiable, and can be either replicated in other experiments or observed by others under the same circumstances? No, you don’t.
So don’t claim that your lack of evidence is evidence of bias in others. You can’t make the case, and that’s not Lewontin’s bias that says so.
I said: “I didn’t assume any difference between extraterrestrials and anything. You brought the subject up. All assumptions are yours.”
“Do you believe here is some rule in science that says “you can’t study anything supernatural?” Is that the source of your misconception about what is investigated and how science works?”
Clearly you don’t understand evidence, in science, nor in general use. Is there evidence for ID? Where? In Pennsylvania, in federal court, in 2005 whether ID could be taught as valid science hung on the issue of whether anyone could present evidence, not only showing that intelligent design has traction as a discipline, but whether there is any study of that evidence. With the fate of ID resting on the outcome, ID advocates were unable to produce a single publication that even stated a hypothesis of intelligent design. Claims of papers that prove some weight to the idea were dashed on cross examination.
Now, you may believe you’ve got some evidence. Is it from a science lab? Is it published in a juried journal? Does it pose more questions than it answers, especially research questions for future inquiry — or does it close off debate with a “goddidit and we’ll never understand it” answer? More critically, has anyone cited the paper and found it replicable, and been able to base further research on that paper?
No, to all of those questions. Under oath.
So, if you’re claiming otherwise, I assume it’s because you think you can get away with it because you’re not under oath with potential penalties of perjury.
Yes, you’re confused. I didn’t say ID is valid. I didn’t say angels are valid. I offered no statement about God. You’re seeing evidence where none exists, and leaping to erroneous conclusions.
<blockquote,If this is truly your opinion, then rest assured, I will give you a big smiley face, and then link back here whenever atheists tell me that the supernatural just doesn’t belong in science because it’s *super*-natural, not natural. And trust me, I’ve had long conversations with evolution proponents that have made that precise argument.
You’re misunderstanding the issue. The issue is, can you make a claim without evidence?
What evidence have you of angels? What evidence have you of God?
In a more serious, ethical sense, why do you think we call it “faith?” If there were solid evidence of God, Christians would be agnostics, not the “faithful.” Christianity assumes there is not evidence that will stand up to scientific scrutiny. That’s why it’s a leap of faith, and why Christians argue it is a mystery, a sweet and divine mystery.
So, yes, I know you’re confused. You don’t even understand the religious side of the argument, and you’ll misstate that, on your way to misunderstanding the science side.
I’m all about the evidence. ID doesn’t even have a hypothesis (sure, disagree — if you can point me to a simple statement of ID hypothesis that has not been thoroughly disproven).
There is no laboratory working on an ID paradigm, doing ID research, anywhere on earth.
You’ve got contrary evidence? Have you checked out the journals? Have you looked to see whether there is fruit from that claimed science? Remember, claims of fruit that turn out to be false are grounds for Jesus to wither your branches . . .
You’re right in that I’m not acquainted with Richard Lewontin in any meaningful sense. However, I did know that he is a geneticist and a marxist and a world leader in evolutionary biology, according to CMI. So I certainly did know his position. I know what he’s saying. And guess what? He’s saying that science is a priori materialism.
That being said. What’s your point? Was I reviewing his review or his status as a scientist? What difference would it make if he was creationist? Unless you mean to say that means he did not represent scientific culture accurately? *Was* he a creationist? Make your case here dude. I’m not asking about his reasoning. Should I or should I not, accept his explanation, that our science is inherently and exclusively materialistic?
You said it isn’t, Richard said it was. Who do I believe?
I find it amazing that this is being disputed, but it’s your call.
“I didn’t assume any difference between extraterrestrials and anything. You brought the subject up. All assumptions are yours.
Do you believe here is some rule in science that says “you can’t study anything supernatural?” Is that the source of your misconception about what is investigated and how science works?”
Absolutely. That is my belief. Otherwise, why are we arguing? Why didn’t you just say, ‘sure, I agree with you. ID is valid. God is valid. Angels are valid’?
Either one or both of us is confused, or you’ve been unintentionally misleading me. If this is truly your opinion, then rest assured, I will give you a big smiley face, and then link back here whenever atheists tell me that the supernatural just doesn’t belong in science because it’s *super*-natural, not natural. And trust me, I’ve had long conversations with evolution proponents that have made that precise argument.
If I have misjudged your position, then I apologise. I hope that following this post, we shall both be clear about each other’s position.
And ok, let’s keep this simple:
Two ID labs:
Biologic Institute
Evolutionary Informatics Lab
50+ peer reviewed scientific papers.
http://www.discovery.org/a/2640
I got that just from that link I gave you.
“In 2011, the ID movement counted its 50th peer-reviewed scientific paper and new publications continue to appear. The current boom goes back to 2004, when Discovery Institute senior fellow Stephen Meyer published a groundbreaking paper advocating ID in the journal Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington. There are multiple hubs of ID-related research.”
And I did read your other thread, ‘Pigs still don’t fly’. I really don’t care if ID is taught in schools or not. I never even heard of it until a coupla years ago. Critical analysis of evolution, sure. Goes without saying. I’m not really concerned about responding or refuting any of that, anything that I want to say, I’m putting right here.
“Lewontin said we cannot allow hypothesis to claim “spirits did it” unless all OTHER hypotheses have been exhausted.
Interestingly, we’ve never reached a point where all other hypotheses have been exhausted — we always find answers before we get there.”
That’s nice. So really, Darwin’s theory should never have been accepted, because we already had the answer of creation? Fascinating.
Okay, trying to simplify this because the dialogue has flopped all over the place into areas I don’t care about. Let me try to sum up.
1) There is nothing to prohibit superhuman intelligence in science.
2) God is a superhuman intelligence.
3) Therefore he is valid in science.
That’s creation. For ID it’s:
1) Design is apparent in nature.
2) Design denotes intelligence.
3) Therefore, nature had an intelligent designer.
You seem to be saying, that because you feel evolutionary design accounts for life better, that that of necessity means that competing theories are invalid.
If you agree with my points, and that there’s no reason that God, or an Intelligent Designer is automatically inapplicable or invalid as science, then that will resolve this debate.
And the fruit of intelligent design is well… fruit. We already have the *results* of intelligent design. It’s in the universe around us. ID is about detecting the design itself, as the best hypothesis, or even just a hypothesis for the apparence of design in nature. If we find alien civilisations, but no aliens, that is us detecting intelligent design. (Read Greg Bear’s Queen of Angels, he makes some cogent remarks on this whole thing, although he’s on the other side, I would say.)
And intelligent design could absolutely and already has yielded results. Just some small examples. It correctly predicted that we would find that ‘junk DNA’ was not a junky as we thought. I personally figured out that there was no way the appendix did nothing, and deduced it was some sort of specialised buffer organ that didn’t see much action on average, when I was a kid and people were telling me it was useless. (Before I even knew there was some sort of controversy going on).
http://seattletimes.com/html/nationworld/2003929195_append06.html
Also, I know of two or so creationist predictions off hand that trumped the orthodoxy. The magnetic field strength of two of our gas planets Voyager II surveyed, and the temperature of Venus before it was surveyed.
Intelligent Design would or will inform us our skills of genetic engineering, and a form of Intelligent Design, i.e the idea that God created the universe, got us all the way to Darwin.
And you seem to grant the influence of evolution with far more credit than it deserves. AIDs and microbiotics only concern *mutation* not evolution. HIV for example, always reverts to it’s original basic type. To my eyes, that looks like a designed responsiveness to biological attack, switching weapons to something more useful.
They’ve dug up viruses that have been hundreds of years old, and it is exactly the same as it always was.
Nobody ‘evolves’ a treatment, because that should be completely impossible, unless we’re saying that species can evolve within hours instead of millions of years.
People *say* that evolution is the most useful thing in medicine, but you’re going to have to show me some examples, since I doubt people really develop medicine by waiting a million years. About the only thing I can think of where evolution has inspired advancement, is software, and that’s just conceptual inspiration.
What I think, is that people are mistaking advanced molecular biology as being evolution, when it’s actually just design. DNA is often spoken of as a ‘blueprint’.
My mother is a microbiologist who runs a lab, and she’s never run into any problems requiring evolution, even if that was possible.
I find it curious that you are (I assume) a bible-believer, yet you think the scriptures will actually defend evolution, or at least refute my straight-forward interpretation of 6-days (and I used to be old-earth, by the by). In fact, if I try hard, I could probably find three or four verses of Paul if not Jesus, about men thinking themselves wise who became fools (you might have been thinking of the same), and ‘you have hidden it from wise men and revealed it to babes’, and the trap and the lie of materialism and material thinking. And stuff like exchanging the glory of god for crappy stuff like idols of wood, etc. I’m sure relevance can be milked out of them. I probably wrote them down in my notebook.
Or how about John 5:45-47? – “Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father; there is one that accuses you, Moses, in whom you have put your hope. (46) In fact, if you believed Moses you would believe me, for that one wrote about me. (47) But if you do not believe the writings of that one, how will you believe my sayings?”
Even if you can rework the scriptures to tacitly accept evolution (as some do), it would not defend it. I have no problem with you sending missionaries if you like, although I assume you were being rhetorical. I like discussing scripture with whoever. You never know where an important insight might come from.
Since it seems we both actually believe in the bible, I’d suggest we not turn this into a theological war. But again, it’s up to you.
(And by ‘cult’ did you mean creationists or JWs? If I was a ‘non-conformist Christian’ would I still be a cult? Oh, please oh please!)
I apologise if there’s anything in your post that felt I ignored, my focus is divided, and I’m trying to solidify the discussion, here. We’ve expended a great many words that seem like we shooting right past each other.
I believe I’ve presented cogent proof that ID is a science, based on that it in fact does have labs, and does publish a number of pro-ID papers.
We both seem to agree there’s no reason to distinguish between angels and aliens when it comes to science, and that for all purposes they’re pretty much the same.
(The theological distinction comes because Christian folk tend to regard them as non-material, or something beyond the currently observable physics, but scientifically it’s still a question).
And that’s all I would love to have from this. ID is a legitimate science. It may not be the big theory, it may not even be widely accepted, people might think it’s bullsh**, but it is still a legitimate scientific program. Just like SETI, just like string theory, just like dark matter hypothesis, etc, etc, ad nauseum.
(Post really wasn’t as short as I intended. Apologies.)
I didn’t assume any difference between extraterrestrials and anything. You brought the subject up. All assumptions are yours.
Do you believe here is some rule in science that says “you can’t study anything supernatural?” Is that the source of your misconception about what is investigated and how science works?
No such rule. The rule is a bit different, like this: You can’t assume that something affected the outcome of your experiment because you want it to; you must study only those effects that actually occur.
So far as the search for life outside our solar system, it does not matter whether that life calls itself Odin or Zeus, or Thing 2, or Bob. What matters is that it communicates with electromagnetic means that our radio telescopes can pick up.
Of course, you’re aware that no angels have sent any messages, right?
Because you don’t apprehend this methodology, you completely misunderstand what Lewontin said, and why it’s accurate.
What he said is that science doesn’t have any special tools to detect gods, angels, or other spirits. So, we do not assume that any spirit has mucked with an experiment or observation, especially without evidence.
We cannot say we are looking for God, in other words, and then say that light is evidence of God because we don’t know about photons (to pick one point of ignorance obviated in the last century).
Lewontin said we cannot allow hypothesis to claim “spirits did it” unless all OTHER hypotheses have been exhausted.
Interestingly, we’ve never reached a point where all other hypotheses have been exhausted — we always find answers before we get there.
Consequently, as Dr. Lewnontin explains in that book (which, of course, you did not bother to actually read — heavens, you have no clue who Lewontin is, nor why anyone would listen to him; for all you know he’s the chief creationist for Answers in Genesis), people who seek to do science should NEVER say “We’ll stop here and assume Goddidit.” That’s the lazy way out, and it’s been proven wrong on everything that counts.
Now, cast off your yellowed glasses that make you see everything as jaundiced, and read Lewontin’s statement again. He’s saying that one cannot do science if one assumes one knows the answer before forming a hypothesis, and not before getting the data that test the hypothesis.
If, after you’ve found a good question to pursue, you’ve devised the experiment and got it properly controlled, you’ve analyzed the data and removed any bit of bias, you discover the foot in the door is the foot of a god and not your lab assistant who has forgotten her key and wants to stop the door from locking her out, then you’ve got a grand paper.
Do you understand? Not every foot in the door is God’s foot. Not even religious people make that assumption, if they have a lick of common sense and a proper understanding of their duty to seek and tell the truth.
You said:
My entire argument is that ID is not science unless it formulates questions, devises experiments to test those questions and hypotheses, and then honestly reports the data from the experiments and observations before moving on to the next question, which probably arose because the experiment provided information non one expected.
As I noted — you would do well, very well, to read the essay I wrote before you go off half-cocked about what I said — there is no lab doing work on an ID hypothesis. Mr. Johnson came up with the idea of intelligent design as an alternative theory, as any criminal defense attorney might propose other ways the crime could have been done by someone other than the attorney’s client. Johnson is an attorney. But that is not the scientific method, and it is not science.
As Jesus said, we know the tree by its fruit. We use evolution every day in the fight against cancer, the fight against AIDS, in the breeding of miracle seeds to speed the existing Green Revolution and bring on another, in our observations of our domestic stock and observations of animals and plants in the wild. There are 10,000 papers published each year under the evolutionary paradigms, advancing science, beating disease, increasing crop yields, defeating weeds and other pests, and generally making our lives better. The fruits of evolution are all around us, from almost all the meats we eat in the U.S. to almost all the fruits and vegetables and grains we consume. You stroll through the produce aisle at the supermarket and you are faced with applied evolution at every turn — corn, tomatoes as big as your fist, artichokes, citrus sweet enough to eat, grapefruit, which did not exist at all 200 years ago, seedless oranges, apples whose pests in the Americans evolved to feed upon them, etc., etc.
And the fruit of intelligent design is . . . . nothing, nowhere.
Jesus was right. If the fruit is rotten the tree is bad. If the fruit is bitter, the tree is bad (though we may be able to alter its offspring . . . ), and if the fruit is non-existent . . . well, you know what Jesus did to that poor little olive tree.
The Bible, the New Testament, already has scripture to deal with fruitless claims like intelligent design, and fruitless claims like “pigs fly.” It’s too bad so many in your cult seem so unfamiliar with Christian scripture. Can we send some missionaries your way?
Please read this before going on: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/intelligent-design-pigs-still-dont-fly/
“Well good for you. It, however, still isn’t science and is still nothing but a heretical belief.”
FAVOURITE quote of the day! XD
Don’t burn me! o.O
Hahaha, this is fantastic! I’m so glad I managed to find this site again.
Let me, as simply as I can, explain why your responses are awesome.
I am a Christian. One of the religious folk. A good ol’ young earth fundie bible believer.
I was playing, with direct irony, to your own prejudice.
“On what evidenced do you propose that? You made an assumption — wholly unevidenced — that there is some sort of difference between extraterrestrials and angels.”
This is the greatest example of how not to refute me. Since my whole point has been why do *you* assume there’s a difference? Why are ETs a subject of scientific inquiry, but angels are not? So this actually means you agree with me, and my point is completely valid! Kudos!
But let’s continue regardless.
“If “spirits” wish to send a message to the array used to track the signals SETI looks for, let ‘em. You assume such signals cannot be picked up — but again, your assumption is wholly unwarranted.”
Again, lol! Since when did I say that? What you seem to be suggesting is that we are only allowing to use radio-dishes and interpreting star-signals to look for ETs, whether or not it’s the best way, or necessary. I’m not saying that SETI should be shut down. I’m saying that as long as it operates, it makes a case that you need zero-evidence to pursue a science, or look for superhuman intelligence. Drake whipped a number out of his butt, and got funding to look for aliens.
“You imagine some sort of animosity in science to the idea of spirits — you provide no evidence of such animosity — and you imagine, therefore, science somehow distinguishes between spirits religionists hope to see, and other extraterrestrial life. That imagining is, again, without warrant or evidence.
You’re imagining some great conflict. Why, I don’t have a clue. ”
I would love if you are right here. I really want to agree with you. Unfortunately, your entire post and thread here has been an attack on ID, and why it is, on assumption, not a science.
So does this mean, in your view, that the theory that spirits are not outside the realm of science?
Or, the idea that the apparent design in nature, fully enables the the theory that they could be intelligently designed?
I never asked science to look for a specific sort of alien. ID isn’t even about looking for spirits, or even aliens, or gods, or anything of that nature. It’s purely examining material evidence, and making direct conclusions.
“You also said, that if angels appeared, then that is a ‘natural event’.
“Ab.so.lute.ly.
We both completely agree! If science countenances nothing supernatural, why assume that theories involving God and the angels, must only be interpreted as supernatural? ”
Are you now claiming religious spirits cannot be detected by any mechanism? If so, how could you ever distinguish them from an LSD hallucination? And what’s your kick? We don’t search the universe for such hallucinations, either.”
I don’t even know what that’s responding to. You seem to be accidentally fighting for my side here. I’m saying that if the ooga-booga people looked up, saw an aeroplane, and went ‘wow, look at the big flying spirit-god!’, why would a scientist therefore be forced to not believe in the existence of aeroplanes, because a primitive people labelled it as a spirit?
Do you see what I’m getting at? If you think the testimony of angelic visitation in the bible is disqualified, only because someone waved a ‘spirit’ label at them, it really should not be difficult, to go, ‘well, just because they called it a spirit, doesn’t mean it wasn’t a real live alien visitor’.
Stephen Hawkings thought that the Higgs boson was a myth, or a ‘hallucination’, if you like, and now he has to fork over $100. And we’re not looking for hallucinations, or even just a random idea someone had, we’re looking for contemporary evidence of historical testimony.
And, just to be explicitly clear. I do not believe in the existence of ETs, (aside from God and his angels), though I have nothing against it. That doesn’t stop them from being scientifically valid, according to SETI supporters. And all this, without a scrap of producible evidence. Chemical compounds does not intelligent life make. Or else just seeing a star would be proof of Intelligent Life, since it has all that materials for it, according to cosmology.
“Science doesn’t reject “supernatural.” Science rejects “absolutely no evidence.” If you have no evidence for an entity, in science, you are not allowed to hypothesize that it exists and changes things that do exist.
ID shares that with claims of the supernatural — no evidence exists for either one. That doesn’t mean science confuses them. It means they do not affect science hypotheses.”
Hahaha, science does not reject ‘supernatural’? Then we have no problem. However, it’s patently false. Materialism, and naturalism, are the *constants* of our science.
Here’s a infamous quote you might like:
” ‘We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism.
It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door.” – Richard Lewontin
There absolutely is evidence of intelligent design. Even intelligent design of biological life. Even Dawkins admits that nature ‘appears designed’, but that it’s simply an illusion.
What you are requiring, in order for it to be a valid line of inquiry, a *scientific* one, is *proof* that life is intelligently designed. And in your words, ‘that’s not how science works’. You need to be able to pursue a theory, whether or not man was ‘meant’ to fly.
If you have no evidence for something, then you’re not allowed to hypothesise?
Seriously? SETI, hello?
I don’t mind if you love SETI. Just don’t mess with ID because you don’t like non-material explanations. It’s an irrelevant objection.
“Better scientists don’t. ID advocates and other creationists allow their faith to dictate what they want to see in their experiments, and to skew the results of their experiments. Very simply, that’s why it’s not science. Even ID advocates know that. There is not a single laboratory in the nation (or world) pursing research along a paradigm of intelligent design — not even a good ID hypothesis. With nearly 10,000 papers each year utilizing evolution theories, were ID an important concept in those sciences, we would expect to see dozens, or perhaps hundreds of such papers with an ID hypothesis. Year after year, zero. In the 30 years since the ID hypothesis was propounded (by a lawyer who, thank heaven, did not teach evidence — not by a scientist), only three papers have sneaked into print — two have been retracted.
ID simply is not science.”
I’m not even going to argue your stats, because it is such a perfect example of making my point about bias. (And I’m too lazy to google.)
You managed to throw in every subjective, emotional, unsubstantiated qualifier known to man. Better scientists? And you assume that ID advocates and creationists just skew results? (Of non-existent research, according to you.) And all this with the implication that ‘better scientists’ like atheists and evolutionists, do not?
And considering, as afore mentioned, that there’s at least one agnostic in ID, sort of blows that assertion out. Working on ID does not require faith at all. (Unless it’s faith in science.)
And even assuming all the stats here are perfect, and all that ‘there’s-no-labs’ stuff, you still admitted that there is even now, an ID paper with an ID hypothesis (which you said previously was non-existent, so how does that work?) in circulation. Guess what? It only takes one.
Is it your contention, that even if an ID paper is in circulation and valid, that you can arbitrarily decide that it’s not? (And that’s just ID, I know for a fact that there’s a massive number of creation-supporting papers).
Are you proceeding from your love of rationality, or of your distaste for ID?
And the whole point of this thing, is that the whole, ‘there’s-not-enough-ID-paper’ is because they believe the same as you, that it simply cannot be admitted as science. They’ll dedicate entire books to arguing it, but they don’t want to allow it any *real* intellectual validity.
Actually, I’ll share this tidbit with you, since it’s the most recent I’ve read. Those paragons of scientific virtue:
http://voxday.blogspot.co.nz/2012/09/the-immoral-mind-of-marc-hauser.html
Don’t get me wrong, I’ve got nothing against ya, you seem like a wonderfully intelligent and articulate fellow, even if we obviously will inevitably cross blades over these subjects. I don’t expect you to like ID, since it’s been quite effectively represented to the public as Creationism 2.0.
But it would be nice if you didn’t try to nuke it under false pretences of I’m-Just-Being-Rational-Here. We won’t diss your SETI, if you don’t get a boner over schoolyard pick-on-the-nerd mentality. (‘Schuse my language.) That’s the win I’m looking for.
Oh, actually, I did just decide to google anyway, and here’s what I got.
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/02/in_time_for_dar055851.html
And I missed all the fun. :(
To quote:
Maybe Christians and religious folk are simply too blinded by prejudice to understand that God and his servants are natural creatures.
*falls over laughing* you attack Christians and religious folk as blinded by prejudice…and yet your very statement so blatantly displays your own bias and prejudice.
To quote:
And ID is important to me. :)
Well good for you. It, however, still isn’t science and is still nothing but a heretical belief.
On what evidenced do you propose that? You made an assumption — wholly unevidenced — that there is some sort of difference between extraterrestrials and angels. Then you claim that scientists have some sort of bias, because of your unwarranted assumption.
That’s just not the way science works.
SETI is funded by contrbutions from people who think we owe it to ourselves to look for life. Fermi said it’s unlikely life is out there — because we haven’t seen any yet (same way we can be pretty sure time travel doesn’t work: We are not flooded with time travel tourists).
But our observations show the chemicals necessary for life here exist in every corner of the universe. LIfe is very robust, really — it exists in astonishing extremes of temperatures, pressure, acidity and aridity. Is there life out there? No evidence of intelligent life, yet.
If “spirits” wish to send a message to the array used to track the signals SETI looks for, let ‘em. You assume such signals cannot be picked up — but again, your assumption is wholly unwarranted.
You imagine some sort of animosity in science to the idea of spirits — you provide no evidence of such animosity — and you imagine, therefore, science somehow distinguishes between spirits religionists hope to see, and other extraterrestrial life. That imagining is, again, without warrant or evidence.
You’re imagining some great conflict. Why, I don’t have a clue.
You can apply statistics to them, simply by counting the number of times they appear in the bible. I can think of at least four, distinctly.
You also said, that if angels appeared, then that is a ‘natural event’.
Are you now claiming religious spirits cannot be detected by any mechanism? If so, how could you ever distinguish them from an LSD hallucination? And what’s your kick? We don’t search the universe for such hallucinations, either.
What do you mean, “according to ID?” There is no ID hypothesis. There is no ID evidence. There is no branch of scientific knowledge called “ID.” Who are you to tell us what a non-existent discipline believes?
Perhaps you’re failing to understand how science works. Science works on what we can observe, and what the numbers show (quantum mechanics is way out there, but at least we seem to have some confirmation of the existence of the Higgs particle).
Science doesn’t reject “supernatural.” Science rejects “absolutely no evidence.” If you have no evidence for an entity, in science, you are not allowed to hypothesize that it exists and changes things that do exist.
ID shares that with claims of the supernatural — no evidence exists for either one. That doesn’t mean science confuses them. It means they do not affect science hypotheses.
Better scientists don’t. ID advocates and other creationists allow their faith to dictate what they want to see in their experiments, and to skew the results of their experiments. Very simply, that’s why it’s not science. Even ID advocates know that. There is not a single laboratory in the nation (or world) pursing research along a paradigm of intelligent design — not even a good ID hypothesis. With nearly 10,000 papers each year utilizing evolution theories, were ID an important concept in those sciences, we would expect to see dozens, or perhaps hundreds of such papers with an ID hypothesis. Year after year, zero. In the 30 years since the ID hypothesis was propounded (by a lawyer who, thank heaven, did not teach evidence — not by a scientist), only three papers have sneaked into print — two have been retracted.
ID simply is not science.
And I am perfectly at ease with my flapping. Generally leads to exciting innovations in transportation.
And ID is important to me. :)
Hahaha, you sort of made my point. There is no scientific data that spirits exist, because we have no idea what constitutes a spirit. So a spirit could be an immaterial substance that has no connection to anything we understand to be a part of the physical world, or it could be a really energetic ball of helium.
This isn’t proceeding from an assumption that the existence of some substance we have no definition of needs to be established before we can consider them ‘fair game’ for thought.
All we really have to go on, from the bible, is that they’re superior to us, and they’re messengers of god, and they have the ability to do amazing things. It does not say that they do it by using fairy dust, or their three wishes, it does not say that the angelic civilisation uses advanced technology to accomplish their needs just as we do?
You touched on it. ‘Without evidence’. Why is science allowing it to be prescribed by our religious and personal convictions?
My absolute, quintessential point, is that the only grounds upon which you can make a distinction between an angel and an alien, non-human extra-terrestrial intelligences, is theological. Since science does not take theology into consideration, then an angel is simply a proposed form of alien life. There is no legitimate, scientific filter to preclude them from consideration, other than someone wrote something about them in a book you cannot pay attention to.
So, I would propose, that you in fact have a religiously motivated bias against the consideration of a legitimate inquiry.
You can apply statistics to them, simply by counting the number of times they appear in the bible. I can think of at least four, distinctly.
You also said, that if angels appeared, then that is a ‘natural event’.
Ab.so.lute.ly.
We both completely agree! If science countenances nothing supernatural, why assume that theories involving God and the angels, must only be interpreted as supernatural? Maybe Christians and religious folk are simply too blinded by prejudice to understand that God and his servants are natural creatures.
Since they were here before us, wouldn’t that more properly just make us ‘sub-natural’ at best? A.k.a. artificial? According to ID.
You see why I think the objection of ‘supernatural’ is childish? It’s like a ten year-old hassling people about double-negatives.
And let’s add this up.
The bible lists a number of angelic visitors (or alien, if you like). Quite specific. So, this would be an admission of evidence (not necessarily proof) of the existence of angelic life.
Whereas on the other hand, SETI and number-conjuring fantasists have produced 0 examples of extra-terrestrial life. And so we don’t get picky about chemical compounds, I’ll modify that to e-t intelligent life.
Of the two, the bible has more objective weight in its favour than the generally considered ‘scientific’ SETI.
And also, if you would like to discuss the ‘issues and contradictions’ that trouble you in the bible, I have no problem with it, since I’ve been involved in that sort of debate from day 1 of all this stuff.
And yes, both on the internet and in real life, people often suspect me of being on some kind of permanent hyper-drug. I had a happy-cookie experience once. Except it was that nobody believed that I didn’t eat any of it. I have no explanation, except that I continue to hold in the belief that I am awesome. Because, you know, you can’t stop me. :)
Also, do you have a scintillating whiff of whether dark matter exists? I’d would be fascinated to hear the powerful line of reasoning that distinguishes it as not belonging to the ‘invisible’, ‘mysterious’, ‘undefinable’ categories, save that it makes gravity.
And people seem to have a rather simplistic appreciation of the word ‘faith’.
I have faith in my (earthly) father. Due to powerful and sufficient evidence.It’s not something I spuriously invented so I could tell people how cool Dad is. Faith is not the antonym of reason. It doesn’t disappear at inverse proportions to how likely something becomes. (Though it could play some sort of ambiguous factor. I’m sure there’s a neat Terry Pratchett quote that could be inserted here.)
I can say on faith that the sun will rise tomorrow, barring evil owls and bronchitis. That’s not because I’ve mentally calculated the orbits of the earth and the sun, the gravitational influence of all the planetary bodies in the system, and the effect of starlight. I’m just confident, because of all the intuitive reasons we all believe that it will, because experience tells us it’s pretty reliable, because we intuitively know that people wouldn’t lie about something like that.
I can also tell you on faith that there are over 7 billion people in the world right at this moment, even though I’ve personally seen only a few thousand people in my entire life, and there could have been a horrible meteoric catastrophe in the last 5 seconds.
In Paul’s words:
Hebrew 11:1 -
“Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstrations of realities though not beheld.”
The evident demonstrations… of realities though not beheld. Such as atoms. You can’t see them, but the experiments Rutherford performed demonstrated their existence. Wind.It’s invisible, but there’s not a person on the planet that denies it’s there. And so on, and so forth.
Also, if you wish to get into a discussion about scriptural literature, I have no objections. I would only consider myself a bible student at this stage, but I’m moderately confident I can allay some your fears about the intellectual vulnerability of the bible. One could almost say I have faith.
I should also tell you, that since I have my roots as one of Jehovah’s Witnesses, I’m not using the King James version (though I believe I have it, also). NWT is the bible for me. Plus it’s a bigger version than the KJ. :)
The ‘unicorn’ you refer to, off the top of my head, was actually a form of oxen, straight horns or some such to the point of exquisite bovine perfection. Thus ‘one-horn’. Highly prized among the ancients, it must be assumed.
Of course, I couldn’t swear to it. Maybe there actually were unicorns. They look (according to our reliable sources of legends and fingerpainting) 98 % just like horses. I’m sure evolution could manage a head-bone. :D
Maybe it’s antennapedia! :O
Yeah, look out for the fork.
Here, please read what I wrote about ID. I dealt with some of the issues you raise, and I deal with others you didn’t touch: http://timpanogos.wordpress.com/2007/10/01/intelligent-design-pigs-still-dont-fly/
Perhaps. Maybe you should stop flapping about ID, about imagined slights, imagined science and imagined history, and try some social commentary some time.
Haven’t had this kind of experience since the hippie down the hall forgot which brownies he cooked the stuff in, and ate all of them. We had to try to convince him that he didn’t have to attend class in the summer. Ultimately we decided just to let him go to class. He couldn’t find his way off the block, let alone to school.
A couple of days of sleep, he was fine.
Statistics suggest there should be life on other planets, though some (Fermi, famously), think not. But no one has ever seen one. If aliens show up, they will not be supernatural.
Angels not only have no evidence in their favor, there also are no statistics suggesting they should be anywhere. If they show up, that would be a natural event.
But generally, angels are defined by religionists as supernatural because, it is assumed (without evidence) they may defy some of the laws of physics.
Technically speaking, there is no evidence of God. That’s why we call it “faith.”
Who has determined there are spirits of any sort? Show me the paper. There is no evidence of spirits, especially the detectable sort.
Oh, there are unicorns in the Bible, too. If you want to discuss science, don’t start with the Bible, any version of it.
We don’t know. There’s been no hint of a whiff of an iota of a scintilla of evidence that spirits exist.
Wait, people don’t believe in Intelligent Design? So where did cars come from? And cities? From invisible undesigned storks?
I think people deliberately, and with some satisfaction, try not to understand the concept of Intelligent Design too clearly. Kind of like how I wouldn’t want to be seen talking to UFO guys unless I was obviously mocking them. And it’s a lot easier if you can just smoosh it together with creation, because those guys are vulnerable to anti-religion bullets. And we certainly wouldn’t want people thinking ID has any sort of intellectual validity would we? Or else we might have to think that maybe you can’t just brush it off as for the weak intellectual, like… physicists, biologists, philosophers, geologists, etc…
(Not that they couldn’t have weak intellects. It’s apparently a scientific tradition to assume that everyone but your own people, do.)
Or is it simply non-human design responsible for the design of humans that’s being objected to as non-scientific? Then Dawkins has been entertaining some rather unscientific notions. He obviously can’t be trusted. (As has a large proportion of the nerd population, but there you go.)
Just the existence of a non-human (perhaps superior) intelligence? Then they should shut down SETI.
Let’s talk creationism, now.
Explain to me he scientific distinction between an angel and an alien? They’re supernatural? On what authority have they been defined that way? I don’t ever recall them being described that way by the bible. Technically speaking, God would be the *only* ‘natural’ thing.
Angels are spirits? How it been scientifically determined that spirits are not materially detectable? They can obviously interact in some way. There are any number of people who are recorded in the bible as having first-hand detection of them, in both human and spirit forms. How do you know that spirits aren’t also made up of a type of physical matter? Dark matter angels perhaps? Perhaps heaven is that ghostly ‘missing part’ of the universe?
And like it or not, basically anything we know about the universe, is founded upon philosophy and ideas. Science was once known as ‘natural philosophy’. Scientists create scientific experiments, observations etc, in order to test an idea. Creation research, ID, both represent this endeavour.
Our entire field(s) of science is built on the assumption that we know what we’re talking about, that we even have the ability to do useful science, and comprehend that it is useful. You believe that the existence of God is unlikely, then you believe that the universe has the same sense of probabilities that you do. That the universe we percieve isn’t some unidentified reality illusion controlled by little white spiders, or that we’re plugged into the matrix.
The idea is not the science. But the idea is what prompts us to use science in the first place. Some bearded guy sees a star, he wonders what it’s made of. Then astronomy is born, without needing some sort of scientific precedent. It wasn’t invented because people found that looking down would allow one to study the earth. A science was invented for the grand purpose of what science is for, to find an answer to a question. Or to understand the answer better.
And how retarded would it be, if say God came down, chariots blazing, angels singing etc, to play a game of golf with the Pope or something; and it was all caught on film, eyewitnesses, signed documents, what-have-you, and then to CONTINUE saying that you can’t do ‘creation science’ ir ‘ID’ because it just isn’t science. That’s like saying, you can’t use the video-tapes and signed documents and eye-witnesses in court to prove the existence of God, because he’s *legally* unproveable.You’d have to be a lunatic. (Makes me think of ‘Contact’ somehow.)
Cart before the horse.
We kind of want to get started before Armageddon. If you don’t mind.
A more conventional analogy:
If we had a magical (because that’s conventional) video recording of say, a giant meteor that crashed to earth in the 1400s in England, (because we watch Timeline), we could legitimitely perform a geological dig in order to get some corroborating data or evidence.
If we dig up a blade with some weird double-fold technique, then we do a reconstruction to see with what tools and materials such a sword could be made, and thus, where it may have come from. We figure that only the Japanese after a certain century could have made such a weapon, and then we must ask how it ended up in Australia 3000 years ago. (I made that up by the way, just in case you think it’s a thing.)
For creationists, there is a historical record in the bible (or other such texts for the non-Christian dudes).
For ID, it is based upon the principle that life is too complex to be undesigned, and thus had a designer(s). Who or how, is undetermined, being the other end of the equation.
That the two research interests are of value to each other is intuitively obvious. Just like the fields of biology and geology are valuable to each other, archaeology and history, classic physics and quantum physics.
It’s a powerfully repressive culture which is getting in the way of what has to be considered an important field of inquiry, since it’s so often and intensely debated by everyone. Or more accurately, from having the research taken seriously, or allowed to go to the right places, taking monumental effort to share even incidental data.
Wouldn’t we want our top minds free and interested to work on some of the most important questions we have? If there’s even a chance that science could prove or even disprove the existence of God, or if mankind was designed by someone else, if we were an accident or purposed, if there is extra-terrestrial life; we want those guys to be throwing scientific muscle at it, instead of inventing creative ways to prevent them because of our own orthodoxy.
I find it more interesting, that although ID conforms to the narrow standards forced upon the world (or respective countries) as to what sorts of research are and are not permitted, yet people have a specifically religious objection to it. Since ID relies and uses no religion as the basis of its work (I think one of them’s even an agnostic), the religious character belongs entirely to the objectors. So really, it is their objections which are invalid. Just like we can’t prohibit scientists from researching or teaching evolution simply on the basis of it being contrary to our own religious convictions.
The fact is, if you’re atheist or an evolutionist, you just don’t believe in creation or ID. You think it’s ignorant.Therefore, you don’t think anyone should learn it. You want to be the intellectual hero leading the charge into the shining pansexual-cyborg future like in those sci fis we read as kids.
And that’s just honest, that wouldn’t bother me in the least. What I object to people using dishonest methods to further their own agenda. I don’t think any of them/you really cares if creation or ID is scientific or not, they just don’t want it taught, and they don’t want it legitimised. That’s not what should determine fair policy, or good education. If it was, then evolution might never have gotten out of the gate. Or heliocentrism. Or washing your hands.
If ID or creation, or some science that was invented that gave full credibility to a creator or designer, ‘passed muster’ and was announced as a valid and useful science, I doubt very much that the larger portion of materialists would go ‘ohhhhh, okay, that’s all cool then. Good luck guys, hope you find him! Wait, do you need a hand?’
Curiously though, a lot of creationists and most/all ID-ists don’t seem overly concerned about teaching evolution. Sure, we think it’s wrong, and in an ideal world, no-one would need to be learning it, but in the present world, most of them/us that I’ve observed are all for teaching evolution, but teaching it properly, instead of slyly, of allowing for open discussion rather than constricted indoctrination.
Most seem to figure, and I agree, that in such a system, belief in evolution would inevitably fail under open, rational scrutiny, and everybody wins. (In the sense of freedom and better methods of education, anyway.)
I have the feeling that it’s inevitable anyway (even without some sort of divine action), which makes me feel all fuzzy inside tbh. Evolution and naturalism will eventually reach the point where it’s becomes universally obvious as fantastical and spurious far beyond the more simple concept of ‘it looks designed because it is designed’. And then maybe we’ll start paying attention to what the parallels of earth’s oldest myths might be telling us. Depending on our levels of conceit of course. I had a fellow tell me, quite breezily, how it’s ‘not surprising’ that so many ancient cultures spoke of a massive Deluge, because a culture that spent all it’s time outdoors herding animals obviously weren’t capable of distinguishing between the local floods that they frequently endured and survived, and a world-obliterating cataclysm of water that left only one family alive in a big boat. (Or a tree, occasionally.)
To be honest, I find the evidence that the ancient (or pre-) Egyptians had the power of flight to be more persuasive than that of evolution. At least that Abydos thing looks like what people say it looks like (and I’m assuming inspired SG-1). People were telling me for ages that the fossils proved evolution. Then I found out that the fossils looked like creation, and suddenly people were telling me ‘well the fossils aren’t that important for evolution’ (because it only happens when we’re not looking, apparently). Then it turns out that even evolutionists can’t even agree with each other, and we have Graduated vs Punctated (despite the fact that according to Darwin, the Graduated theory should have been falsified by the lack of fossil evidence which has gotten even worse since his time), as well as a myriad of sects on both sides. The only thing they really seem to agree on is that it wasn’t God. Just cos.
So now I have evolutionists are telling me that it doesn’t matter which theory of evo I believe, as long as it’s a state approved theory. No-one’s been making me salute a poster of Dawkins yet, but they’ll probably try it at least once.
So why are evolutionists going around decrying the state of education and the pernicious influence of creationism, if *they* can’t even teach me what the heck it is? I had to learn it on my own.
‘Evolution is a process that takes the accumulation of thousands or millions of years of mutations until it’s another species.’
Then.
‘Evolution is when you step on a moth, and now there are less white moths than black ones.’
Then:
‘It looks like it’s designed, but honestly it’s not!’
Then.
‘Evolution is this thing that you should believe because creation is dumb, and your God sucks.’
You know, I don’t have anything against evolution. If God did it that way, then he did. It would not make me miss a step to believe in evolution, except that it would necessitate a more ‘loose’ interpretation of Genesis. (Causing a cognitive dissonance I wouldn’t enjoy though, to be frank.)
The thing, I just don’t find it convincing. An atheist, or a materialist who doesn’t believe in God, has little choice but to believe that life arose because it did. Because I believe in God, a person of supreme competence, I don’t suffer the same intellectual restrictions.
It doesn’t have the substance even to overcome a teleological appreciation of the universe. Something that even little kids pick up on (as Dawkins will attest). All the stuff that I was told proved evolution, didn’t, and all the things that I’m being told now, requires that I already believe it, against the most in-your-face kind of contradictions.
They look at the fossil of a ancient Coelacanth and go ‘this fish is obviously in the middle of an evolutionary transition, look at its little fishy feets! So cute.’.
Then woah! They yank one up out of the sea and it looks exactly the same. ‘Well, obviously it’s a Lazarus doohickey that hasn’t been evolving for the last 400 million years. ‘
Because environments are obviously uber-stable and contained over 400 million years, and this was before they invented earthquakes or continental shift, or dinosaur hating meteors.
(Except evolution apparently saw fit to make the spine lopsided. Because that’s useful selection. And apparently the reason why they can’t use it for evolutionary analysis anymore. Which is amazing when you think you can use birds to analysis the evolution of dinosaurs. I mean, the answer always turns out wrong, but you can still do it.)
When people defend the Coelacanth, and invoke the rather pitiable, dry, ‘oh reeeeaally’ sort of affectation (because isn’t it *obvious* that [googlesearch] [insert answer]).
Or to the effect of: ‘You know, I thought you might have had something there, but now I see you haven’t. With that said, I’ll decline to engage any further, and just let you assume I’m correct.’
It honestly invokes my pity rather than my ire, it makes me think of people like those Christians who bend over backwards in order to show you how God isn’t reeeeally condemning homosexual conduct, or Ben Kenobi who wasn’t reeeeally lying to Luke. At some point, you gotta realise you’re a douche.
(Just speaking generically, not you specifically, random reader. Ben Kenobi was such a jerk.)
And I’m sure half the people on this thread could give lists of examples of ‘extinct ancient’ flora and fauna that’s been rediscovered and kicking around exactly the same as their ancient evolutionarily primitive ancestors. (So can you, with the wonder that is google search!) Fish, spiders, weeds, and what have you.
I reckon, you could dig up an ‘ancient fossilised’ signpost saying ‘God Was Here 4004 BC. First Day of Creation,’ and scientists will marvel over the bizarre coincidence, and what sort of strange grunty language must the ancient goat-people have really been using. (‘Look Ma, it’s a cow!)
Or, ‘Isn’t it wonderful the marvellous ways in which mother nature can fool us? Experts show…’
Then laugh at the silly creationists who believe in a God. “Where’s your proof? And don’t try and use that creotardy ‘signpost’ thing, scientists debunked that ageees ago.’
They give people crap for thinking dinosaurs and men intersected, and then some dude/chick pulls up basically the oldest animal ever onto the boat. But don’t worry folks, ‘all the evidence in the world points to evolution’, anybody will tell ya. Even when it’s wrong. Let me write it down for you if you’re not sure.
I think I’m done. :) Social commentary is fun. :D
To quote:
Can we not agree to disagree?
Just as soon as the Creationists/IDers acknowledge reationism/ID isnt science, is not an alternative to the theory of evolution, and should not be taught in any science class on the planet.
You want poetry here? Go to the “search” box, and type in “poetry.”
Or, go to the “categories” box (“bathtub toys”) farther down the right-hand column, use the drop-down menu, select “poetry.”
Here’s a nice collection of poems at this site: “28 poems on living life to the fullest”
Poetry? It’s there if you look and don’t deny it. Like evolution: It’s there if you look and don’t deny it.
Has anyone considered Darwin can coexist with religeon? Yes. We are here. No, we don’t know how we got here, but we are here nonetheless. Can we not agree to disagree? FYI: this site should have the poems on it as was advertised.
It looks like all you have to do to get a mountain of nutcase comments is put the phrases “intelligent design” or “climate change” in your original post.
The commenters don’t know what the hell they’re talking about but if it involves scientific method and fact they’re against it.
Great blog, Ed, I’m so glad I stumbled across it. You perform a wonderful educational service. You might enjoy my husband’s blog, The Solipsistic Me, as well. Our regular contributor did a great post on junk science this week. Cheers, Robert H-S
Just to put my two cents, I agree with evolution but not natural selection.
Which is like saying that you agree that the sun sets in the west but that you think it sets in Hawaii before it sets in Minnesota.
Just to put my two cents, I agree with evolution but not natural selection.
Evolution is NOT blind; it follows a definite mathematical pattern determined by the structure of DNA, and always leads to greater complication.
DNA existed BEFORE life, so the fact that humans share 99% of genes with chimps is irrelevant.
It’s like if you had a certain number of Lego bricks, and could build anything with it, but only add things in a certain sequence.
So the “if you left mud for a billion years it wouldn’t evolve” argument is irrelevant.
However, there is no evidence that natural selection exists.
We know what happens when a group of organisms face a change in environment – they die out.
We know this because we’ve observed it thousands of times.
What happens with bacteria is they multiply so rapidly, the DNA transforms, and they “find a niche”.
However, only very minor changes can be allowed.
A change in temperature, for instance, will lead to extinction.
>Observation 1: Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
Many species have quite poor fertility in fact. Pandas for instance.
>Observation 2: Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.
How does this comply with observation 1 ?
>Observation 3. Food resources are limited, and are constant most of the time.
Food resources are often abundant. In fact they almost always are during the breeding season.
>Inference A: In such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.
The struggle is between predator and prey ; only very rarely between the same species.
>Observation 4: No two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant.
Many plants reproduce asexually. They are identical.
>Observation 5: Much of this variation is heritable.
? But many living organisms are identical.
Bruce Coulson said:
Something that cannot be disproven is not science — which automatically lets hypotheses of gods out the door.
There’s a difference between “can’t be disproven,” which is the mark of religion, and “could be disproven, but hasn’t been,” which is the mark of science.
Forgot one thing, Graeme. Lets say ID was taught in a science class.
Exactly how are you going to have teachers answer the inevitable question?
You know…who the identity of this “Creator” is?
Sorry little one, this is not a Christian theocracy. You don’t get to force your religious beliefs down the throats of others using the public schools. If you want to live in a theocracy…..I suggest Iran.
Your rights to your religious beliefs don’t grant you the right to force them on others.
And Intelligent Design is nothing but a religious belief.
Sorry Graeme, I didnt notice you said something to me until well just now.
I’ll ignore your stupid insults as the blatherings of someone who is incapable of engaging in a rational adult conversation.
So I’ll stick to answering your one question. That being this:
Where is you evidence against intervention?
I have no evidence against it. I’m Christian and I believe that God did create the universe. But see unlike you I recognize the difference between evidence and faith. It’s not that we who oppose Intelligent Design have to prove that it didn’t happen…it’s that you and your fellow supporters of ID have to prove that it did happen. Something in science isn’t assumed true until its proven wrong. SOmething in science is assumed unproven until it is proven. And ID simply has not been proven.
Your contention isn’t true merely because you say it. You have to prove your contention right. And if you’re unable to do so then at least be adult enough and mature enough to acknowledge that and recognize ID for what it actually is to you..an article of faith with no evidence.
Because to this Christian ID is nothing more then Creationism by another name. And Creationism is nothing more then the heretical and mutant bastard child of the Creation account in the Bible. The Creation account in the Bible says who and why. It does not say when or how. Creationism at its core, Graeme, says that God is a sociopathic liar. That God created the world and all the evidence of how He did it…but that the evidence…evolution among other scientific theories, is nothing but a lie. Sorry you can’t both believe that God created the world and then turn around and deny how God did it just because it doesn’t match your preconceived notions based on a misinterpretation of a human written book written a mere 6000 years ago. 6000 years ago is a drop in the bucket for the history of humanity, its an even smaller drop in the bucket of the history of this planet.
There’s no evidence disproving that Someone created the entire universe five minutes ago, along with all the necessary evidence establishing a supposedly longer time of existence, either. But I’m not advocating this be taught in the schools as ‘science’, even though it can’t be disproved.
No good Nick.
I know you are the drooling nutball stalls.
Sorry.
Sorry.
No handicaps for your bull—-.
No can you rule out intervention.
Yes or no.
You don’t get a handicap you moron.
Where is you evidence against intervention?
Graeme writes:
The problem for you is that we don’t have to rule it out. You have it prove that it happened. That is how science works.
And again…humans engaging in “intelligent design” does not prove nor is it evidence of other entities engaging in intelligent design.
So just to be perfectly clear about this, Bird thinks that:
1) Aliens were responsible for the Cambrian explosion.
2) Aliens built the pyramids.
3) Aliens interbred with humans as recently as 900 years ago.
Please, feel free to mock the idiot at will. Clearly, the New Zealand education system has much to answer for.
I don’t know for sure about that Birdlab. But you tell me. Are you able to rule that out, through your knowledge of evolutionary theory, as a possibility?
I don’t think so. Science isn’t about belief Birdlab. Its about methodology. So lets have you put this methodology to work.
Very stupid people follow me around. Thankfully I cannot count these stupid people as my fans. Quite the contrary. I don’t have the PZ Myers curse of knowing that the more stupid one is the more popular you are with them.
What is far more interesting birdlab, is the possibility of terraforming during the Cambrian explosion. The Cambrian explosion is a bit of a mystery when it comes to the dogma of natural selection.
If there is a time when we expect intervention into the human species it would be 200 000 years ago. But the Cambrian explosion is a far more comprehensive leap as far as the development of sudden complexity is concerned. I can think of other possibilities in the case of us humans. Whereas the Cambrian explosion has me quite baffled.
At last the Lunatic Space Cadet gets to the crux of the matter: Aliens intervened in the development of humans.
What a crank. What a whackaloon. What a dingbat.
Graeme, you have all the intelligence and mental agility of a croissant.
I know nothing about alien rapes Cambria. No offspring comes from one species raping another Cambria. You might think a pygmy elephant raping a pig might yield a big-eared porker. But I assure you that nothing would come of such a coupling. New species either take a very long time to come about through evolution. Or they have to be made in the lab. Hybrid species are born in a test-tube and not sired by alien rapists.
Oh lord. Ed Darrel, Tim lambert’s bitch, is here. I hope you’re shorter ED, if that were at all possible, without your chin hitting the ground.
——–
Bird:
Please tell everyone about these Alien rapes. I’m sure they would like to know more…..
Oh lord. Ed Darrel, Tim lambert’s bitch, is here. I hope you’re shorter ED, if that were at all possible, without your chin hitting the ground.
——–
Bird:
Please tell everyone about these Alien rapes. I’m sure they would like to know more.
“Tell us again about the Martians Graeme.”
Mars does not have the atmosphere to support indigenous macroscopic animal life.
Intelligent design is intelligent design. Its an identity relationship. It is not possible to break it down further than that. They designed and produced a new species directly. The bacteria did not evolve in the wild. It was produced in the lab. Thats intelligent design.
Its not a matter of me explaining it any more than the above. Its simply a matter of you deciding to stop lying.
Its a shame that you’ve closed down debate by way of relentless lying. Because the feebleness of the mainstream version of evolution is something that really needs to be explored.
I guess it was a little too much for a mindless dogmatist such as yourself to entertain.
I thought you probably can’t explain what intelligent design is, let alone how Ventner’s work qualifies.
You should look up “filibuster” some time. You’ve got it backwards. Quit filibustering and explain, if you can. (No, I don’t think you can.)
Tell us again about the Martians Graeme.
Wrong on everything else hey Birdlab? You see the sort of low-IQ crowd you attract to your side when you abandon the scientific method Ed?
You now have Birdlab supporting you on the idea that an example of intelligent design is NOT an example of intelligent design. You should be very proud you have gotten someone of Birdlab’s quality on your side.
I’ll have to come back in a little while to see if you guys have come clean. A is A. Intelligent design is intelligent design. Hence the example of the Venter team engaging in intelligent design is an example of intelligent design. Its no matter that ought need to be labored. But since Ed is insisting on a filibuster we may be waiting awhile.
My advice to you Ed would be to find out what the problems are, not with evolution, but with the mainstream version of it. One fellow to look at is Berlinski. Now if you were more comfortable with the problems in the mainstream theory you won’t need to go mentally constipated like this again and the discussion can flow easily.
Supposing you were more aware of where the holes in the mainstream version appear to be, you would be able to treat this as an intellectual exercise and not like you are a fundamentalist religious nutball.
What follows from a proper attention to methodology, including definitions …… is that we don’t have direct and repeatable examples of new species creation in the lab. All such new species creation have been examples of intelligent design.
We have to get back to the reality, that those of us who believe in evolution, do so because of massively convergent evidence, each individual strand of which is horribly weak. The bones don’t talk to us. They don’t tell their story. Where we have bones and DNA at the same time thats a much better indication. But generally speaking, individual pieces of evidence supporting the theory of evolution are famously weak.
Sorry Birdbrain, but you’re wrong about me being an economist.
Just as you’re wrong about everything else.
“If Myers is an idiot, we’re all fenceposts.”
Speak for yourself. Myers is a dim bulb. But if you feel he towers above you in intellect, then I’ll accept your personal estimate of your own abilities. But PZ Myers is a real dropkick. One of the dumbest people on the internet. And his following is just incredibly stupid.
Would they be so stupid as to not recognize the intelligent design of the Venter bacteria as an example of intelligent design?
That I don’t know. They are stupid but its not clear that they are insane.
“Here’s your chance: You explain how and why you think Ventner’s creation demonstrates intelligent design.”
Its not about me explaining why ED. Its you owning up. Ending your filibuster and admitting you are wrong. Now just come clean. We have examples of intelligent design. The dog. The Venter bacteria. These at the very least. Most of our agriculture has to come under that category as well. You came up with examples yourself. New species development. But only so far in the lab. Thats intelligent design.
Birdlab is an Australian economist so deranged that he stalks me and has even named himself after me. He is lying of course. I can represent my own conclusions straight, and don’t him to lie about matters.
Now has everyone come clean on the Venter bacteria, the dog, and the products of horticulture, being examples of intelligent design? My guess is the filibuster will have continued. Which will be a shame. Since we cannot go into the subject of evolution on the backs of people lying and being evasive.
Ed, you have to realise that Graeme’s adherence to Intelligent Design stems from his bizarre belief that human beigns are the result of genetic manipulation by a race of alien refugees from Mars.
In other words his ‘science’ derives pretty much full-blown from the script of Battlestar Gallactica.
If Myers is an idiot, we’re all fenceposts.
Here’s your chance: You explain how and why you think Ventner’s creation demonstrates intelligent design. Cite all the Dembski and Nelson papers you care to. Explain exactly how it has anything at all to do with the barely-hypothetical claims of intelligent design.
Go ahead, Graeme. Knock yourself out educating us, yourself, and the entire world.
It was the product of human intelligence working with the tools of life and evolution to make a living thing very much from scratch — but it has nothing whatever to do with the crank science hypotheses of intelligent design. Go ask Ventner, you’ll see.
Come on Graeme. Stop beating about the bush. Why don’t you just come out with your ridiculous ‘aliens interbred with humans’ rubbish and have done with it.
We can then proceed to ridicule you at will, you fat puffed-up galloot.
“Why is it a problem? Pesticide researchers, to pick one area, need to be sure their poisons work on the wild populations. But when populations are separated, as when one is held captive in a lab, nature takes over and creates new species.”
Man captures, isolates, and breeds this isolated critter, under wholly artificial conditions, subjecting it to reelentless one-sided stress … that it would not get for any sustained time in nature, and still survive…..
And your answer to all this?
“Nature takes over.”
Nature reaches into the Lab and just takes it off the stupid scientists hands, who were too dumb to know what they were doing, but did it anyway, and by purely natural processes, created a new species.
THAT YOUR STORY ED?
The idea is not to type so much Ed. Imagine your fingers moving toward the keyboard? Imagined that. Now in your minds eye JUST PULL THEM AWAY. Pull them away before you type stupid stuff.
All the examples of new species creation we have that we can call “testable” are examples of intelligent design. There is almost no point in going further into the debate until you admit this is the case, and obviously so.
Not according to Myers and Venter? By your sayso of their sayso? Or worse still, your sayso OF there Sayso? And notwithstanding that Myers is an idiot!
Look Ed? If you cannot type anything sensible, JUST STOP TYPING FOR AWHILE.
Now we must follow sound methodology. No use teaching dogma to the kids when what was needed was METHOD.
We must lock it in, that the Venter bacteria is an example of intelligent design. As is horticulture. As is the dog.
If you cannot get this right take a break until you can. This is a family blog of yours Ed. Kids are watching. They will see the luxurious lapses in reason. They will see the flippancy you guys have for evidence and logic. Its a bad example to be setting the kids.
Look Nick. I never said a thing about God. I’m an atheist. That shouldn’t matter but with you unscience goons it seems to. Now pull yourselves together.
We cannot hope to continue this discussion on a sound foundation unless everyone admits, and not grudgingly, that the Venter bacteria, is an example of intelligent design. So start admitting it so we can lock this in. Because we are going into the twilight zone here, and we cannot tolerate lax, bad, or NO, methodology.
Not according to the biologists, like Myers (clever how you didn’t respond to his debunking of your claim). Not according to Ventner. Not according to anyone in the know.
Not when it occurs due to natural operations. I didn’t say scientists intended to create a new species. You assume too much that is not in evidence.
In fly research this is a famous problem: How to keep the captive population from evolving into a new species. Why is it a problem? Pesticide researchers, to pick one area, need to be sure their poisons work on the wild populations. But when populations are separated, as when one is held captive in a lab, nature takes over and creates new species. Sometimes the new species is more immune to the pesticides than the wild populations, sometimes less so. Either way, lab workers struggle to prevent evolution. The flies do it on their own.
Another way to tell you don’t seem to understand what evolution is, or how it works.
Go read the books I recommended. The experts are less fuzzy than I, but they will rebut your claims. Go see.
Something that might have been created by man, Graeme, does not prove something else was created by God.
“So it’s not an example of intelligent design, it’s controversial, and it was made over the past 15 decades.”
For the love of logic man. Its an example of intelligent design. Don’t be an idiot. Get it right and lock it in. Its intelligent design and obviously so.
Pretty much everything you say here is wrong. The development of a new species in a lab would be verification of intelligent design. Its hard to know what you are talking about.
Ironically, achieved with thorough understanding of evolution. No hypothesis of intelligent design was confirmed by this exercise in evolutionary biology. (See the careful explanation of why, here, at Pharyngula.)
So it’s not an example of intelligent design, it’s controversial, and it was made over the past 15 decades.
Every part of evolution theory is testable, and has been tested. Evolution theory contains nothing that has not been observed in the laboratory and the wild. The ultimate evolution, the development of a new species, has been observed dozens of times over the last thousand years, sometimes in exquisite detail in the wild or in the lab.
Of the five principal observations that make up Darwin’s theory, all of them are key parts of wildlife management, science that is well established and most of which was well established when Darwin started to write in 1837.
[For readers who may be unfamiliar with the five observations and the basic explanation of evolution, here's the one-minute summary:
Here’s a one-minute summary of evolution:
One of the things that really bugs me about creationists is how they take chunks of evidence they think sound good, and then misapply them to evolution, though they don’t understand evolution in any way. For example, one guy was arguing on one thread that the rotation of Uranus made evolution impossible. He didn’t know how, or why, but he stuck to his guns that he was sure it did. Another guy argued that the First Law of Thermodynamics makes evolution impossible — then he mis-stated the law. We demonstrate speciation, which is “macro” evolution, and all such demonstrations are dismissed here because creationists want to see kittens coming out of dogs, and wings growing on frogs — things that evolution predicts would happen only with intelligent design interference in evolution.
Look, here are the five basic observations, the five basic facts, of evolution, upon which evolution theory is based. Each of these observations is well-established, and had been known for at least 100 years prior to Darwin’s birth.
Evolution theory is five observations, or facts, and three reasonable inferences drawn from them.
These are the facts of evolution which creationists must deny to falsify evolution.
Observation 1: Species have great fertility. They make more offspring than can grow to adulthood.
Observation 2: Populations remain roughly the same size, with modest fluctuations.
Observation 3. Food resources are limited, and are constant most of the time.
Inference A: In such an environment there will be a struggle for survival among individuals.
Observation 4: No two individuals are identical. Variation is rampant.
Observation 5: Much of this variation is heritable.
Inference B: In a world of stable populations where each individual must struggle to survive, those with the “best” characteristics will be more likely to survive, and those desirable traits will be passed to their offspring. This is natural selection.
Inference C: Natural selection, if carried far enough, makes changes in a population, eventually leading to new species.
(In Ernst Mayr’s 1982 book The Growth of Biological Thought, he boils Darwin down to these five observations and three inferences from them — the heart of evolution, according to Donald Johanson and Maitland A. Edey in Blueprints.)
End of one-minute summary.]
I find the evidence incredibly powerful. Our 60-foot eastern red oak in the front yard provides evidence for us each year, with about a million acorns. Observation 1 in action. Look around your yard, you’ll see all of Darwin’s observations there for you to see again.
Today we have understanding of these operations on a much larger scale, entire ecosystems covering entire continents, down to the molecular, in DNA. We have six billion people on Earth, no two of whom are exactly the same, not even those who share DNA, identical twins. Darwin’s work is used so much in science because it is so robust, because the evidence is so powerful, because the theory is astoundingly predictive.
You’ve missed much of the last 150 years in science. To get up to date, I recommend a few books. First, get Jonathan Weiner’s The Beak of the Finch, A story of evolution in our time. It won the Pulitzer Prize (general non-fiction) in 1995. Weiner details the story of the work of Peter and Rosemary Grant, who observed evolution occurring in the wild, in real time, several times. Get a copy of Steven Jones’s Darwin’s Ghost. It’s a retelling of Darwin’s Origin of Species, but recast with what we’ve learned in the last 150 years. And finally, get a copy of Ernst Mayr’s What Evolution IS.
Those should put you on the path to being up to date.
“What in intelligent design is verifiable? What in intelligent design is testable? Where is there any hypothesis in intelligent design — and I mean, seriously, a science paper proposing some hypothesis for intelligent design?”
But Ed that goes two ways. Evolution itself is not testable. We who believe in evolution of some sort, do so as a result of evidence, each piece of which, on its own, is extraordinarily weak. The stronger case for some sort of evolution comes from the idea that these individually weak strands of evidence are convergent. Not because any bit of the case is powerfully solid on its own.
You cannot ask such a question rightly without applying the same sort of scrutiny to your own beliefs. Actually an example of intelligent design exists and is being tested as we speak. But one needs to know that you will apply the scientific method before one throws this particular petrol-bomb into the discussion.
In evolution we see don’t have much in the way of testable adaptation at the level of very small and short-lived organisms. Thats not a great deal to hang the claim of testability on.
Plus there is the idea that proving an evolutionary mechanism doesn’t rule out intelligent design adding to it. That we can see some sort of evidence for whale-evolution doesn’t preclude intelligent design in the case of dog-evolution. Strictly speaking it doesn’t rule out intelligent intervention even in whale evolution.
I advocate lots of speculation, but a fairly strict scientific process here. Mainstream scoffers seem to live and die on the idea of extorting to burden of proof to their side at all times. This is not science. Its a bad habit. Like wearing your gumboots to bed. Or drinking to excess and crapping in your pants. But its by no means scientific to claim the burden of proof and then arrogantly fold your arms at reasoned argument.
We have an example of intelligent design that is uncontroversial, and made in the last few months. Venter’s team has made an artificial bacteria. They’ve used an existing cell and back-engineered a number of genes to make a new species of bacteria.
Is your claim that this has never been achieved anywhere in the galaxy prior? How would you know such a thing?
We at least know examples of intelligent design. The dog is an example of intelligent design. And its intelligent design that explains its rapid morphological changes in such a short time. Impossible under natural selection for an animal of that size and life-cycle. Why exclude other examples of possible intelligent-design?
Surely you mean examples of intelligent design which say “God did it.” Thats what you are talking about right?
How about us? How about the leap between upright-walking monkeys (essentially) and us? How do you imagine the evidence rules out intelligent design in our evolution, lets say, 200 000 years ago?
Could you muster convincing evidence which rules this out?
If not one ought not be so dogmatic about it.
[...] Intelligent Design: A pig that does not fly [...]
Since evolution says nothing about chance, Mr. Stone, you’re engaging in a canard.
And as for the rest of what you claim…scientifically prove that God exists.
You can engage in whatever “logic” you think..though your “logic” isn’t logic at all. It’s mere faith. Logic requires proof. You have none.
When the rain runs off the newly-plowed field, what intelligence “intends” that particular little gully? When that little gully expands into a slot canyon, who intends that it be there?
The purpose of the Grand Canyon is to carry the Colorado River through the uprisen Colorado Plateau to the Pacific. Who intended that? Who chose Pacific over Atlantic? Who chose that path instead of another?
Assuming intention where simple rules of physics and chemistry provide adequate explanation seems awfully anthropomorphic-assuming, to me.
Ed
So your answer to my question is…? Excuse me, but I didn’t see one. So what does ID explain?
See, here’s the problem I have with you folks: You ignore what we know in favor of what we don’t know and you inflate the mystery factor and then you conclude that everything is a big mystery! Talk about a pre-determined conclusion! Yet the world is full of useful information that you choose to ignore.
Further, you live on the idea that an alleged lack of an explanation implies an explanation! Forgive me, but that’s a logical howler. And that’s why I asked for a real explanation from ID.
Also, you speak of complexity as if ID explains it but I’ve never seen as much as an attempt to explain it. The only thing we get from you guys is that evolution can’t explain it so ID must fall into place by default. But science doesn’t work that way. In fact, nothing works that way. Imagine taking that kind of reasoning into a court room and expecting to be taken seriously! OTOH, evolutionary science provides real, positive statements for evaluation. Where does ID do that?
And you really should know that your idea of an intelligent designer, sans a substantive explanation, is nothing more than a God of the gaps as it lives only in the dark crevices between things that science explains and it has to retreat regularly.
Re: “purpose and function or functionality” – These are words that have meaning only for things that are built by humans. To attempt to apply them to the natural world is to go on an anthropomorphic joy ride. There need not be any pre-planned purpose or function for anything in the natural world. What is the purpose or function of a snow drift or a pair of useless wings under the fused carapace of a beetle? How can one discuss the functionlity of human body hair or a whale’s tiny pelvis? No, those terms have meaning only in our world. Similarly, intent has no meaning outside of our world. Ideas like yours are mere end-runs around real, substantive explanations. They are religious distractions that do no more than to soothe the religious psyche.
As for this old boy, I used just good old common sense and “Spock logic” to come to my conclusion. You see, everywhere one looks where life processes exists you can’t explain the processes without using the words purpose and funtion or functionality. You can’t have purpose or funtion without intention, and you have to have intelligence to have intention. The conclusion I come to is chance or happenstance is anathema to purpose or function. You can never have purpose or function come out of happenstance. Has never been observed; illogical, actually. One other thing that ties to what I have said is IT or Data Processing: You see, in our bodies, for instance, IT is up and running on a complex scale we can’t even imagine. I worked as an IT Dept Mgr/Programmer Analyst for several decades and I got to tell you the stuff that goes on in our bodies and life everywhere else out there in the world puts man-made IT to shame. The difference in complexity and high purpose is the old sideways 8 – no contest. I do wonder what Darwin would have said if he saw the complexity of just one cell instead of the “blob of jelly” he saw.
Darwin was working with grossly incomplete information; we all know that a good hypothesis has to have good information. Just one cell is a very complex machine working with many other complex machines passing information along (just one of many examples of IT) and that information is received and used, on and on and on. You can actually flowchart these processes. It is beyond me how all this just fell together without intelligence behind it – intention, if you will. When you go to apply odds to all this just happening by accident, the number is an order of magnitude way beyond 10**50. As we know, anything beyond 10**50 is considered impossible. So, it is cold logic that “informs me” that Almighty God does indeed exist. It takes more faith to believe in accidental complexity, funtion and purpose than to believe in the Master Programmer.
Forgive any bad writing; I do have a medical reason: Had strokes that effected by cognitive abilities and short term memory. Only degraded somewhat, thankfully. I am something of a slow learner these days but handling it ok.
I’d like to ask the believers of ID a question:
What does ID explain?
If ID is to be taken as a valid competitor for evolution it has to explain things at least as well as evolution does. So what, exactly, does ID explain about life?
Does it explain complexity? I say it doesn’t. I’d like to hear a genuine scientific explanation for complexity if you believe it does so.
Does it explain shared similarities among species such that it allows us to understand the nested hierarchies among them? Evolution sure does.
Does it explain the distribution of species on the Earth and tell us why similar species are found near each other? Evolution does this, too.
In short, does ID really tell us anything about life at all?
EIF, perhaps considering how poorly you type you may want to consider that you’re not one to tell others to go back to school.
Nor would you recognize a statement against racism, either — as is evident.
Some science denialists, including racists, are so much in denial that they do not recognize an anti-racist statement when it chomps on their gluteals.
agian poeple nead ta go bcak to sochol to lrean auobt
the wrlod and rihtnek what really is knowledge to mutch about arguing a not enogh about learning that is what sir francis bacon wanted about our great country to stay on is learning not arguing
Disease doesn’t look at skin color i cant believe you would put out a racist coment like that
Tyler just to reiterate something Ed said. The theory of evolution is not “anti-Christian” or “anti-God.” Despite what nitwits like “Evolution is false” will say, most of mainstream Christianity accepts evolution for what it is…a tool that God used.
Whereas on the other hand Creationism/Intelligent Design is indeed anti-God. Because they say that they believe that God created life on this planet…but that He lied about it. Because if God created life on this planet, tyler, then God did it in the manner that the evidence shows. And not in the manner that a human written ideology…i.e. creationism says.
You do realize, Evolution is false, that “sodomite” is a term that applies equally well to heterosexuals. Or tell us..have you never had oral sex?
HIV made the leap to humans as a result of a bush hunter providing bush meat to illegal miners and loggers in the interior of Africa. He infected at least one woman, perhaps more. The leap of HIV into humans and its initial spread in this round had nothing to do with sexual orientation.
Or, is it your claim that God wishes to punish miners? Loggers? Africans? Disease doesn’t look at skin color or sexual orientation; disease fighters don’t either, at least, not the genuine disease fighters.
just because dr? gave his approval is like obama saying he wont lie in his campaign promise fact is not always condoned by popular belief does the rock really fall faster
supposing that sodomites did not be sodomites suppose their would not be aids,hiv would it be better of to just avoid the disease instead of asking GOD for a punishment
What in intelligent design is verifiable? What in intelligent design is testable? Where is there any hypothesis in intelligent design — and I mean, seriously, a science paper proposing some hypothesis for intelligent design?
There are about 10,000 science papers a year published on evolution, extending our understanding of how it works, or putting in practical applications of the theory. That’s been going on at least since 1981, when scientists tuned to this political discussion started counting.
There are two papers I know of favoring intelligent design in biology, neither of which offers a hypothesis, neither of which offers any supporting research. One paper was withdrawn by the science organization that published it after the editors and officers of the organization had a chance to read it (it had been sneaked into the journal by a creationist editor, in his last official act).
Do the math. Today thousands of people have organ transplants as a result of applied evolution theory. Evolution theory is the basis for treating diabetes, and the foundation for the fight against cancer, in which we have thousands of surivivors now. Evolution theory is the undergrid of the Green Revolution, and in fact in all of agriculture and livestock.
Truth on both sides? Maybe. But the truth on the side of evolution is eight miles wide and 35,000 feet deep.
I don’t want to “get along” with a side that demands I leave ethics and reason at the door.
As I read both sides of the discussion, as an engineer and a minister, I hear amazingly similar percentages of fact, belief, theory, and dogmatism. The comparisons between Intelligent Design and Evolution are remarkably similar to the comparisons between Copernicus and Newton vs the Ptolemaic system (with the roles reversed). Ptolemy’s epicycles in Aristotle’s universe of 55 concentric circles produced incredibly accurate results; they just didn’t reflect reality. From Quantum Physics to Cosmology, science has reached the limits of observability, repeatability, and verification in both directions. By it’s very definition, Intelligent Design has similar limits of observability, repeatability, and verification. I have argued both sides – I believe there is truth in both sides. I believe that both sides can get along, but not without conditions. I urge everyone to read my book: Following The Cloud – A Vision of the Convergence of Science & Theology: Reconciling Science & the World with the Post-Modern Church (Amazon).
You just answered my previous question, Ice Man. I wondered whether your earlier post had any thought behind it, or if it was as it seemed just raw, ignorant invective. It’s gone.
You’d do well to study the Miller-Urey experiments, and maybe get up to date with the work of Andy Ellington, which exposes the many factual errors in your rant against abiogenesis. Abiogenesis has only been ruled out by those who refuse to see it, which is mostly those who refuse to look.
What is it you’re afraid of seeing?
Evolution theory treats diabetes, offers hopes of a cure for cystic fibrosis, feeds three billion extra people each day, and generally offers grand insights into life and how it is lived. If the “cult” of such learning and research is dying as you say, it’s only because the heathens have once again torched the libraries, and ignoramuses are doing their best to drive us back to the Dark Ages.
Why do you carry that torch with you like that?
The basis of evolution theory has already been debunked: there is no such thing as abiogenesis, which is what the Cult of Charlie Darwin still believes to this day. A raw piece of meat will not “spontaneously” produce maggots, nor will the earth “spontaneously” produce earthworms, but thousands of the Darwin Cult followers haven’t learned this lesson yet, thus displaying their ignorance like the naked emperor who thought he was wearing fancy clothes.
Evolution can only take place with life forms containing RNA and DNA. The nanopackets of information contained within these genetic codes points as much to intelligent design as seeing your name listed in a phone directory. The fact that RNA and DNA can record, store, transmit, and duplicate infomation is far beyond the ability any of the most intelligent scientists. And since abiogenesis has been ruled out, the only other possibilities are: a God or Gods or highly intelligent beings who designed and formed RNA and DNA to create life forms on earth.
The Cult of Charlie Darwin is dead and dying. The Temple of Intelligent Design is razing it to the ground and building a more intelligent and scientific structure on top.
Gid (alternate spelling?), given your silly description misrepresenting evolution, I’m glad you’ve abandoned it – just don’t call what you’re describing as “evolution”, because your false characterization isn’t how genuine evolution works.
The organisms aren’t changing through willpower, as you claim. Variations occur naturally in every organism. You’re different from your parents. And even when siblings share the same parents, they’re different from one another. You’re different from your cousins, Some variations arise through mutations. From a reproductive standpoint, some mutations are detrimental (some even to the point of lethality), some are neutral, and some are beneficial, and some can be vary among these effects depending on the particular environment.
Let’s oversimplify a bit to convey the important points. At one extreme, the mutations that are lethal before the organism can reproduce are weeded out each generation. At the other extreme, a beneficial mutation that greatly improved reproductive success would be passed to a greater part of the population with each successive generation. If Jerry Lee has 40 kids, and all his kids have 40 kids, and so on, while Oral has 1 kid, and his kids each have 1 kid, in 50 generations, there’ll be a whole lotta shakin’ goin’ on, nearly all of it by Jerry’s kids and their offspring. Throw in an occasionally infertile child, and Oral may not have any descendants after several generations.
To use your fish example, variations may make some fish a little more skilled at using their limbs to shuffle around in shallow water. If they get more food by their better maneuverability, and live longer to reproduce more, the beneficial trait tends to get amplified over the generations (preservation of favorable variations and reduction of detrimental ones through interaction with the environment is referred to as “Natural Selection”). If variations in later generations leads to some fish that can actually maneuver a short distance onto the shore to get at food that others can’t, they have a potential reproductive advantage that can be acted upon by natural selection. Fish that don’t have the variation to allow them to go ashore successfully can’t get at the food there, even if they wish they could. Wishing doesn’t get them anything, contrary to the strawman you constructed. Read up on Walking Catfish and Mudskippers to get some idea of why your scenario fails. While mutations may be random, Natural Selection isn’t, so purely “random” is not an accurate description of evolution.
How do we test that evolution occurred? Two main ways – analyzing the fossil record, and analyzing genetic data.
For the genetic data, how can you test that Billy Bob is the father of Wanda Sue’s kids on the Jerry Springer show, if neither Jerry nor members of his audience were there to see the act in person (and Billy Bob may not have seen a neighbor hiding in his closet who was with Wanda 15 minutes before)? Paternity Test! Just a routine example of genetic testing, although more serious genetic analysis is usually a little more involved than a relatively simple paternity test. Throw in some Evo-Devo, and there’s plenty of evidence substantiating evolution, even if there were no fossils available.
For the fossil record, finding transitional fossils where they are expected to be – propinquitously – is part of the supporting evidence (such as Tiktaalik in Greenland – see Neil Shubin’s book “Your Inner Fish”; whale transitional fossils around the ancient Tethys Sea, etc. – for instance, see Carl Zimmer’s book, “Evolution: The Triumph of an Idea” for a good introduction to some of the evidence). Sometimes we get to combine genetic testing with fossil analysis, as with the fragments of mitochondrial DNA from mammoths, Neanderthals, and exquisitely preserved leaves near Clarkia, Idaho.
While many modes of evolution do take a long time, there are a few mechanisms that act quickly, such that we can observe speciation within the span of one generation, as with polyploidy, which accounts for many instances of observed macroevolution. Want some examples of polyploid organisms? Bananas, coffee, wheat, and potatoes. Sounds like the breakfast of champions.
You shouldn’t dismiss evolution – real evolution, not your make-believe version according to creationist fantasy – before you learn what it is, and the evidence substantiating it.
[...] Intelligent Design: A pig that does not fly [...]
Gid, geologists have pretty well set the age of the Earth at about 4.5 billion years. It’s been at that figure for two decades. Not only does the age of the Earth remain the same from science text to science text, the explanations for how it is determined remain the same. I’ll wager you can pick up any serious geology text in the last 35 years and get the same answer — maybe last 40 years.
Every stage of evolution has been observed to occur in real time, in the wild and in the lab under controlled observation conditions. Fish are not “trying to grow limbs,” but there are fish that crawl onto the shore, and some that crawl from pool to pool.
Abiogenesis is not a part of evolution theory — but watch it! Most of the steps from non-life to life have been observed to occur spontaneously.
Evolution isn’t urging people to jump off of buildings. You err in assigning stupidity — it’s not evolution that’s stupid, but those who try to misstate it, either through malicious intent, or genuine failure to understand.
On the contrary, there is not a lack of data to support a young earth view.
For argumentative purposes, I am avoiding the discussion of God/no god altogether. Let’s stick to the facts.
Evolutionism and Young-Earth theory both appeal to the exact same data, they just interpret it differently.
Evolution, like Christianity, is a religion. It is a materialistic view of the origins of life derived from atheism. It does it’s best to exclude any notion of a deity or creator. Even though everything in our world points to structure and design, the High Priests of Evolution will use fancy “EXPERT” language to dumb-down reality into random chance occurances. These random chance occurences can never be observed, tested, or duplicated. Why? Because they’re RANDOM CHANCE. By very definition they cannot be built or structured. Therefore, science has NO WAY of testing or defending their Evolutionary religion.
Evolution does not follow the evidence, but rather, creates its own. Evolution is used to interpret facts into itself. and ‘create’ the alleged evidence. Have you ever wondered why the age of the Earth is constantly changing from person to person, textbook to textbook? Evolution is an empty theory with no foundation or basis in reality. It is simply a series of stories built upon each other. These stories came about because some men though that because certain animals look similar, then, of course, we MUST all have a common ancestor! Duh!
Fish are not crawling onto the shore trying to grow limbs. Matter is not spontaneously generating in the air or any other place. Abiogenesis does not happen. The things I put in my closet are exactly as I left them, they are not trying to arrange themselves to create some new thing.
“Well, the process of evolution is too slow to be observed!”
THEN HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT IT ACTUALLY EVEN HAPPENED?? If no one can observe or test it, then A.) It does NOT follow from scientific methodology, and B.) It’s stupid to accept as truth.
If evolution is true, then who needs airplanes? Let’s all just start jumping off of buildings and eventually Nature will decide that we need wings! Of course, nature has no intelligence, and is simply a series of random occurences anyway. Without some intelligence or system, how would our bodies and/or nature ever know what we needed to start growing in order to adapt?
Evolution is STUPID, and doesn’t make much sense at all. I’ve personally abandoned the theory. I would urge you all to do the same, and free your minds from their deception.
Evolution is a religion built on the imaginations of people who things man sort of looks like an ape.
Ed,
No way I’m going to take the time to read all the comments here (and I’m not clear why you do); so I apologize if this repeats anything:
Way back in your 1st response you say “Evolution denies no part of scripture, so long as one does not insist contrary to scripture that all parts of scripture are literal.”
Actually, St. Augustine wrote a book on the literal interpretation of Genesis, which is nothing like what today’s fundies take to be a “literal” reading.
Augustine was clear that Genesis is not literally a science book. One of his more worthwhile points:
“On interpreting the mind of the sacred writer. Christians should not talk nonsense to unbelievers.”
see http://curricublog.org/2008/02/09/more-expelled/
Ironic, no?
Fiction can tell great truths that literal accounts never touch. That’s why Huck Finn is such a powerful story, why King Lear still holds people spellbound.
Some people would rather claim to be literally correct than to have an effect for the better on the world.
I see it’s been awhile since anyone has commented on this. And I’m not sure I agree, when it’s said, “Better late than never”.
Having said that here’s my two cents.
Unfortunately, I lost my faith a long time ago. When three of my closest family members, died in the same year. Some years back, I attempted to rekindle my faith. And what better way, than reading the bible. It was almost a good idea. The more I read the bible, the more I saw, time line’s where way off. Specifically in regards to the creation.
If God told them this, how could they misinterpret it so badly. The only conclusion I can draw from this is, we are reading words written by man. Not word’s, that God dictated, and man transcribed.
Anyway, once I discarded the book, as a work of fiction. It became much easier for me, to become spiritual again.
EVOLUTION IS FALSE
[...] Intelligent Design: A pig that does not fly [...]
The best way to find out whether an idea works is to test it — that’s not the same thing as teaching the wrong stuff so students see the difference. As a lab bench test philosophy, testing stupid things to see how quickly they fail is a good way to see how quickly they fail. As pedagogy, teaching those failed ideas is a poor method of teaching.
In history, we teach the arguments the slaveowners and states righters used, but we don’t suggest that they are still perfectly valid and deserve testing today. Historically, the only stuff testable out of ID is the same stuff that was testable from old line creationism and design as William Paley wrote about it. Why not just stick to the current texts, which tell why creationism is in error?
You see, the IDists are not asking to be contrasted as the failing idea it is; they ask that ID be taught as scientifically valid. That’s a lot different than teaching what slaveowners thought, and why they wanted to defend slavery.
Also, don’t forget that you’re using a social studies analogy in science — it doesn’t hold up.
By the way,
I am not the “Matt” from consanguinity.wordpress.com.
My point was not that ID should be treated as equal to evolution, i did not mean to send that Idea. My point was this: What is the value in teaching only one theory? The best way to prove an idea’s supremacy is to put it in competition with other ideas and watch it dominate. For example: when I learned about slavery my teacher showed us the arguments of the pro-slavery southerners. They don’t teach those ideas because they are “equal” to the arguments made by abolitionists, they teach them because it allows a better understanding of the superior principles of civil rights.
Maybe it is a waste of time to teach about the arguements used by southern slave owners, but I think it is worthwhile, in the same way that teaching ID is worthwhile.
Basically, my point was: if ID is a pig that does not fly, why not throw it off a cliff and find out for certain? I think that is a whole lot better than just saying “everyone knows pigs can’t fly.” The effect is more profound.
Matt,
Science treated ID’s genuinely serious and scientific posings with all the respect they were due — between 1800 and 1850. After thorough investigation, the supposed conclusions were found to be in error — there were other entirely natural causes for the appearance of design apart from God’s direct intervention.
That was 150+ years ago. Science does not need to treat ideas disproven 150 years ago as golden hypotheses from Olympus.
On the other hand, the respectful and factual discussion those ideas got 150 years ago cannot be summarily dismissed by ID advocates if the ID advocates wish to be taken seriously, now.
The only hope for ID is to deal with facts, find data, and quit treating science as a field for post-modern relativism and political shenanigans.
Deal in good faith, Matt. If there is a factual case for ID to be made in science, make it in science. Do the research, gather the data, write the reports. But don’t go demanding “equal rights” for an idea that has not earned a place at the table with serious research and solid data.
What do we teach kids when we let any old, silly idea stand up as “just as good as” proven science? We teach kids that facts and truth don’t matter. I think that is totally at odds with most religions, as well as scientifically stupid.
Can you name for me any religion which celebrates an evisceration of the truth as ID demands? I think that is a morally reprehensible position.
Matt,
That is not the point at all. The point is whether ID can be taught as a scientific theory as an “alternative” to evolution. Scientific theories start out as ideas, lead to observations and experiments, then to a manuscript, then to peer-review, which may lead to publication, which may inspire discussion at conferences and further investigation by other scientists, testing and modifying the initial predictions of the idea, until it gains general acceptance in the worldwide scientific community (see the theory of plate tectonics for a much more recent idea that earned the status of theory). Intelligent Design hasn’t even gotten past peer-review, and its advocates want it taught as science, specifically as an alternative scientific theory.
It would a flat-out lie to teach kids that this is how science works. ID is a concept that could certainly discussed in a social studies or philosophy class, but it has no right to skip over such fundamentals as evidence and peer-review to be taught as an “alternative theory” in a science curriculum. Of course, open scientific inquiry was never the point of ID; it was designed to surreptitiously insert one narrow, fundamentalist religious view into public education:
http://www.antievolution.org/features/wedge.pdf
Look the point with ID is not whether it currently has been supported by enough evidence. The point is that is should be put on the table to be examined. What hope does science have if we shut every new idea down because it does not currently have the same amount of evidence as the opposing idea.
The only hope for science is to treat evey idea with the respect of an open discussion and factual refutation
What are you teaching kids about THEIR OWN ideas if you are not willing to present them with all the theories and allowing them to choose for themselves?
[...] Intelligent Design: A pig that does not fly [...]
Oh dear!
“yes i have read the original sript (1611 very hard to understand because the way its written)”
The collection of writings we call ‘The Bible’ were in no way ‘original’ in 1611. This is simply the King James Bible – so called because it was translated into English in the reign of King James I of England.
St Iranaeus, the bishop of Lyon (France) for much of the 2nd century AD is known to be the man who decided the contents of the Christian Canon. His own works, mostly written in Greek, were concerned with refuting the beliefs of other Christians he did not agree with – like the Gnostics. He may have some claim to being in an unique position to dictate which beliefs were most like the teachings of Jesus as he heard the teachings of Polycarp as a child in his native Smyrna (Turkey). Polycarp (one of the early martyrs) was believed to have been a pupil of the Apostle John and therefore a direct link to the original beliefs, but note there is no proof that he was.
Bishop Iranaeus stressed a single “Rule of Faith” for all Christian churches, consistency between Old Testament and New Testament texts, and the sanctity of scriptures which were not open to interpretation. Control of the belief system we now know as ‘Christianity’ had begun in earnest.
He also supported the concept of Apostolic succession, thereby keeping control of the ‘true’ faith by strictly controlling those able to teach it. (This means that none of the Protestant sects are ‘true’ faiths as they do not follow Apostolic succession in the ordination of their priests!)
It is a measure of how determined these early bishops were to wrest control from any who thought differently from them that the teachings of the Gnostics were successfully removed from human knowledge (except as references in the writings of others) until the chance finding of a Gnostic library in Egypt in 1945.
The Gospels we now have in the New Testament, the letters and the Revelation were the only writings Iranaeus thought acceptable. The other Gospels, all of which we now see as heretical or apocryphal, were rejected, even though some were attributed to Apostles. So the term ‘Gospel truth’ takes on a rather sinister slant when it is realised it is Iranaeus’s truth and may have very little to do with what early Christians actually believed .
Just as history is written by the victors and conquerors the religious ‘truth’ is always that which gives the most power to a few already powerful men.
I personally believe that humans invented stories as soon as we evolved cognitive thought. Stories gave us explanations for the inexplicable. My personal favourite creation story comes form the other side of the pond, around Washington State, and I wish I could remember the tribe who thought of it!
It appears that the woman was alone and this loneliness made her cry. She cried so much that she produced a massive amount of snot and while she slept the snot formed into snot boy. He lived with her, mated with her and all the people of the world came from their union.
As far as I’m concerned it is as valid an explanation for the creation of life as Adam’s rib, a talking snake and an apple.
One last thing. Science does not try to prove that a theory is right. Quite the opposite. Take an hypothesis, test it to see if you can prove it is wrong. Do this many, many times. If your results cannot prove it is wrong it becomes probable that it is right. That is good science.
An interesting blog.
Thanks for having me
Kitty
yes i have read the original sript (1611 very hard to understand because the way its written) maybe you need to read it to understand it and get yourself strait on the view of the qeustionire
I greatly enjoyed reading the above arguments, none of which convinced me that god created anything, nor even that god exists.
But it was greatly entertaining.
Tyler lost me forever, at the point in which he showed how the bible predicts Visa cards.
And “Evolution is False” was a comic act so great as to make me snort my tea and have a coughing fit. His magnum opus was “DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SEMI COLON MEANS E.G( ; ) ILL LET IT DO THE TALKIN”, -this from a person who writes everything in upper-case, uses no punctuation, and seems to have a serious inability to spell?
“Evolution is False”, one question. -was there a semi colon on the original scroll?
How common are semi colons in the languages used in the earliest known biblical texts?
Also, before making this suggestion “IN SIRRY TI SAY BUT ED DARREL YOU NEED TO READ YOUR BIBLE(YOU CAN LEARN LATIN AND GREEK WITCH WILL HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND BETTER)TO ACTUALLY BE ARGUING WITH TYLER ABOUT THIS” did it occur to you to learn english?
Um.. You have read the bible “UNCOUNTABLE TIMES”? Maybe you should study arithmetic as well as spelling and grammar. Some people can count really big numbers.
I shall continue to believe that Charles Darwin made an argument for a far better way of understanding how our world was formed than biblical literalism offers. Darwin was, of course, a Christian, as well as a scientist, and did not see his theory as a refutation of god.
Thank you for the diversion.
Drop by and sound off any time!
Science doesn’t reject any evidence, actually, and that’s one of the big complaints I have about creationist claims against teaching science today. But of course, when science says “evidence,” we mean real evidence, not conjecture or hopeful wishes.
I can think of no teleological evidence science has ever rejected. In fact such evidence has received rigorous testing, and in every case so far, it has tested out to completely natural causes. The notion that life in the womb is just a mass of tissue somehow shaped by the Hand of God, for example, turns out to be ably refuted by genetics, a good understanding of how DNA works, and the entire branch of science known as evolutionary development (evo-devo) rises to study the issues. Design? Sure. Cause? Genes, and development.
Creationists rebel, but not because teleology was rejected; they rebel because God’s creation shows a different teleology than their theology allows. Their gripe shouldn’t be at science, but at those who foisted an anti-God theology on them (even if it didn’t appear anti-God when they started out), or with God — in either case, there is no reason not to teach the science in science classes, and two good reasons not to teach the false theology: It’s wrong scientifically and theologically; and because there’s no science support, it’s religious dogma, illegal under every state’s religious freedom clause.
Serious theologians don’t rebel, of course, but ponder the new mysteries. So do the scientists.
The seeded universe idea arises because of evidence, by the way. It’s an argument among cosmologists and physicists, not originated or promoted by theologians. The evidence is inconclusive, and there is not a lot of evidence to suggest that the seeds are intentionally placed, so the teleological argument is very weak (if it exists at all).
But again, there is no bar to teleological evidence. Scientists rebel, nobly and well I think, at the idea that any teleological argument cannot be questioned, cannot be tested, and if tested and found wanting, cannot be mentioned, as creationists here in Texas argue. It’s all in the evidence.
Biology has no statement against God. Claims to the contrary are straw man argument, woven of whole cloth. I’m not sure God “has to wait” for the outcome, but I do not believe we should limit God by saying God cannot wait, if that is God’s wont. Chaos theory notes that we can have very precise mathematics for systems that produce results which are very much “wait and see.” Such systems keep weather interesting, for example, and there is no reason to think God is not in charge of such rules of science, if one accepts as Christians do that God is the creator of the whole shebang. What if God wanted to design a system that were wholly blind to some outcomes? Is there some theological reason God wouldn’t or couldn’t do it?
It’s not evolution nor any other branch of science that is trying to close doors. Creationists insist God may not be God except God dance their preferred polka, no waltzes or gavottes.
Why doesn’t the theological mind rebel more strongly, more visibly, and more often, to such limitations on God?
Dear Sir,
While I share your distain and dislike for much of what passes for “science” in the murky undergrowth of Christian fundamentalism, I am concerned about the a priori elimination of all teleological considerations, regardless of the level of evidence presented. One can make the argument that the intelligent design people have not proven their case – I agree. One can also argue that the movement is principally a philosophical rather than a scientific movement at the current time – about this I would also agree, although I would not consider the term “philosophy” perjorative in this context. On the other hand, to simply rule out all teleology by fiat, insisting that all teleological evidence must be rejected out of hand for a study to be “scientific”, seems a sharp detour into scientism, not science. In physics and cosmological studies at least, the issue of teleology is not closed, and, in the form of the anthropic principle at least, is deeply intwined with the study of nature in the field. Also, recent discussion of the possibility of “seeded universes” or of man-made “inflationary universes” suggests that the possibility of a universe with preset boundary conditions and teleological tweaks may not be at all unreasonable hypotheses in, as it were, “artificial universes.” But of course, that begs the question, and it is not an unscientific, and certainly not an illegitimate philosophical question, of whether or not this is such a universe…or indeed, if a “natural” universe, in the sense of a universe without a cause, limiter, or rule-designer can exist. The first of these questions, having been provoked by scientific advances and speculation in one of the hard sciences itself is, I suggest, in some sense a scientific question. If so, creating a hermetically sealed scientific method that disallows any form of teleological questions is simply wrongheaded. The second question is a more genuinely philosophical question, and so perhaps beyond the bounds of strictly scientific study and discussion. But scientists, even biologists, may be philosophers in their spare time, and there is no obligation that their off-duty philosophical commitments be as metaphysically spare as the physicalistic naturalism they have been urged to adopt at school for purely methodological reasons.
Lastly, the statement that you make to one of your not-so-bright detractors, that there is nothing about evolution that contradicts scripture if one allows that scripture should not all be interpreted literally is only true if evolutionary science allows for teleological influence. If in fact, biological evolution is conceived of and presented as a closed system that cannot even theoretically be influenced (whether at the quantum level, or as a wholistic sytem, or by virtue of pre-established physical laws that determine outcome, then this is simply not true. If God cannot arrange through the physical system of evolution to bring about his purposes, if the system is wholly blind and God has to just wait and see what pops out, then yes, there is a deep and abiding conflict. Christians believe in an omnipotent and providential God, and one cannot eradicate that from scripture by use of metaphor and recognition of mythical genre. Creative evolutionism is a live theological option, but if evolutionism closes its doors to even the possibility of a creative guidance, then I think one should be hardly surprised that the theological mind rebels.
Anyway, thanks for letting me sound off.
SO GOD CREATED FEMALE BUT THE THING IS IT NEVER SAID HE PUT BOTH OF THEM ON THE EARTH RIGHT AWAY DOES IT
ALSO YOU ARE A HIGH SCHOOL TEACHER RIGHT WELL LOOKS LIKE YOU NEED TO GO TO SCHOOL YOURSELF BECAUSE ON THE PASSAGE
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
DO YOU KNOW WHAT THE SEMI COLON MEANS E.G( ; ) ILL LET IT DO THE TALKIN
he him; male and
PROVE YOUR POINT MAYBE
It doesn’t say all scripture is God’s work, nor that all scripture is God’s word. When one reads the prophets, to pick one group, one will notice in almost every book that the author takes liberties, and will write directly “this is my view, not God’s.”
All scripture is useful, Timothy said. You’re trying to say all scripture is perfect. Not the same thing at all.
IN SIRRY TI SAY BUT ED DARREL YOU NEED TO READ YOUR BIBLE(YOU CAN LEARN LATIN AND GREEK WITCH WILL HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND BETTER)TO ACTUALLY BE ARGUING WITH TYLER ABOUT THIS
Genesis 1 is not prophecy. Very little of the Bible is prophecy. Your interpretations are not authorized, nor verifiable as the correct readings.
YOUR RIGHT GENESIS IS NOT PROPHECY IT IS PROPHESIED IT ALLREADY CAM TO PASS IN THE BEGINNING “GOD”….ETC SO YOU SEE YOU NEED TO READ TO ARGUE A BETTER POINT
You’re assuming for God that God wished to make a literal statement of creation, and did so. As we’ve noted several times before, God was not the author of Genesis 1, nor is there any indication that it was ever intended to be considered literal by the author or anyone else. How can Genesis 1 be true when Genesis 2, Job, John, Baruch, Psalms and other books contradict it?
If they are not supposed to be literal stories, the contradictions are of no consequence. St. Augustine urged that we disregard all claims of literalness, the better to preserve scripture.
YOU REALLY DONT GET IT DO YOU IF YOU WANT TO SAY THE BIBLE CONTRADICTS ITSELF QOUTE US A PASSAGE THAT DOES BECAUSE AS LONG AS I HAVE BEEN READING IT IT DOESNT AND I HAVE READ IT OVER UNCOUNTABLE TIMES
Qwerty
Ed: “Very little of the Bible is prophecy.”
Are you taking the meaning of ‘prophecy’ in the *literal* sense, that of foretelling a future event? Or are you willing to take the broader meaning (most likely intended), that of speaking forth God’s words?
ARE YOU REALLY FOR REAL BECAUSE YOU ARE A JOKE I NOT GONNA WASTE MY TIME ON YOUR DUMB STATMENT!
Tyler, in Genesis 1 humans are created last, after all the other animals. In Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are created at the same time, together.
In Genesis 2, Adam is without a mate. What happened to Eve? This conflict of scripture cannot be explained away as a translation error. It is discussed by Judaic scholars in texts more than 2,000 years old.
In Genesis 2, God creates Adam first, then the other animals in hopes of finding a mate for Adam. When none of the other animals proves suitable for mating, God creates a woman from Adam’s rib.
Those are two of the larger contradictions. The order of creation is different for several things between the two.
Christians have understood for a couple of millenia that these creation stories are not to be taken literally. I cannot imagine why anyone would deny so much Christian tradition and insist they are literal — especially now that God’s testament of creation is so clear that the stories are not literally true.
I HAD TO LAUGH WHEN I READ THIS ONE ABOUT ADAM AND EVE FIRST OF READ YOUR BIBLE THIS IS NOT TRUE ABOUT ADAM HERE IS THE PASSAGE
GENESIS 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our
likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea,
and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all
the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the
earth.
1:27 So God created man in his own image, in the image of God
created he him; male and female created he them.
1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful,
and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have
dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the
air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.
YOU HAVE PROVEN YOUR CASE FOR ABOUT 2 SECONDS THEN YOU FAIL TO REALIZE WHAT THE REST OF THE BIBLE SAITH AND WE GO ON…..
2:5 And every plant of the field before it was in the earth, and
every herb of the field before it grew: for the LORD God had
not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man
to till the ground. SO DID MAN SUDDENLLY DISAPEAR NO WE READ ON
2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and
breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a
living soul.
2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and
there he put the man whom he had formed.
WOW THAT MAKES IT ALLOTT MORE CLEAR DOESNT IT AT LEAST IT DOES ME NOW YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING SO WHAT HAVE YOU PROVED ABOUT US CREATIONIST THAT TRY AND AVOID THIS SUBJECT
I got to this page from a Google search about carbon-14 and happened to notice that a young earth creationist named Tyler quoted the following:
“Most man-made chemicals are made of fossil fuels, such as petroleum or coal, in which the carbon-14 has long since decayed. However, oil deposits often contain trace amounts of carbon-14 (varying significantly, but ranging from 1% the ratio found in living organisms to undetectable amounts, comparable to an apparent age of 40,000 years for oils with the highest levels of carbon-14). This may indicate possible contamination by small amounts of bacteria, underground sources of radiation (such as uranium decay), or other unknown secondary sources of carbon-14 production. Presence of carbon-14 in the isotopic signature of a sample of carbonaceous material therefore indicates its possible contamination by biogenic sources or the decay of radioactive material in related geologic strata.”
That’s from the Wikipedia entry on Carbon-14.
Apparently Tyler did not comprehend what is being stated in that paragraph. What is being pointed out is precisely how C14 gets into oil (or coal) that is millions of years old. For example, in particular oil and coal that is in surrounding rocks that contain radioactive uranium or thorium (which, by the way, applies to a lot of oil and coal) is having C14 generated in it by this radiation. Yes, that’s right, this is because C14 is not just generated in the atmosphere by cosmic rays, it can also be generated in the ground by rocks with radioactive elements.
So notice how Tyler used that quote *as if* it substantiated what he was claiming, even though in fact the very quote he provided is discussing exactly why his claim is wrong!
Bye, Tyler. God be with you too. I pray that you will come to think for yourself in addition to listening to the voice of God. (note that this post is not made mockingly)
Ed: “Very little of the Bible is prophecy.”
Are you taking the meaning of ‘prophecy’ in the *literal* sense, that of foretelling a future event? Or are you willing to take the broader meaning (most likely intended), that of speaking forth God’s words?
Tyler said (again):
It doesn’t say all scripture is God’s work, nor that all scripture is God’s word. When one reads the prophets, to pick one group, one will notice in almost every book that the author takes liberties, and will write directly “this is my view, not God’s.”
All scripture is useful, Timothy said. You’re trying to say all scripture is perfect. Not the same thing at all.
Genesis 1 is not prophecy. Very little of the Bible is prophecy. Your interpretations are not authorized, nor verifiable as the correct readings.
You’re assuming for God that God wished to make a literal statement of creation, and did so. As we’ve noted several times before, God was not the author of Genesis 1, nor is there any indication that it was ever intended to be considered literal by the author or anyone else. How can Genesis 1 be true when Genesis 2, Job, John, Baruch, Psalms and other books contradict it?
If they are not supposed to be literal stories, the contradictions are of no consequence. St. Augustine urged that we disregard all claims of literalness, the better to preserve scripture.
I don’t doubt God. Sorry about yours.
I pray that you see the truth and become as a little child, knowing nothing, but what God tells you.
Farewell, and God be with you friend
2Ti 3:16 “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:”
2Pe 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
2Pe 1:21 “For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.”
“All scripture is given be inspiration of God” – How can this be true and Genesis 1 not?
I can’t keep going with this. I’m now well under the requisites of this verse in the Bible.
Tit 3:10 “A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;”
I’m sorry, but I’m sinning and because this I can’t continue this talk. You doubt my God, my lord, my saviour… I can’t take part in this any longer.
I pray that you see the truth and become as a little child, knowing nothing, but what God tells you.
Farewell, and God be with you friend
Bad raises some good points.
Tyler said:
When the UN was formed, it had 45 members, out of about 115 nations. Today there are nearly 200 members, with more than 200 nations on the planet.
We’re moving away from global government at an accelerating clip. Even with the EU consolidations, we’re moving away from global government.
Is it your prediction that every human being on the planet will be watching Tv when this event supposedly occurs? No? You’re reading more into this passage than it says in order to apply Tv to it, not the other way around. People of other eras had no particular problem with this passage: it just means that people from all sorts of different nations will bear witness to the event.
As far as the Biblical people were concerned, the Romans pretty much were a sustained nearly global government (inasmuch as they knew of the globe).
But they aren’t obvious. They might seem that way to you, but you seem to have closed off pretty much all alternate avenues of seeing the world differently.
Again, this is something nearly anyone in any age could claim, and feel it was equally obvious.
What incredible spike?
Tyler, in Genesis 1 humans are created last, after all the other animals. In Genesis 1, Adam and Eve are created at the same time, together.
In Genesis 2, Adam is without a mate. What happened to Eve? This conflict of scripture cannot be explained away as a translation error. It is discussed by Judaic scholars in texts more than 2,000 years old.
In Genesis 2, God creates Adam first, then the other animals in hopes of finding a mate for Adam. When none of the other animals proves suitable for mating, God creates a woman from Adam’s rib.
Those are two of the larger contradictions. The order of creation is different for several things between the two.
Christians have understood for a couple of millenia that these creation stories are not to be taken literally. I cannot imagine why anyone would deny so much Christian tradition and insist they are literal — especially now that God’s testament of creation is so clear that the stories are not literally true.
Give me specific verses that conflict with my view please. All I won’t to know is the truth, that’s it. Please confine your answer to Genesis two, I would like to know how it contradicts chapter 1.
Look, Tyler:
Genesis 1 conflicts with Genesis 2. If you’re right, that Genesis 1 is right, then Genesis 2 must be wrong. You’ve falsified the story of Adam and Eve.
Not to mention the creation story in Job, which comes from the mouth of God. If Genesis 1 is “correct and literal” as you claim, God lied to Job. You’ve successfully falsified God. And, true to Paul’s complaint about violating the law most when he tried hardest to keep it, you’ve done it while you were trying to do the opposite. But of course, since you’ve already falsified the Bible and God (except for Genesis 1), Paul’s writings are also false.
Congratulations. You’ve put Genesis 1 above God. Abraham fought to end idol worship, you’ve reinstated it.
If you want to spread “the truth of the Bible,” spend some time reading the story of Hosea and Gomer; spend some time reading Galatians. Read the beatitudes. Follow Jesus’ advice and be kind enough to people that they will want to model their lives after you.
Telling everybody the world will end soon meets none of those criteria, but that’s what Jesus called for. You have a choice: Follow Jesus or be creationist.
Your choice. Choose wisely.
Bad…
I’ve never refuted the fact that Bible prophecy is sometime relevant to a time period. If fact, I’ve said that sometimes it is relevant to a time period. My only point is that never has ALL the prophecy in the Bible been relevant to a time. Every other time period couldn’t explain the entire world logically seeing two prophets die in Jerusalem (TV). Never has the world been in a position for a sustained global government, because economically and realistically a world would fall apart as such before now because of limitations we no longer have. Never has the world been so close to having the gospel preached all over the planet. Never has there been such an incredible spike in natural disasters (to the best of our knowledge). And never has there been such a MASSIVE jump in technology over such a short period of time. So much so that we’re on the verge of destroying this planet. If we’re so close to self destruction then I don’t honestly see how God is going to wait much longer. God destroys everything on this planet with his judgments, not us.
Heck, these are things I don’t even have to reference, they’re just so obvious. I’m not so arrogant to believe that the end will unfold EXACTLY as I say it will, but I do say that all of Bible prophecy is very obviously and logically possible.
Like I said, I’m not a doom-sayer, and I’m definately not in this to deter people from God (I’m not an Anti-Christ). I’m simply here to spread what God has shown me to be true, THAT”S ALL. Quote me were I’ve been giving you the impression that I want you turn from Gods commandments of…
Mat 22:37 “Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.”
Mat 22:38 “This is the first and great commandment. ”
Mat 22:39 “And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.”
Ed…
About your Evolution and The Bible theory, and the two being compatible:
Gen 1:8 “And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day. ”
“And the evening and the morning were the second day” Here the Bible describes the second day for us. It’s telling us that that day consisted of an evening and a morning BEFORE he even created the sun. If that is so why would he say that? Well, he was specifying that it was a day, just a day. A day exactly as we would know it. The kind of day that consists of an evening period and a morning period. Here is even more evidence supporting a 6 day creation.
The word “evening” used in 1:8 (like all the other times it’s used in chapter one) is the Hebrew word “eh’-reb” and it means “dusk: – + day, even (-ing, tide), night.” Every time the word “evening” is used in Genesis it’s translated from “eh’-reb”. “eh’reb” is used 13 times in Genesis and every time it’s used it means exactly what you’d think it would mean; the second half of what we know as a day. Here are some examples:
Gen 8:11 “And the dove came in to him in the evening; and, lo, in her mouth was an olive leaf pluckt off: so Noah knew that the waters were abated from off the earth.”
Gen 24:11 “And he made his camels to kneel down without the city by a well of water at the time of the evening, even the time that women go out to draw water.”
Gen 29:23 “And it came to pass in the evening, that he took Leah his daughter, and brought her to him; and he went in unto her.”
Gen 30:16 “And Jacob came out of the field in the evening, and Leah went out to meet him, and said, Thou must come in unto me; for surely I have hired thee with my son’s mandrakes. And he lay with her that night.”
The exact same thing goes for the word “morning” in Hebrew. The word is “bo’-ker” which means: Properly dawn (as the break of day); “generally morning – (+) day, early, morning, morrow.” Every time this word is used (it’s used 19 times in Genesis) it means exactly what we know to be the early part of a day. Here are some examples:
Gen 19:15 “And when the morning arose, then the angels hastened Lot, saying, Arise, take thy wife, and thy two daughters, which are here; lest thou be consumed in the iniquity of the city.”
Gen 19:27 “And Abraham gat up early in the morning to the place where he stood before the LORD:”
Gen 20:8 “Therefore Abimelech rose early in the morning, and called all his servants, and told all these things in their ears: and the men were sore afraid.”
Gen 21:14 “And Abraham rose up early in the morning, and took bread, and a bottle of water, and gave it unto Hagar, putting it on her shoulder, and the child, and sent her away: and she departed, and wandered in the wilderness of Beersheba.”
If this isn’t enough. If we were to do a word study on the word “day” in chapter one we would find that the word was translated from “yome”. Find the word “yome” in Genesis and you’ll find that it means a short period of time or a literal day…
Gen 7:11 “In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.” – day here means is translated from yome.
I’m not trying to attack you, or try to be the “most smart”, or “best arguer” or anything. All I’m trying to do is spread the truth of the Bible and save souls. I’m not in this for gain or disposition. No one here even knows who I am, and they won’t know. I want nothing from this.
Yep, thanks. And you know, I hadn’t even considered spam filters: I just figured my net connection had crapped out on me again and failed to post (it happens sometimes on wordpress for some reason: I actually lost a bunch of quite long posts I was working on the other day).
Bad, I found one post in the spam filter (I’d have sworn it would take more links than that); not a long one, but with a bunch of cites. Is that it, now posted above?
WTH? I could have sworn I posted a lengthy response…
In any case, I didn’t toss out a bunch of cites before because I figured the point was obvious. There are entire LIBRARIES worth of books purporting to interpret Revelations. There are entire schools of interpretation of which your way of interpreting it is just one. A simple google search will return hundreds if not thousands of takes just in the modern era, and any book on major Christian movements will include some. Martin Luther, for instance, once discounted Revelations, but towards the end of his life began to believe that it was almost certainly talking about the Roman Catholic church of his time, against which he fought. St. Augustine had his own take, and so on.
The first and most obvious historical interpretations I’ve already alluded to: the fact that the text looks to predict things specific to the situation of the times it was written in: the persecution and fall of Rome. 666 (or 616) seems to stand for Nero. The 7 heads are the 7 Roman Caesars, and so on. The mark was simply that: a mark (like a tatoo) placed on loyal servants of the evil empire.
No. There is no scripture which says that. A geologist working to calculate the age of the Earth thought that he might get an approximation by counting the begats, if one assumes that Genesis 1 is sorta correct, and if one assumes that the begats are literally correct, neither assumption the geologist would vouch for.
There is no scripture which says the Earth is young. There is no scripture which says the Earth is less than 4 billion years old. There is no scripture which says an accurate numbering of the years of the Earth can be obtained by any calculation or prestidigitation of the Bible.
7,000 years old? It’s 17th century science. You’re mistaking science for scripture, and not good science, but 17th century science that has been disproven.
God’s creation shows fossils that are, measured by God’s clocks, millions of years old. If the Earth were younger than that, God would have to be a liar. I resent that implication, and Christians reject it.
Scripture does say no one, not even Jesus, can know the hour of God’s coming for us. You deny that scripture, and claim to have a better interpretation than Jesus’s. When we point that out to you, you dance a bit, but insist that you’re right and everybody else, including the Bible and Jesus, are wrong. Then you claim Jim Jones did that same stuff, but somehow you’re different from him.
Ouch, indeed.
The Bible says that the world is 7k years old and that man was created fully formed. Evolution REQUIRES the world to be several millions, and man to be the descendant of a single celled organism . How does EVOLUTION (not SCIENCE! as I’ve said before) and The Bible go hand in hand?
God says that we will definitely know the season of the end. I try to make it a priority to know what God says. It says for us to live every day as if the world will continue forever, I understand! I’m just using Bible prophecy as a testimony to God. I’m not saying be a suspicious doom-sayer constantly watching your back. I’m definitely not saying that science is false! I’m saying that the Science that contradicts The Bible is verily, and most completely, false.
Concerning your Jim Jones references:
Ouch, I’m NOTHING like him. I try (true unadulterated conviction is hard to come by) to believe 100% completely in The Word of God, and if I am ever confronted with truth in scripture that contradicts my beliefs I’ll make sure to understand it and believe it. Jim Jones was an Antichrist who claimed to be all of the great spiritual leaders who ever existed rapped up in one (even Christ). He denied scripture and said several things that contradicted it. He was a manipulator for either self gain or he was so rapped up in his own pride and fame that he lost his sense of reality and actually thought he was God.
All in all, he may have been a lunatic who MAY have used the truths of God to his advantage, but that certainly doesn’t make the truths he spoke any less credible (assuming he actually fed people all the information).
If you think I’m wrong in scripture, I’m here right now ready to hear why I’m wrong. Back up what you say with scripture and I’ll MOST DEFINITELY rethink my beliefs. My trust and faith is totally and completely in God and the ONLY REASON (besides maybe a little bit of pride, but I try hard to not have pride) I have for saying what I do is for the salvation of the souls of the readers of this article’s comment section. I’m just trying to be obedient to God by telling people what I feel God has shown me to be true. Say I’m wrong all you want, but PLEASE don’t make FALSE and uncalled for statements like comparing me to Jim Jones. He was an abomination to God, all I want is to be is an obedient disciple of God.
Whoever told you evolution contradicts God was lying. Don’t listen to them anymore.
And, Tyler, Jesus doesn’t say we’ll be suspicious of the time — He said we won’t know. Even the faithful will be caught unawares. Even the faithful.
So, you tell me you are aware of the end? According to Jesus’s statement, which category would that put you in?
The gospel has not been preached in all the world.
We have constant wars and rumors of wars, and have had for the last 6,000 years. That line could apply to almost any time (though there was a brief period after the fall of the Soviet Union when we had a window of delicious hope for peace — Jesus tells us we should work for that).
There is always the abomination of desolation. Always. Constantly.
How many times must people go up to the hills awaiting the end at midnight before they get the clue that the end won’t come if they think they’re ready for it? You ask us to enumerate each of the several dozen — or several hundred — times this has happened? Have you studied none of them?
Jim Jones used to offer warnings similar to those you’re offering. What should we make of that?
And then you deny science, you deny the things that God’s creation makes manifest?
Foolishness. I’ll not take part, thank you.
Ok, well if you aren’t aware of these things: start here. If you google revelation prophecies, you’ll find literally hundreds and hundreds just form people today, many of whom think it obvious, but not the same obvious things as yourself. Heck, there are whole LIBRARIES of this stuff Take a trip to your local Borders and you’ll see I’m not making things up. I didn’t toss out a bunch of cites before because I figured it was obvious. Heck, the most famous is probably Martin Luther’s interpretation of the Catholic Church as the anti-Christ
There are also entire schools of thought on how Rev should be interpreted
And so on.
Ed said:
“Whoever told you evolution is opposed to religion, or that religion requires opposition to science (and the facts), was wrong. Don’t listen to them any more.”
I don’t believe that science is opposed to The Bible. God created all things, science is the uncovering of the intricacies of Gods creation. Since evolution contradicts God, I look for and believe that evolution, apart from the rest of the science, is in itself, false. We have already gone over this though. So don’t worry about bringing it up again. I’m not learned enough in evolution and science to argue this mostly faith based belief that it’s (evolution) untrue.
I’m only digging up the dead so the people reading this may know that I do believe allot of science to be true, just not evolution.
You can show me historical writings of people claiming that prophecy is coming true. Heck, you must be able to, because otherwise how could you make the claim that
Bad said:
“Again, though, this is what people have been insisting for millenia now”.
That’s what I meant by prove me wrong. Honestly, if your just going to ignore what I say and say that what you ignored is information I’m not giving then how could we possibly discuss this?
If you going to tell me that these prophecies to you are too “vague”, and that because of that “broadness” it is impossible decipher there exact meaning then I suppose we have a disagreement. Like I said, I agree that over the course of history some prophecies may have been seemingly “coming true”, but that’s just some. Never has every prophecy in The Bible simultaneously been relevant.
If you say…
Bad said:
“I’ve met plenty of people like yourself who think that all the signs are obviously showing the way today… except they talk about entirely different signs than you.”
Give me some examples. Also…
Bad said:
“In fact, the people that wrote it originally had some very obvious concerns in their own time”
Give me examples!
Stop telling me “I’m wrong” without even giving me a minuscule shred of evidence supporting your words. If you can’t come up with evidence, then use logic to back up your claims. Maybe compare the verse I referenced to the world in a different way. Heck, that would support your claim.
Ed…
God does say that we won’t know the hour of his coming, but we’ll certainly know the season. If we weren’t meant to be able to tell if the end is, at least, near, then God wouldn’t have written prophecies (not to say that I know what God would and wouldn’t do, but I can’t see any reason for prophecy if God didn’t want us to know that the time was near). There are several verses that suggest that we will know the end is nigh.
Mat 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
Mat 24:6 “And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet.”
Mat 24:15 “When ye therefore shall see the abomination of desolation, spoken of by Daniel the prophet, stand in the holy place, (whoso readeth, let him understand:)”
Why would he say these things if we weren’t meant to know that the end is near (these are just to verses of the top of me head)?
Also…
Mat 24:32 “Now learn a parable of the fig tree; When his branch is yet tender, and putteth forth leaves, ye know that summer is nigh:”
Here he tells us that we will know the season of the end.
You think its obvious, but then so did all those other people about their particular interpretations. Personally, it all seems far too vague and cryptic to me for it to be of much use at all: someone could link it to just about anything. And people do. I’ve met plenty of people like yourself who think that all the signs are obviously showing the way today… except they talk about entirely different signs than you.
Again, that’s clearly not so. Many of the people in the past believed it all made sense (they even believed, like you, and wrongly, that no one before had been able to make sense of it!) In fact, the people that wrote it originally had some very obvious concerns in their own time to which it all matched up with, since they all believed that the end of the world was imminently nigh right then and there. I’ve already mentioned Caesar Nero.
How many bites at the apple does a prediction get before it’s failed? Hundreds? Thousands? People do the same exact thing with the prophecies of Nostradamus, just as unconvincingly.
That’s a completely backwards standard: how am I supposed to provide “evidence” that the world ISN’T going to end the way you say or that these supposed prophecies are vague and interpreted all sorts of different ways by lots of people?
You’re the one who needs to provide evidence that anyone should take them seriously. Simply speculating about them yourself and demanding that I prove you wrong isn’t the same thing as you providing evidence of anything. I understand tat you think you see a pattern. I’m just saying that a heck of a lot of time, people see patterns in just about anything, and its just not a very convincing case here.
Tyler, it seems to me that trying to argue that prophecies are “coming true” that suggest a major conflict of Biblical proportions falls into that same category as the question that was put to Jesus by the Pharisees about the coming of the Kingdom of God.
Jesus said no man can know. Isn’t that rather what you’re saying, that you see the signs?
Here’s Luke 17, the relevant passages:
Bad, people haven’t been addressing these things logically, but now, every single prophecy has an OBVIOUS comparison. Most people can look at a prophecy in The Bible and, off the top of their heads, compare it to something happening in the world; no bending of the meaning of the prophecy, or stretching the bounds of the current reality required. Just look at the prophecy I wrote about above. Do you honestly think that any of that is easily explainable to a mindset 60-3000 years in the past? No, back then most of it was confusing and ridiculous sounding, but now it’s ALL relevant (Some of the prophecy has been on the horizen for awhile now. Ever since the early 1900s late 1800s, The Bible has been becoming more and more relevant .
They’ve been addressing a few of them relating them to current events, but NEVER has EVERY SINGLE PROPHECY been on the foreseeable horizon. In the past most of what prophecy mentioned in The Bible made no sense.
Ether way, I can’t discuss these things with you if your going to just arbitrarily tell me I’m wrong without backing it up with a shred of evidence. Also, if your just gonna take my words and ignore the context then it’s impossible to intelligently discuss this matter. This is not to say that I’ll stop posting, I’m just telling you that I’m getting tired of being told that I’m wrong without actually being proved wrong. Give me something tangible to combat, until then I don’t know what else to say.
I’m not offended, I’m not sure why you would think I was. I don’t agree certainly, but that’s fine.
Again, though, this is what people have been insisting for millenia now: interpreting these things slightly differently from yourself of course. What’s to say that 1000 years from now there won’t be someone interpreting them in an entirely different way, just as sure that everything is then all falling into place?
You understand that this claim completely begs the question though, right? Only if you insist on strict literal truth AND (of course) your particular interpretation of those passages would you have grounds to use them as evidence. If you didn’t, then there wouldn’t be any reason you’d have to come to the same conclusion. It’s also very odd to simply use single lines pulled out of the Bible as if they were all general statements directly applicable to whatever point you find yourself making.
For myself, none of that is really an issue in the first place, because I don’t believe in any supernatural specialness of the Bible in the first place. I was just explaining that there are many many other Christian views possible than a strict literalism (in fact, that view is really quite a recent development).
Firstly, the prophetic books of The Bible are more relevant than they have ever been. In the past people claimed that the possible fulfillment of one or two prophecies was a sign of the end, but now ALL of The Bible’s remaining prophecies seem possible…
- 10 kingdoms controlled by a one world government (UN, or maybe a successor?)
1. North American Union
2. European Union
3. South American union
4. Asian Union
5. Mediterranean Union (In progress)
6. United Kingdom (I know it’s part of the EU currently, but who knows)
7. Australia (probably going to remain it’s own thing)
8. Possibly a revived Soviet Union?
9. African Union
10. There’s still some country’s that aren’t united yet, but you can be sure if the rest of the world is doing it everyone else will.
- natural disaster rating increasing (birth pains).
- not being able to buy or sell without VISA (666) technology (a definite possibility in the future). In fact, this will probably be utilized by the world government. Like I said, it’s the logical next step.
- The Bible claims that the world will see the two prophets killed by the Antichrist. This didn’t make sense until television. Rev 11:9 “And they of the people and kindreds and tongues and nations shall see their dead bodies three days and an half, and shall not suffer their dead bodies to be put in graves.”
- Dan 12:4 “But thou, O Daniel, shut up the words, and seal the book, even to the time of the end: many shall run to and fro, and knowledge shall be increased.”
What has happened in the past 150 years? Well, people have busied themselves and we’ve become extremely knowledgeable with advanced technologically.
- Mat 24:6 ” And ye shall hear of wars and rumors of wars: see that ye be not troubled: for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. ”
This century has easily been the bloodies one in all time.
- Mat 24:14 “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”
Everyone on this planet, practically, knows of Jesus.
- Mat 24:12 “And because iniquity shall abound, the love of many shall wax cold. ”
Just take a look around nowadays.
Secondly…
You said: “You may disagree with their beliefs, but the fact is that your statement that the Bible must be false if it has even a single contradictory note is, itself, a false claim.”
God/I said: “2Pe 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
So I’m sorry to say that the people who believe that are not participating in their Bible studies :)
Mat 7:14 “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
And this tells us that if MOST believe those things then they’re probably on the wrong track. ”
Please tell me why you think this is unclear and wrong before you go saying that I’m wrong, because I believe only what The Bible says. So first refute The Bible here and then tell me I’m/God’s wrong.
Thirdly, If I in someway offended you, I apologize. I get a bit passionate sometimes.
Tyler,
Again, if you find life to be “seeming meaningless” and without all sort of perfectly natural and real purpose, then I’m sorry for you. I can’t even imagine what it would be like not to find inherent value in your friends, family, loved ones, and so on. I’m glad then that you have your beliefs, whatever their validity, to help make you moral and caring like the rest of us, however indirectly.
Not so. What Christians have is exactly no different than what everyone has: it just happens to be more convoluted and indirect. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the “meaning of life” is an incomplete thought: it doesn’t specify who its talking about (and that who is a necessary component of the concept), and there are many different possibilities, all valid and non-contradictory (since many different people can find different meanings in the same thing).
Obviously, I don’t agree, but this was not really the question at hand, however. You asserted that if any part of the Bible was flawed, the entire thing was a lie. That, however, is not so, as the beliefs of countless Christians testify. You may disagree with their beliefs, but the fact is that your statement that the Bible must be false if it has even a single contradictory note is, itself, a false claim.
Your speculation about VISA is amusing, but anyone can play number games all day long. In virtually every era there have been believers who came up with another “deciphering” of what the numbers 666 “really” stood for… and always a different answer custom tailored to the particular fears of the person in question. As far as I can tell, most solid Biblical scholarship suggests that the code was originally meant to stand for Caesar Nero, since that is what it seems to spell out in the common numerology of the time. Early Christians understandably had a major fear of Nero (who was indeed quite an evil fellow), even to the point of fearing he would return and persecute them again.
Dan, I’m no Christian, and have no strong feelings over how to define one. But some American Protestants do, and not even limited to crackpots like Chick. I mentioned the caveat purely because I know that creationism and this view overlap quite a bit. I wasn’t agreeing with it, simply acknowledging it.
I’m sympathetic to the arguments of Catholics actually, when it comes to scholarly claims about the historical legitimacy of tradition, but again, that’s not really here nor there.
2Pe 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
So I’m sorry to say that the people who believe that are not participating in their Bible studies :)
Mat 7:14 “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
And this tells us that if MOST believe those things then they’re probably on the wrong track.
Anyway…
I don’t know what’s beyond this existence, Bad. I believe that God, however, has given this seemingly meaningless life a purpose.
You and I could argue the meaning of life all day long and get nowhere. Luckily, we don’t have to know what it is as Christians to know that there is one while evolutionists are left to guessing.
The Bible is pumped full of evidences that support it that require personal research to dig out. I’m only a man, but if you let God speak to you you can be sure that he’ll tell you truth. When I speak of truth I don’t only mean that “life directing” sort of truth. I’m talking about the faith building truth. The things of God that convince that he exists because they’re specific and unarguable. It’s just a matter of study. Either way, I’m gonna post a few biblical truths I’ve discovered.
VI = 6 (Roman numerals)
S = 6 (Cyrillic numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_numerals
/\ = A (The resemblance is obvious) = 6 (Urnfield Culture numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture_numerals
a = 6 (Thai numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_numerals
VIS/\ or VISa = VISA
Rev 13:17 “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
I think that VISA technology will somehow be implemented on the mark that will be in our hands or foreheads. This will probably come about using an RFID chip…
From this article: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/169
“Visa is combining smart cards and RFID chips so people can conduct transactions without having to use cash or coins. These smart cards can also be incorporated into cell phones and other devices. Thus, you could pay for parking, buy a newspaper, or grab a soda from a vending machine without opening your wallet. This is wonderfully convenient, but the specter of targeted personal ads popping up as I walk through the mall, a la Minority Report, does not thrill me.”
…RFID chips are the next logical step after a world government is made into a reality (The government will be controlled by the Antichrist all according to The Bible). With these chips, transactions and the flow of the world government’s citizens will be fluid (due to the ease of just swiping your hand over a scanner without any ID or risk) and controlled (logically given that we won’t have to deal with many of the economic problems that arise in an extremely economic world with borders. That, and several conflicting governmental laws will be abolished).
I’ll look a bit more into some other things if ppl want to hear them. I chose this prophetic subject because I know a moderate amount about it.
All in all, remember this promise:
Heb 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
A better interpretation of “prove” is “to test”. So The Bible itself, that so many ppl believe to be a fabrication of man, is telling us to test it! It’s not afraid, and for good reason. For one, it’s been 3.5k years and it still exists without a contradiction and, for two, it’s the word of an almighty God.
2Pe 1:20 “Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.”
So I’m sorry to say that the people who believe that are not participating in their Bible studies :)
Mat 7:14 “Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.”
And this tells us that if MOST believe those things then they’re probably on the wrong track.
Anyway…
I don’t know what’s beyond this existence, Bad. I believe that God, however, has given this seemingly meaningless life a purpose.
You and I could argue the meaning of life all day long and get nowhere. Luckily, we don’t have to know what it is as Christians to know that there is one while evolutionists are left to guessing.
The Bible is pumped full of evidences that support it that require personal research to dig out. I’m only a man, but if you let God speak to you you can be sure that he’ll tell you truth. When I speak of truth I don’t only mean that “life directing” sort of truth. I’m talking about the faith building truth. The things of God that convince that he exists because they’re specific and unarguable. It’s just a matter of study. Either way, I’m gonna post a few biblical truths I’ve discovered.
VI = 6 (Roman numerals)
S = 6 (Cyrillic numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyrillic_numerals
/\ = A (The resemblance is obvious) = 6 (Urnfield Culture numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urnfield_culture_numerals
a = 6 (Thai numerals) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thai_numerals
VIS/\ or VISa = VISA
Rev 13:17 “And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.”
I think that VISA technology will somehow be implemented on the mark that will be in our hands or foreheads. This will probably come about using an RFID chip…
From this article: http://www.securityfocus.com/columnists/169
“Visa is combining smart cards and RFID chips so people can conduct transactions without having to use cash or coins. These smart cards can also be incorporated into cell phones and other devices. Thus, you could pay for parking, buy a newspaper, or grab a soda from a vending machine without opening your wallet. This is wonderfully convenient, but the specter of targeted personal ads popping up as I walk through the mall, a la Minority Report, does not thrill me.”
…RFID chips are the next logical step after a world government is made into a reality (The government will be controlled by the Antichrist all according to The Bible). With these chips, transactions and the flow of the world government’s citizens will be fluid (due to the ease of just swiping your hand over a scanner without any ID or risk) and controlled (logically given that we won’t have to deal with many of the economic problems that arise in an extremely economic world with borders. That, and several conflicting governmental laws will be abolished).
I’ll look a bit more into some other things if ppl want to hear them. I chose this prophetic subject because I know a moderate amount about it.
All in all, remember this promise:
Heb 11:6 “But without faith it is impossible to please him: for he that cometh to God must believe that he is, and that he is a rewarder of them that diligently seek him.”
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.
A better interpretation of “prove” is “to test”. So The Bible itself, that so many ppl believe to be a fabrication of man, is telling us to test it! It’s not afraid, and for good reason. For one, it’s been 3.5k years and it still exists without a contradiction and, for two, it’s the word of an almighty God.
Bad, if you really believe that there is a question of whether to count Catholics as Christians, then you have no business being allowed to use the word “Christian.” Roman Catholocism was the original Christian religion. If you believe anything contrary to this, then the only person that I have ever heard of who shares this view is a comic maker named Jack Chick. Incidentally, this comic is used as a medium to further hatred of gays and the belief that Islam is the worship of a moon goddess among other things. Thank you for your time on an unrelated subject.
This is a false dilmena: many Christians, in fact MOST Christians (if you count Catholics) do not hold that the Bible is literally true in all respects. What you fail to see if that your particular conception of God being false is not a limit on the possibility of a loving God period. It’s merely a limit on your very, very specific theology.
I also have to express my sorrow that you feel that your life is itself so worthless and meaningless that if it didn’t continue on forever, it would have no point. If you knew that you would have no eternal life, would you stop loving your family? Would you stop caring about them and their happiness? Would you stop caring about higher ideals like our country, or art, or moral conviction. If so, that’s truly sad.
I’m not sure I follow your logic though: infinity times 0 equals zero. If any solely finite amount of life is meaningless, then eternal life is eternal meaninglessness: it can never add up to anything more.
Ed, I greatly appreciate your kind responses thus far. It sure has made this discussion less stressful.
First off, Evolution is based on a few fundamentals that must be true for Evolution to be right. The same goes for God and his word (the Christian God). If a single contradictory note is sung within the parameters of The Bible, then it’s false. If science claims the Christian God doesn’t exist, then we first have to examine that claim before we go being too hasty.
Differences of Evolution and The Bible:
- The Bible says the universe is around 6k-7k years old. Evolution is dependent on the universe being billions of years old.
- The Bible says man sprung up on the 6th day of creation fully man and fully formed. Evolution is dependent on, well, the claim that there is a mechanism of change in all living things and that we evolved from a single celled organism millions of years ago.
You can’t believe in one and the other.
Anyway, I’ll post tomorrow about Revelation prophecy. I had an unexpected fellowship I had to attend. I also got caught up writing something about creation science and decided that I’ll let God directly argue his point instead. Besides, I’m honestly not educated enough science-wise to have an equal discussion about it.
I find myself quoting Shakespeare:
“What fools these mortals be.” MND III.ii.115
Especially as, right under this post on WordPress’s listing under the “intelligent design” tag, is one claiming that any point of view other than complete agreement with ID is in violation of First Amendment rights. Which, as far as I’m concerned (and, begging your pardon, I do have a Ph.D. and do study organismal phylogeny, a branch of evolutionary biology), has as much credence as a First Amendment issue as shouting “Fire!” in a crowded theatre. Even if the guy (especially if the guy) doing the shouting is Ben Stein.
The thing that worries me the most, even to the point of despair, about the way this debate is tending, not just here but nearly everywhere, is the nature of the argument.
Science – all science, not just the scientific investigation of the evolution of life on earth – depends first on knowledge, often painstakingly and painfully gained, and second, on the dispassionate discussion and testing of that knowledge.
What I see, more and more often, are not debates but slanging matches, conducted with overt, deliberate appeals, not to reason, but to emotion. Appeals that most scientists are doomed to lose because they are neither trained nor, for the most part, temperamentally disposed to make emotional appeals. Richard Dawkins is one of the few prepared to try to fight fire with emotional fire, and I’m not sure but what he’s doing the field of evolutionary biology more harm than good. By allowing the ID crowd to point to him and shout Same as you!!
There are few things more emotionally charged than belief in a Supreme Being, who, in the words of Ambrose Bierce, “will annul the laws of the universe on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy”. One who provides hope in bodily resurrection and eternal life – the only hope that matters to many who profess Christianity (and, I daresay, to our Mr. Tyler). To challenge that belief, however dispassionately, however armed with facts, typically provokes an emotional response (alarmingly like the adrenaline-charged “fight or flight” response seen in practically all animals including humans) which ends not in reason but “he who shouts loudest has the floor”.
A true scientist, at least one who has the same understanding of scientific reasoning as I, does not believe anything that falls within science. The scientist will accept a statement as true until something better comes along. The theory of the evolution of life on earth by the process of natural selection, as originally proposed by Charles Darwin and, independently, by Alfred Wallace, modified by thousands of subsequent investigations and still undergoing modification today, remains dispassionately accepted as the foundation of biology, through which most of the useful work that biology has done for humankind has arisen. Its replacement by a “theory” that satisfies the need for a belief but has (Ben Stein’s pronouncements notwithstanding) no prospect for doing useful work, would be a major step backwards.
I’m not at all sure I’ve expressed myself adequately, but I’ve already occupied enough of your blogspace, Ed. I just hope the use can be of some use.
I did graduate study in history, biology and rhetoric. My only advanced degree is a J.D., however.
My wife had a good friend in college who was an unfortunate victim of cystic fibrosis. Wendy died at an age of about 24 from the disease. It’s been way more than a decade, but my wife still feels the loss. We now have another friend who suffers from CF. Medicine has advanced a lot. Life can be extended for CF victims — but only so far.
Evolution theory undergirds the search for a cure for CF. There are promising developments that could provide a cure in the next decade or two. Evolution theory provides hope of the best sort: Hope for a conquest of fatal disease.
Evolution theory is the foundation of the fight against cancer. It provides hope that one day we might offer a simple injection to beat a cruel, formerly fatal cancer. Evolution theory led to the discovery of the cause of diabetes, the development of treatments for mass use from beef and pork insulin, and now to the development of a unique treatment that features human insulin created by bacteria.
I urge you to study evolution because it offers hope. I cannot imagine why anyone could be so cynical as to tell you evolution offers no hope, or that evolution means God is false. Neither claim is accurate. I can’t imagine how anyone could make a convincing case on either point.
On the other hand, campaigns against evolution science have crippled our scientific achievement, robbing millions of the hope of cure for many diseases in their lifetimes.
Fighting against evolution delays cures for cancer and treatments for genetic diseases. I cannot imagine a more hope-destroying thing to do.
Nor was it intended to, nor should it.
However, your faith in God, and your dedication to Christian virtue, might make you ponder why anyone would claim that understanding evolution would mean a lack of faith in God, or why anyone whose case must be built on so much denial of reality could really claim to be doing God’s work.
Whoever told you evolution is opposed to religion, or that religion requires opposition to science (and the facts), was wrong. Don’t listen to them any more.
What I find disturbing is that both of you have the narrowmindedness to believe that if creationism is true, then evolution is a lie and vice versa. One theory that I personally don’t dream of trying to back up with evidence is that God created the earth and set the evolution of its inhabitants into being. Note that it is exceedingly difficult to use science’s own evidence against it, but creationists still try. I would take the dramatic failures in this case (note the story of whoever went to try and convert the Epesians) as a hint that our own faith ought to be enough for ourselves and God. Tyler, I believe that since you are trying to say that the establishment of science is upon falsehoods, it is irrelevant to your argument whether or not Ed has a degree higher than a bachelors. I, personally am a sophomore in high school, and I consider myself up to the task of chewing you two out (review your posts and note that this is all you are doing). Don’t bother responding to me because I won’t be coming back.
Can’t argue with miracles, Ed. They’re empirical AND supernatural. Illegal (cough) mix of science and religion, eh?
Ed, do you hold a degree beyond a bachelors?
I appreciate you taking the time to reveal some things about evolution I didn’t know, but it still doesn’t shake my belief in God whatsoever. The reason I’ve been found ignorant in this discussion is because I decided to place my faith in man, I pray that doesn’t happen again.
You said:
“It’s a big world out there. Evolution theory helps us make sense of it, and survive in it. Evolution is worthy of your study.”
What you fail to mention here is that evolution provides no hope. So you think the study of hopelessness is worth my time? If we are to accept that evolution is true, that would mean God is false. If that is so, what is there after death? Nothing, that’s what. If so, what’s the point to living? There is none. Evolution is a hopeless and ultimately fruitless belief. But that’s not the reason I don’t believe, because believing in something because you simply don’t want to accept it is cowardice. I believe for good reason.
I believe in God, for the most part, because I have seen biblical prophecy (it’s more in the process of unfolding) and miracle’s unfold before my very eyes. The Bible, in all of its judgments, have always been correct. I believe this because I’ve personally never seen it contradicted and I have the faith (yes, I know, believing in something without evidence; but I’m not entirely without evidence. So, it’s a partly faith based belief.) to trust that what I haven’t seen is consistent with what I have. Where did this faith come from? Well, I believe it came from God, but God doesn’t always work in mysterious ways. He’s gifted me with several testimonies that could have only been a miracle, because they completely go against every consistent medical record we have on the subject…
“Class IV Hemorrhage involves loss of >40% of circulating blood volume. The limit of the body’s compensation is reached and aggressive resuscitation is required to prevent death.” – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hemorrhage
I bled 66% of all my blood internally (The doctors told me 1/3 blood loss kills. I lost double that and was still awake!) through my stomach (because a cancerous tumor in my stomach broke) while sleeping and woke up, fainted, came to a few minutes later able to speak. My friend called an ambulance and I reached the hospital, conscious.
A few weeks later I was in the hospital brooding on my condition. At the time I didn’t believe in God whatsoever. In fact, I despised people who came to God because of fear of death. I thought it was pathetic. I thought the Christians were a bunch of loony fanatics without a shred of evidence supporting their belief. I couldn’t have had a more wrong misconception.
I don’t have the references off hand and atm I’m running on 4 hours of sleep (two jobs), so I urge you to read revelation (parts of daniel and the end of matthew are also two prophetic books) yourself. Afterwards, read the news and you’ll see connections that you couldn’t believe. You can download a KJV Bible off this site ( http://www.e-sword.net/ ) for free that comes with a direct English to Hebrew/Greek translation that allows you to simply scroll over a number next to a word and see the original word and it’s definition.
I’ll post again tomorrow, I don’t have the mental endurance to finish right now…
Here’s the trouble with creationism: It makes creationists irrational see below.
There are about 20 species known between modern humans and our last ancestor common with other great apes. Most of the species are known from a few dozen specimens, but some are known from thousands of specimens. “A good portion” would be more than 1%, I would think — which would mean there should be a hundred cases of fabrication or fraud. There is only one case I know of, however, and Piltdown was uncovered because it didn’t fit evolution theory.
I think you’re exaggerating wildly by saying there are fabrications. Incorrect identifications are serious only if done maliciously. Your examples don’t meet that criterion.
Virchow was a crank on human evolution. Adamantly opposed to the concept of evolution, he ignored the evidence. He kept declaring Neanderthals as modern humans with rickets, until there were hundreds of specimens. Rickets would prevent the creatures from growing to adulthood, and these were adults. To cite Virchow’s criticism here suggests that one is unfamiliar with the science then as well as now. Eventually, the evidence for Neanderthal was so overwhelming, with so many specimens from so many different sites, but all in the same strata, that science simply ignored Virchow. The evidence speaks.
The story of Dubois’ search is confirmation of evolution. Dubois was inspired by Alfred Russel Wallace, the co-discoverer of evolution, to search in what is now Indonesia. His searches in Sumatra weren’t encouraging, but he moved to Java in 1890, and by 1891 had found a skull cap, listed in the catalogs now as Trinil 2. It was the first hominid fossil found outside Europe. Dubois had carefully calculated where to go to find such fossils based on Wallace’s work, and once there, had limited his work to the sediments dated to about the time human ancestors would have been there. This is one of the earliest cases of evolution theory being used for such a difficult prediction — and it worked.
The femur may or may not be from the same specimen; this is readily acknowledged by all scientists. If it’s not from the same person, it means there are two specimens there. There is no scandal, fraud or error involved in those statements.
Dubois originally named the species Pithecanthropus erectus using Haeckel’s terminology. Ernst Mayr, who had seen the Dubois specimens as well as the Peking specimens and analyzed them all, suggested that they were the same species from different locations, a suggestion confirmed by dozens of other scientists since then. The species is now called Homo erectus. Again, no fraud, no error. You fail to mention that there are about 40 specimens known from Java and another 40 known from near Beijing (by 1998 — there are undoubtedly more now). 80 specimens is a lot, don’t you think? The 1969 discovery of the mostly complete skull known as Sangiran 17 contributed greatly to our knowledge of what the face of the creature looked like. Definitely a hominid.
After encountering great skepticism and personal rebukes, Dubois sat on the fossils for a time. He “hid” nothing to support your claim of fraud. The fossils are available for study now, and have been extensively studied, especially since the opening of China’s caves to further digs over the past 25 years.
“Java Man” and “Peking Man” are now both classified as H. erectus. With more than 80 specimens from at least five different digs in widely-separated areas — China and Indonesia — in projects scattered over more than a century, these finds are among the most solid evidence possible. When the amazing fossils from Beijing were lost in the Japanese invasion, many thought the casts would be all that would ever remain of “Peking Man.” But nearly three dozen individuals have been unearthed since 1980.
This is extremely solid science. I cannot imagine why you’d question it, unless you’re just unfamiliar with it. Pat Shipman wrote an amazingly detailed book on Dubois, The Man Who Found the Missing Link. Check your library to see if they have it; the details are interesting, and the story of Dubois is a tragedy suitable for dramatizing.
If you want to see the fossils themselves, check the library for Donald Johansen and Blake Edgar’s book of life-size photos, From Lucy to Language. It has photos of Dubois’ cranium as well as several others.
Actually, Piltdown didn’t make many textbooks. For several reasons, it didn’t fit the evolution story, and many paleontologists remained skeptical. Because it couldn’t be fit into the story, most publications that mentioned it at all noted only that it had been found. Because it did not fit any other evolution data set, scientists reanalyzed the specimens in 1953, and they discovered the hoax.
Piltdown was an amazing hoax, probably a practical joke gone awry. There is good conjecture that a couple of scientists were trying to entertain a third scientist, a friend, at the British Museum, with this astounding find in a gravel pit (clue one). Unfortunately, their friend didn’t pick up on the joke, and went public with the data. They tried to make it even more ludicrous, but those data were not revealed until later (they obtained an elephant femur, had it carved in the shape of a cricket bat, and aged the bone — obviously, a cricket bat would mean the ancient man was genuinely English!).
But this is the one fraud. It’s important to note that no creationist ever had an inkling of the fraud. Only because the bones didn’t square with other finds from near the same aged sediments, nor did they square with known distribution of hominids at the time, evolutionary scientists kept plugging away. But for evolution theory, the fraud may not have been discovered, ever.
A Nebraska farmer found some fossil teeth. He took them to a local dentist who said he was pretty sure they were human-like. The farmer sent the teeth to the American Museum of Natural History in New York. A researcher there described the teeth in a science journal, and asked if anyone could confirm that they were hominid. Within a few weeks other researchers noted that the teeth were porcine, not hominid. The new identification was published. Again, no fraud — an amateur, a dentist, misidentified the teeth and got some excitement. A pig’s molar is indistinguishable from a hominid molar to anyone who isn’t an expert (the dentist obviously was not an expert in pig teeth and the differences).
William Jennings Bryan had hoped to do something with the case at the Scopes trial, but it was never introduced as evidence there. When the judge refused to allow science testimony, Scopes pled guilty and the trial ended with no show of evidence. Notice it was the creationist side that wanted to make hay with it, not the science side.
No fraud, no false findings, no significant error. The dentist, by the way, was a good Christian, creationist until asked to identify the fossil teeth (and probably afterward). This shows the dangers of letting ill-informed or un-informed creationists draw conclusions on data that they are not qualified to draw.
You should read up on these things. The difficulty with this fossil is simply that it’s too old to be a hominid. Before we had molecular dating and DNA, wide time-ranges put it in the range of humans. When the molecular guys determined hominids split from the other apes only 5 million to 7 million years ago, Ramapithecus had to be cast as an outlyer at best. Additional digs found a similar, almost contemporary ape species, Sivapithecus, in the same strata, and that fairly sealed the deal that it was not a hominid.
Again, no fraud or deception, no serious error. The debate on this species was full and open, and it depended on the finding of new evidence at each turn — molecular evidence and new fossil finds provided the data needed. Creationists provided no useful input to the process, since creationists rarely do research in these areas.
Baboons were known long before the 1970s. This is a fossil ape. I don’t know what the claim is with living baboons, but it’s probably irrelevant. We are finding more fossil apes, however, which only adds to the mountains of evidence favoring evolution.
No, Homo erectus is all Homo — it’s a hominid. With so many specimens, this identification is quite clear.
A hoax determined only with the use of evolution theory — it reifies the accuracy of evolution theory. Piltdown played a vanishingly small role in evolution, since it didn’t fit evolution’s predictions.
A well-meaning dentist and farmer found some fossils. No scientist ever called it “Nebraska Man” (the name was attached by a London tabloid newspaper), and the scientists quickly identified the teeth as pig teeth. By the way, the age of the fossil pigs also refute a literal Genesis version. The pig fossils support evolution theory (not to mention the Ashfall Beds State Park fossils, nearby).
A fossil ape, whose proper identification supports evolution theory, though it shows evolution of one of the other branches of the great apes, not the hominid branch.
Good science. I can’t figure out why you’re trying to spin this one. There’s no problem with it at all.
No, in one case, Ramapithecus, the dates were not wrong, but were determined to be before the split of hominids from other apes. In no case were the dates wrong, in fact. When serious dating was done of the Piltdown specimens, they were properly dated, too.
But you’ve left out almost all of the hominid fossils. You’ve really mentioned only one, Homo erectus. There are at least 17 different species in the chain from modern humans back to our common proto-ape ancestor, and they are all solid, too. From modern to most ancient, they are:
Homo sapiens (Modern humans)
H. neanderthalensis
H. heidelbergensis
H. erectus
H. ergaster
H. habilis
H. rudolfensis
Australopithecus boisei
A. aethiopicus
A. robustus
A. crassidens
A. africanus
A. afarensis (Lucy’s species)
A. bahrelghazali
A. anamensis
A. praegens
Ardipithecus ramidus
So, you’ve got one case of mistaken tooth, corrected by scientists; one case of practical joke gone awry, corrected by scientists; one case where you think somehow an ape fossil negates some part of evolution (I’m still not sure about that); and one case where your facts don’t change the reality that H. erectus strode the Earth.
And then there are 16 other species, with thousands of individuals in some of them (sapiens and Neanderthal both, for example), which you appear not to have known anything about until this moment.
One hoax doesn’t negate 17 solid species. On numbers of species alone, there is a very strong case for human evolution. When we consider the number of individual specimens, the evidence is really overwhelming.
Tyler, spend some time at this site, and get some background:
http://www.becominghuman.org/
If you’re in Texas, get thee down to Houston to see Lucy:
http://www.hmns.org/exhibits/special_exhibits/Lucy.asp?r=1&terms=
And here: http://lucyexhibition.com/about-the-exhibit.aspx
Check out some of the fossils of hominids here:
http://www.indiana.edu/%7Eorigins/index.html
Noodle around the web and see what else you can find — here’s a BBC World Service site:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/worldservice/africa/features/storyofafrica/2chapter1.shtml
And just so you understand that there are a lot of questions, and that scientists constantly work for greater accuracy and more details, take a look at this story that suggests modern humans have been around for 195,000 years, not just 100,000:
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn7020&feedId=online-news_rss091
It’s a big world out there. Evolution theory helps us make sense of it, and survive in it. Evolution is worthy of your study.
Sure it’s scientific. It doesn’t rebut any part of evolution theory. What’s your claim?
I think you’re confused about radioisotope dating. Off hand I can’t think of any reason there should not be C-14 in oil in trace amounts.
Since oil is a fluid, and since it flows through lots of strata, it’s impossible to get a clean sample that should be suitable for dating with C-14. Any date given to oil would be invalid, if one follows the protocols for getting accurate readings.
Of course, creationists rarely are interested in accurate readings, having no basic commitment to accuracy, fact or truth. Isn’t that your claim here?
I assume that you’re unfamiliar with how oil is extracted, then, that you would think an uncontaminated sample possible.
Carbon 14 is generally measured in bone from animals, or in solid wood from plants. Which part of the petroleum is the bone or the solid matrix wood? Which part of the petroleum is equivalent to bone or solid wood?
If one uses an inappropriate method to measure, one gets inappropriate answers.
How does science differ?
1. Science findings are published for everyone to see, in peer-reviewed journals, to try to avoid error.
2. Science findings are replicable — anyone can do the observation and get the same results.
3. Science findings exist; they are not hypothetical or imaginary.
4. Science findings produce predictions of results of observations or experiments, which have been verified subsequently. No creationist claim does that.
What in creationism contradicts fact? The rest of your post is a good example; what isn’t simply contrary to the facts is often distorted. Transitional species in fossil form are common, not non-existent. There are fossils prior to the Cambrian. Dozens of species exist in many lines, providing dozens of “links” where creationists claim there are none. And so on.
I notice that you appear unable to specify any part of evolution that is misleading, so far.
What part of evolution theory do you think is “misleading?” The PBS material I’ve looked at, and to which I referred you, is backed by a couple centuries of hard research. If you think science is “indoctrination,” I’m really curious with what bizarre ideas you have been indoctrinated with yourself. Care to elucidate?
I visited the PBS site and it doesn’t give any sort of compelling argument.evidence that Evolution is true. It assumes you think Evolution is true and then makes seeming statements of fact that are quite misleading. If I were ignorant I would have assumed the site had good reason for making the claims it does, that’s unfair. That’s indoctrination.
I’m sorry, but how is the evolutionist interpretation have any more validity than the creationists? How are their claims “non-science”? What in them contradicts fact?
So, the discovery of Carbon-14 in oil thought to be “millions of years in the making” isn’t a scientific discovery? And the logic that because there is Carbon-14 in the oil the oil isn’t millions of years old, but merely thousands is also not scientific? 60,000 years is the longest amount of time Carbon-14 can remain in a formerly living object and we’re finding it in all oil, coal, and fossils said to be “millions” of years old. Before you think I’m not aware of the evolutionists theory that the oil (in the case I read) is somehow always contaminated by biological substances or remade via radiation… Think again. I am aware, and I ask you: How can you believe in something so far fetched? We’re discovering an element that decays rapidly in substances that the evolutionists were hanging onto as absolute irrefutable proof that this planet is millions of years old.
http://www.reference.com/search?q=carbon-14%20
“Most man-made chemicals are made of fossil fuels, such as petroleum or coal, in which the carbon-14 has long since decayed. However, oil deposits often contain trace amounts of carbon-14 (varying significantly, but ranging from 1% the ratio found in living organisms to undetectable amounts, comparable to an apparent age of 40,000 years for oils with the highest levels of carbon-14). This may indicate possible contamination by small amounts of bacteria, underground sources of radiation (such as uranium decay), or other unknown secondary sources of carbon-14 production. Presence of carbon-14 in the isotopic signature of a sample of carbonaceous material therefore indicates its possible contamination by biogenic sources or the decay of radioactive material in related geologic strata.”
There’s more…
A good portion of the evolutionists “prehumans” were fabrications or wrongly identified fossils.
Examples from Mike Riddles “Origin of Humans” PDF found on http://www.train2equip.com/DVDlessonPlan.asp :
• Java man
- In 1891, an apelike skullcap was found.
- In 1892, a human-like thighbone was found 40 feet away from the skullcap.
- Rudolph Virchow, a leading scientist of the time stated:
“In my opinion this creature was an animal, a giant gibbon, in fact. The
thigh bone has not the slightest connection with the skull.”
- Dubois kept information hidden.
- Dubois insisted Java man was not a man but a creature intermediate to the
gibbons and humans.
- Since 1950, anthropologists and textbooks have been calling Java man
Homo erectus.
• Piltdown man
- Parts were found between 1908 and 1912 in Piltdown, England.
- The claim was: a 500,000-year-old intermediate link.
- It was featured in textbooks and encyclopedias as the missing link.
- In 1953, it was discovered to be a fraud.
- The bones had been chemically stained to appear old and filed to fit
together.
• Nebraska man
- Fossil evidence discovered in 1922
- Used to support evolution in the 1925 Scopes trial
- Claimed to be a one-million year old missing link
- The truth: an extinct pig’s tooth
• Ramapithecus
- Pithecos: Greek for ape
- Discovered in the 1930’s (jaw bone and teeth fragments)
- Claimed to be the 14-million year-old intermediate between humans and
ape-like creatures
- The truth: In the 1970’s a baboon living in Ethiopia with similar dental and
jaw structure to Ramapithecus was found
- Ramapithecus was dropped from the human line
• Summary of “facts”
- Java man was part human and part ape.
- Piltdown man was a hoax.
- Nebraska man was a pig.
- Ramapithecus was an ape.
- In every case the dates (millions of years) were wrong.
One more thing before I finish. Read Revelation in The Bible and compare the predictions to the foreseeable future now and tell me The Bible is a work of fiction.
Here’s a personal theory I think foreshadows the eventual mark (RFID chip) in the hand or forehead that will disable our ability to buy or sell without it.
http://weirdjerod.proboards107.com/index.cgi?board=revelations&action=display&thread=1197682188
Tyler, please read the post linked to at the bottom. The sources you cite are anti-science hangouts, notorious for their bizarre and non-science claims. If that’s representative of your science sources, you might find it useful to get familiar with what evolution theory really is before commenting.
Try the PBS series, “Evolution,” or spend some serious time at the evolution gateway from Berkeley.
I’m sorry to say, but your sadly mistaken on your view. Intelligent design happens to be a movement backed by nothing but logic and evidence. Evolution, however, hasn’t a shred of evidence supporting its claims. All it has going for it is poor logic and deception to support itself, not science (http://www.vuletic.com/hume/cefec/ – Speaks specifically about the science of creation refuting evolution) . Here are a few websites/articles/videos supporting Intelligent design (The Bible and God)…
http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2704
This one’s about dinosaurs and The Bible.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
This site has a multitude of articles all completely devoted to the support of intelligent design.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2027017937592260869
“The Science of God – Part 1″
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=101157555912125530
“The Science of God – Part 2″
Explaining the intricacies of The Bible supporting the idea that it had to have been created by a supreme God.
I’m not trying to challenge you specifically, but rather trying to help you see the creationist point of view for what it really is. I’m not telling you’re wrong because I have a different opinion. Nor am I arbitrarily making claims (like evolutionists) w/o any real solid evidence. If you are to look up the foundations of the evolutionist claims you’ll find inconsistencies and deception. To be quite frank, I think a pig is more likely to fly than a monkey is to “evolve” into a human (based on every scientific fact I’ve ever seen).
All in all, I think it’s unfair to tell impressionable people that Evolution is fact and Creationism is wrong without a single shred of credible evidence. By the way, evidence isn’t a statement, or a theory; it’s observable and testable consistencies. I urge you to simply do the research. You don’t have to believe me, find out for yourselves.
The existence of a person named in scripture is no refutation of any part of evolution theory.
Evolution denies no part of scripture, so long as one does not insist contrary to scripture that all parts of scripture are literal.
I hope that answers your question, because I don’t know what you’re talking about otherwise, formerthings.
You mean like the pigs Jesus sent the demons into?
Sorry bud the man Jesus quoted on hell never misses – isaiah666.com
He makes Darwin look like a fool and has the physical evidence to back it up.