Texas has problem recognizing a "black hole"

[Couchrocket]

Depends on what you call evidence. Apparently what you call evidence assumes a priori only evidence evinced from the use of classic scientific methodology?

As opposed to..?

Well, there is simple physical evidence, of course that's utterly missing in supernatural cases.

 

Right you are, of course, Bob. Now apply your statement to the state of things as regards the time plus chance plus nothing theory of evolution as propounded by the current majority of the neo-Darwinists in the scientific community. Especially in light of the suggestions of well credentialed folk as those I cite in my post above? Is it "science?" Does it follow "the scientific method?"

 

[Bob Palin]

Right you are, of course, Bob. Now apply your statement to the state of things as regards the time plus chance plus nothing theory of evolution as propounded by the current majority of the neo-Darwinists in the scientific community. Especially in light of the suggestions of well credentialed folk as those I cite in my post above? Is it "science?" Does it follow "the scientific method?"

It's the same pathetic argument it's always been: "we don't understand it so it must be supernatural"

[smiller]

As Greg might say in the courtroom, "Non responsive, your honor."

Sorry, the answer should have been 'Yeah, I guess. As opposed to what..?'

 

 

More and more good scientists are coming out of the closet these days and admitting that the king has no clothes...

No, there's no new significant disagreement within the scientific community as to the validity of the theory of evolution.

 

Beyond that... I'm afraid that I'm not understanding what you are trying to say exactly. Could you break it down to a sentence or two?

 

[Couchrocket]

Right you are, of course, Bob. Now apply your statement to the state of things as regards the time plus chance plus nothing theory of evolution as propounded by the current majority of the neo-Darwinists in the scientific community. Especially in light of the suggestions of well credentialed folk as those I cite in my post above? Is it "science?" Does it follow "the scientific method?"

It's the same pathetic argument it's always been: "we don't understand it so it must be supernatural"

That silly old saw died a horrible and appropriate death a long while back. You need to catch up if you're going to be able to effectively counter those who hold positions similar to mine.

 

With the use of the scientific method only, help me understand, define, and give appropriate value and context in human life for:

 

Beauty

Love

Compassion

Bravery

Creativity

Altruism

Integrity

Friendship

 

You can't. Or, you have to go so far out on a speculative limb as to make even the most flimsy theory corollary to neo-Darwinism seem solid by comparison. Such as Dawkins amazing admission in Stein's movie that given his reluctant admission of some credibility for the implications of irreducible specified complexity in microbiology, he opts for "aliens seeded us here" as the most likely explanation. One of the flaws in Stein's movie, in my mind, is why he didn't immediately ask Dawkins where he thought the aliens had come from.

 

 

[Couchrocket]

As Greg might say in the courtroom, "Non responsive, your honor."

Sorry, the answer should have been 'Yeah, I guess. As opposed to what..?'

 

 

More and more good scientists are coming out of the closet these days and admitting that the king has no clothes...

No, there's no new significant disagreement within the scientific community as to the validity of the theory of evolution.

 

Beyond that... I'm afraid that I'm not understanding what you are trying to say exactly. Could you break it down to a sentence or two?

 

I suppose we could quibble over what "significant" means. I suspect you mean "numbers." Not worth my time. If you mean "credible," then you're just plain out of touch.

[Bob Palin]

Beyond that... I'm afraid that I'm not understanding what you are trying to say exactly. Could you break it down to a sentence or two?

I'll have a crack at it

 

Roughly, the argument is that at the basic building blocks of the machines we call life there are complex structures and molecules which interact in a way that any less complexity could not work. The extension of this is that those complex situations could not therefore have occurred by evolution from simpler mechanisms because those mechanisms would not work.

 

I don't deny that we can't explain how it worked but that doesn't mean it was supernatural. We didn't know how beer fermented once upon a time. Like most of the universe low level evolution is largely not understood, let's invent a being who did it all...

[Bob Palin]

Oh Couch, not those things again, all simply explained by social evolution.

[Couchrocket]

Beyond that... I'm afraid that I'm not understanding what you are trying to say exactly. Could you break it down to a sentence or two?

I'll have a crack at it

 

Roughly, the argument is that at the basic building blocks of the machines we call life there are complex structures and molecules which interact in a way that any less complexity could not work. The extension of this is that those complex situations could not therefore have occurred by evolution from simpler mechanisms because those mechanisms would not work.

 

I don't deny that we can't explain how it worked but that doesn't mean it was supernatural. We didn't know how beer fermented once upon a time. Like most of the universe low level evolution is largely not understood, let's invent a being who did it all...

 

Well put. And, if you can get your head around what someone like Gerald Schroeder has to say, the mathematical probability of some of these "seemingly" irreducibly complex microbiological structures happening in one generation (never mind what Sanford has to say about the boundaries of helpful mutation), it takes away the mantra of the neo-Darwinist priests that "given enough time...." -- since the calculation precludes the possibility based on a generous assumption of the current age of the universe (my previous comments notwithstanding) and INCLUDING adding the time from our current present until the projected heat-death of the universe. At the least, materialists should find this interesting and wonder where it might lead.

[smiller]

I'll have a crack at it

 

Roughly, the argument is that at the basic building blocks of the machines we call life there are complex structures and molecules which interact in a way that any less complexity could not work. The extension of this is that those complex situations could not therefore have occurred by evolution from simpler mechanisms because those mechanisms would not work.

Oh, I get it. IOW it's the same pathetic argument it's always been: "we don't understand it so it must be supernatural"

[Couchrocket]

Oh Couch, not those things again, all simply explained by social evolution.

 

Explain social evolution in terms of the scientific method, please. How is it observed, put into a hypothesis, and then demonstrably show to be repeatable?

 

Well, I guess that can't be done. Doh!

 

OK, well then, give me one single piece of hard scientific evidence to even suggest that the "social evolution" theories have any chance of being objectively demonstrable?

 

Oops, can't to that either.

 

Hummmm.... must have been those darn aliens again.

 

Or, might it be some folk taking their theory as fact, and then creating a mechanism out of whole cloth to accommodate these things that their theory is completely incapable of accounting for on its merits.

 

Also, how is it that the opposites of these things still exist? Or better yet, given that "social evolution" would also have to posit that they somehow also contribute to the survival of our species, why would we perceive them as opposites? Why would we put people in jail for doing some of these opposites?

 

And, if you want to engage in a real discussion, why then is eugenics a bad idea? Or is it?

[Bob Palin]

the mathematical probability of some of these "seemingly" irreducibly complex microbiological structures happening in one generation

While that probability is no doubt stupendously low, and assuming it has a probability, its likelihood of happening is evenly distributed across time. So it could just as unlikely have happened at a suitable moment for evolution as have happened a billion years from now. If you buy enough lottery tickets you will eventually win, but you have no idea whether it will be tomorrow or in 50 years, and each is equally likely.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

What do you guys think of my haircut?

[smiller]

Explain social evolution in terms of the scientific method, please. How is it observed, put into a hypothesis, and then demonstrably show to be repeatable?

 

Well, I guess that can't be done. Doh!

Yes, it can. Traits that increase the likelihood of survival tend to get selected for over time and it has been observed, put into a hypothesis, and been shown to be repeatable. There's nothing mysterious about it.

[Couchrocket]

the mathematical probability of some of these "seemingly" irreducibly complex microbiological structures happening in one generation

While that probability is no doubt stupendously low, and assuming it has a probability, its likelihood of happening is evenly distributed across time. So it could just as unlikely have happened at a suitable moment for evolution as have happened a billion years from now. If you buy enough lottery tickets you will eventually win, but you have no idea whether it will be tomorrow or in 50 years, and each is equally likely.

 

The upshot of the calculations is to put the likelihood "outside" of the realm of probability, not merely to lower the probability.

[Bob Palin]

Explain social evolution in terms of the scientific method, please. How is it observed, put into a hypothesis, and then demonstrably show to be repeatable?

That will certainly be done by brain chemists, I don't think we are anywhere near it at the moment though, yes, it's something I 'believe'. We're not even very good at gravity, that doesn't mean it isn't real.

[smiller]

What do you guys think of my haircut?

I think that it doesn't add anything to this thread.

[Bob Palin]

the mathematical probability of some of these "seemingly" irreducibly complex microbiological structures happening in one generation

While that probability is no doubt stupendously low, and assuming it has a probability, its likelihood of happening is evenly distributed across time. So it could just as unlikely have happened at a suitable moment for evolution as have happened a billion years from now. If you buy enough lottery tickets you will eventually win, but you have no idea whether it will be tomorrow or in 50 years, and each is equally likely.

 

The upshot of the calculations is to put the likelihood "outside" of the realm of probability, not merely to lower the probability.

So they've proved, positively, that it's impossible? Or is there a probability?

[Couchrocket]

What do you guys think of my haircut?

Stunning! I think the new style, and spiked highlights flatter your ruddy complexion! How's the weather in MI? I'll be in Traverse City a little later this month.

[Couchrocket]

the mathematical probability of some of these "seemingly" irreducibly complex microbiological structures happening in one generation

While that probability is no doubt stupendously low, and assuming it has a probability, its likelihood of happening is evenly distributed across time. So it could just as unlikely have happened at a suitable moment for evolution as have happened a billion years from now. If you buy enough lottery tickets you will eventually win, but you have no idea whether it will be tomorrow or in 50 years, and each is equally likely.

 

The upshot of the calculations is to put the likelihood "outside" of the realm of probability, not merely to lower the probability.

So they've proved, positively, that it's impossible? Or is there a probability?

Interesting isn't it? Mathematically they've proved it. But only based on assumptions about reality, i.e. the age of things. So, it isn't so much about probability as the possibility of knowing "for certain" how things are. Which is my point, if you get my point. To rule out possibilities as "ignorant" "superstitious" "pick you elitist term da jour" based on some pseudo-scientific neo-gnostic ideology seems odd to me on the face of it.

 

And, it was persuasive enough to drive the likes of Anthony Flew from "the faithful," and to propel Mr. Dawkins into making the arguement from the absurd re the aliens.

[smiller]

To rule out possibilities as "ignorant" "superstitious" "pick you elitist term da jour" based on some pseudo-scientific neo-gnostic ideology seems odd to me on the face of it.

FWIW that comment was made with respect to the belief that the Universe was created in six days. Unless you're saying that I wouldn't consider your argument to be ignorant and superstitious, just more of a thought experiment than real science.

[Bob Palin]

Interesting isn't it?

Not particularly, it's a house of cards with an agenda, and it will come tumbling down some time in the next million years.

Mathematically they've proved it.

So there is a probability, which means they think it is possible, anything that is possible - no matter how unlikely - could have happened. Probability can never trump possibility.

So, it isn't so much about probability as the possibility of knowing "for certain" how things are. Which is my point, if you get my point.

I certainly don't

To rule out possibilities as "ignorant" "superstitious" "pick you elitist term da jour" based on some pseudo-scientific neo-gnostic ideology seems odd to me on the face of it.

I know I must be winning when you descend to name calling

[azkaisr]

Accepting the Great Spaghetti Monster as a plausible answer, I can't get my head around who created the Creator? I also can't really get my head around the Big Bang theory either. It used to keep me up wondering about things like this when I was younger, then it came to me that it in the end the golden rule and a Venti White Mocha from Starbucks every few weeks covers me. I would love to hear more on this stuff just in case I missed some recent break through. This thread also makes me want to go dig into some of my old philosophy books.

 

Now a days, I just gaze in wonder at the things I see around me, not caring where they come from as much as how they interact with me and the other creatures in this paradigm. Accepting that these memories are just my moment on the marble we call Earth has me very much at peace. I understand that others need the boundaries that religion provides. If gathering in a building helps bring peace of mind, then hey go for it. My issue is when they feel that they have the need to tell me my outlook is wrong because somebody in the 5th Century said so.

 

 

 

[Bud]

What do you guys think of my haircut?

Little short on the sides, since you asked.

[Bud]

 

Religion's only purpose to dominate the masses through fear and superstition giving control to a small elite, you only have to look back at the last 10,000 years of history to see evidence for that.

 

Really? All religions? Everywhere? 10,000 years?

 

That's a pretty broad brush.

[Bob Palin]

Religion's only purpose to dominate the masses through fear and superstition giving control to a small elite, you only have to look back at the last 10,000 years of history to see evidence for that.

Really? All religions? Everywhere? 10,000 years?

 

That's a pretty broad brush.

Pretty much. I'd be glad to hear of one that didn't, don't bother with Christianity, Judaism or Islam or any of the Pagan religions I know about (Rome, Germanic, Celtic etc), definitely not the Egyptians...

[DavidEBSmith]

 

With the use of the scientific method only, help me understand, define, and give appropriate value and context in human life for:

 

Beauty

Love

Compassion

Bravery

Creativity

Altruism

Integrity

Friendship

 

You can't.

 

1. As someone in this thread pointed out, scientists are beginning to understand how these are wired into our brains and how they provide evolutionary advantages. So soon, we can. Just because we don't understand something today doesn't prove that we can't ever understand it (nor does the fact that sometimes we understand wrongly prove that science is a failure, as it has a built-in self-correcting mechanism).

 

2. "appropriate value and context in human life" is undefined, and is probably undefinable. You could also say "Beethoven was the greatest composer of all time and science can't prove it". It's true that it can't be proven scientifically that Beethoven was the greatest composer of all time, because the question is based on a flawed premise - that the question of Beethoven's greatness is susceptible to the scientific method. You could also criticize science for being unable to prove or disprove the semantically correct but utterly meaningless sentence "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously", but that would evidence a lack of understanding of the scientific method, not a flaw in that method. I could demand that scientists help me understand, define, and give appropriate value and context for the fact that my wife is the most wonderful woman in the world, but their inability to do so would not change the fact that she is.

 

3. The ID people are intellectual cheaters. The argument is essentially:

 

G-d created everything in a realm that's hidden from scientific view

Because G-d's work is hidden from scientific view, science can't disprove it

Because science can't disprove it, it's a perfectly good scientific theory to say G-d did it.

 

ID theorists want to cloak themselves in scientific respectability but claim immunity from scientific inquiry. ID has the same degree of scientific rigor if you theorize the invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster as it does if you theorize an invisible white-bearded Creator G-d.

 

4. And anyway, your argument above is "we don't understand it so it must be supernatural", just rephrased.

[Joe Frickin' Friday]

What do you guys think of my haircut?

I think that it doesn't add anything to this thread.

 

Sorry for expressing myself poorly; I should have said what was actually on my mind, which is this.

 

I love a good creation-versus-evolution tug-of-war as much as the next fellow, but on this particular occasion I was looking forward to a stimulating conversation on the state of race relations and political correctness in America lately. It frustrated me to see this thread highjacked so completely, but as soon as Eebie mentioned evolution even in a tangential manner, the detour was inevitable; we as a group seem to have some favorite chew toys, and as soon as someone mentions one of the key words or phrases, others get drawn in, and pretty soon the original topic is dead.

 

The moderators try to limit hijacks in the other forums since people are typically looking for very specific information and have expectations based on the thread titles, and we want those forums to be as useful/helpful as possible. We tolerate hijacks here mostly because it's the nature of this particular forum to be a catch-all, but that doesn't make a hijack good manners.

[1MPH]

What do you guys think of my haircut?

I think that it doesn't add anything to this thread.

 

Sorry for expressing myself poorly; I should have said what was actually on my mind, which is this.

 

I love a good creation-versus-evolution tug-of-war as much as the next fellow, but on this particular occasion I was looking forward to a stimulating conversation on the state of race relations and political correctness in America lately. It frustrated me to see this thread highjacked so completely, but as soon as Eebie mentioned evolution even in a tangential manner, the detour was inevitable; we as a group seem to have some favorite chew toys, and as soon as someone mentions one of the key words or phrases, others get drawn in, and pretty soon the original topic is dead.

 

The moderators try to limit hijacks in the other forums since people are typically looking for very specific information and have expectations based on the thread titles, and we want those forums to be as useful/helpful as possible. We tolerate hijacks here mostly because it's the nature of this particular forum to be a catch-all, but that doesn't make a hijack good manners.

 

 

Well than...Great haircut.

[Bob Palin]

I'd just like to say "Uncle Adolf"

[Couchrocket]

I know I must be winning when you descend to name calling

Hey Bob... not intended as name calling, I'm describing what I consider to be the worst of the lot. Not you by any means. I honestly take those at the extreme end of the "faith of science" e.g. those who invent such non-scientific theories as "social Darwinism" and "aliens seeded the planet" as logical extensions of some actual "science" -- as neo-Gnostic's with an ideology. It seems obviously so on the face of it -- if you just stop and think about it. Very similar in fact, to those on the other side who completely abandon any appeal to logic in their arguements. Equally insipid, to my way of thinking. And my point in all this is that those who are "there" are in a real sense much less logical than those of us who do wonder where things will lead, and stay open minded enough to see the possibility of something super-natural (above nature, i.e. above materialism) being the "uncaused cause." The other sort are well represented by the likes of Dawkins, or Aldous Huxley back in the time when this religion got its start, who at least (to his credit) openly admitted that he didn't want there "to be a God" because that would interfere with him doing whatever he pleased.

 

As I've said many times in the past on topics similar to this one, I have no problem at all with those who are consistent in their position. It is the wobblers who don't have my respect, either because it is obvious they are mere parrots from some class or another they took -- and never really thought out or looked into the matter thoroughly (again, not you), or because they'll only take their position "so far" and then refuse to look the implications of their position straight in the eye (certainly not you).

 

And finally, it is the arrogance of those who dismiss any discussion that introduces a concept like intelligent design as "crack pot" from the get go -- with their only understanding of the concept being some sound bite or another they've heard and now repeat while asking for a cracker.

 

I've read extensively on both sides of the issue, and almost no one else I've met has bothered to do so, yet that doesn't stop them from making grandiose pronouncements on something of which they are completely ignorant, and bagging on people "on the other side" for the self same ignorance. I simply don't wish to allow that to go unchallenged (again, not you, my friend). I am very pleased to see the likes of John Sanford stepping out. As this happens more and more in the future, it will force the scientific community to face more squarely some really interesting issues / possibilities.

[Couchrocket]

...

3. The ID people are intellectual cheaters. The argument is essentially:

 

G-d created everything in a realm that's hidden from scientific view

Because G-d's work is hidden from scientific view, science can't disprove it

Because science can't disprove it, it's a perfectly good scientific theory to say G-d did it.

 

ID theorists want to cloak themselves in scientific respectability but claim immunity from scientific inquiry. ID has the same degree of scientific rigor if you theorize the invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster as it does if you theorize an invisible white-bearded Creator G-d.

 

4. And anyway, your argument above is "we don't understand it so it must be supernatural", just rephrased.

See my last post to Bob. It is this kind of flawed view of ID that I object to. You are, simply put, misinformed. What you write above is a regurgitation of the standard sound bite response to ID. It is incorrect.

[smiller]

Scott, I assume that your discomfort with close-minded people would lead you to agree that along with the possibility of there being a supernatural nature to the Universe that there is also the possibility of a purely natural Universe with no supernatural elements?

 

[Stir]

Science will investigate the 'purpose' of existence when evidence is discovered to suggest that such a thing exists, until then it can't be done.

 

Religion's only purpose to dominate the masses through fear and superstition giving control to a small elite, you only have to look back at the last 10,000 years of history to see evidence for that.

 

I think the same can be said for science. Scientists are continuing to pontificate on to scare people there by gaining access to money and power. For example, global warming. There are people building careers off this stuff and spout it as fact. They get money to do more research. Or the any number of is bad for you. We've gone back and forth on eggs, chocolate, wine...um bacon...okay, bacon is bad for you but it tastes good.

[Stir]

Scott, I assume that your discomfort with close-minded people would lead you to agree that along with the possibility of there being a supernatural nature to the Universe that there is also the possibility of a purely natural Universe with no supernatural elements?

 

There is that pesky little problem of your purely natural Universe springing forth spontaneously from...?

[Jerry in Monument]

They seem to thrive on imflamming racial issues rather than trying to heal.

 

 

Nero fiddled...

My original pos should have read "inflamming".

 

And Nero was actually playing something more resembling a bagpipe than a fiddle.

[Couchrocket]

Scott, I assume that your discomfort with close-minded people would lead you to agree that along with the possibility of there being a supernatural nature to the Universe that there is also the possibility of a purely natural Universe with no supernatural elements?

Certainly, that is possible. My investigation leads me in the direction of a "cause" as opposed to "no cause" based on the difficulties associated with "no cause" as the post above mine intimates. I've come to the conclusion that there are far more difficulties with the no cause position. Since the "closed system" belief system requires, a priori, that "cause" is not possible -- people in that camp are much less open minded in general. Are you open to the "real" possibility there there is an "uncaused cause" for existence? If so, have you ever investigated any approaches to that possibility seriously?

[azkaisr]

I'd just like to say "Uncle Adolf"

 

Leave him out of this! This isn't the History Channel

[Jerry in Monument]

[i

religion is superstitious nonsense????????

The term 'religion' paints with such a broad brush that I don't think I'd make any generalizations about it without some definitions, but the specific belief that the Universe was literally created in six days a few thousand years ago is superstitious nonsense.

 

"Six days" leave a tremendous lattitude when viewed from and astronomical point. Not all cellestial bosies have the same length day.

 

So to automatically assume that God's day is automatically a 24-hour day would tend to leave a fantastic number of other possibilities out of the equation.

 

It would also tend to assume a knowledge of the universe and the galaxies, stars, planets, moons, nebulae, et al, far beyond what I understand our knowledge to be.

 

Where is God from, that we can instantly assume his day is 24-hours?

 

Even within our own solar system there is a wide range of difference in what a 'day' is. One 'day' one Mercury is 59 Earth 'days'.

 

In my opinion, there is far too much that we do not know and science is far from foolproof, to automatically dismiss God.

 

Also, I believe it is still called the "theory" of evolution since, as I understand it, there was not actually any human around recording the happenings that were going on way back when.

 

For myself, I cannot look at my daughters and think this is simply some incredible fluke of 'nature' void of something divine.

[Bud]

Religion's only purpose to dominate the masses through fear and superstition giving control to a small elite, you only have to look back at the last 10,000 years of history to see evidence for that.

Really? All religions? Everywhere? 10,000 years?

 

That's a pretty broad brush.

Pretty much. I'd be glad to hear of one that didn't, don't bother with Christianity, Judaism or Islam or any of the Pagan religions I know about (Rome, Germanic, Celtic etc), definitely not the Egyptians...

 

If you has said "Religion has been used to dominate the masses through fear and superstition giving control to a small elite" I would agree. Religion has been used to justify a great deal of evil conduct.

 

I don't agree that the purpose of religion is to do so. Much good has been done by religious believers. As a most recent example, after hurricane Katrina, faith based organizations were some of the first volunteers to the area hit by the eye of the storm and continue to this time to provide million of man hours in free labor and untold amounts of donated materials to help those impacted. I know from personal experience from having gone to the Biloxi - Moss Point, MS area and volunteered. We were not there to do anything except help our fellow human beings. Motivated by "doing unto others" which is part of my Christian faith.

 

 

 

 

[azkaisr]

[i

religion is superstitious nonsense????????

The term 'religion' paints with such a broad brush that I don't think I'd make any generalizations about it without some definitions, but the specific belief that the Universe was literally created in six days a few thousand years ago is superstitious nonsense.

 

"Six days" leave a tremendous lattitude when viewed from and astronomical point. Not all cellestial bosies have the same length day.

 

So to automatically assume that God's day is automatically a 24-hour day would tend to leave a fantastic number of other possibilities out of the equation.

 

It would also tend to assume a knowledge of the universe and the galaxies, stars, planets, moons, nebulae, et al, far beyond what I understand our knowledge to be.

 

Where is God from, that we can instantly assume his day is 24-hours?

 

Even within our own solar system there is a wide range of difference in what a 'day' is. One 'day' one Mercury is 59 Earth 'days'.

 

In my opinion, there is far too much that we do not know and science is far from foolproof, to automatically dismiss God.

 

Also, I believe it is still called the "theory" of evolution since, as I understand it, there was not actually any human around recording the happenings that were going on way back when.

 

For myself, I cannot look at my daughters and think this is simply some incredible fluke of 'nature' void of something divine.

 

For me Jerry that argument doesn't really wash. First of all the JudeoIslamicChristian God had to have told somebody that it took 6 days regardless of what planet he was talking about. You think he would have had it written for Earthlings. So again, this to me is not intelligent design. because lets be honest the design document is in need a of a drastic revision. Intelligent designers pride themselves on good documentation. The Deity in question can outsource a revision (maybe get a impartial Hindu) or maybe get one of the folks working for TBN. Either way, to me there is no reason to let a outdated revision be the main source of information about the way things work. Even Microsoft gets that. I am still firmly of the mind that these books are nothing more than that. Books.

 

It is in fact just a oral/written dogma set forth by Christians Muslims and Jews. Faith in a higher being should be just that. Faith. This is not some sort of quest to find a historical record. That is what makes it so cool for me to have my faith. It is mine, not yours, not Killers, nor anyones. The faith you have in your kids is great. It belongs to you and I am happy you have it. Nothing more or less.

 

Kaisr

 

 

[Couchrocket]

It is also important to note a radical distinction between the "abuse" of religious doctrine (e.g. Christianity as cited above)... and the horrors of the absolutely logical outworking of the completely secular time plus chance plus nothing model as implemented by the likes of both the extreme right and left in the last century.

 

What is important to note is that in the former case is it the hi-jacking of the core values of the system, and corrupting them, due to "the evil that men do" that brought on the ugliness. Whereas, in the latter case, it is the very core beliefs of the system that were carried out that produced the horrors we saw on a scale unequaled in human history preceeding it.

 

In both cases, the real issue is "the evil that men do," not the guise under which they do it. And that itself should cause one to pause and ask, "Is this tendency only the normal outworking of natural selection?" That seems to be the only available answer to materialists. If you disagree, give me an objective objection. On what would you base your objection? What appeal do you make to something other than "what is, is" to object? On what would you hang your "what ought to be" opinion?

[smiller]

Since the "closed system" belief system requires, a priori, that "cause" is not possible -- people in that camp are much less open minded in general.

A belief that 'cause is not possible' is not a part of science and if you think that then you have missed a lot in your extensive readings. In any event your repeated attempts to try to spin science into dogma is not all that helpful to the debate.

 

Are you open to the "real" possibility there there is an "uncaused cause" for existence? If so, have you ever investigated any approaches to that possibility seriously?

I'd be more interested in research into the supernatural if it were possible to develop any serious approaches beyond pure conjecture. Until then you can make up all the answers you like and believe them all you like, but the only real truth is that the origin of the Universe is simply an unknown.

 

 

[DavidEBSmith]

...

3. The ID people are intellectual cheaters. The argument is essentially:

 

G-d created everything in a realm that's hidden from scientific view

Because G-d's work is hidden from scientific view, science can't disprove it

Because science can't disprove it, it's a perfectly good scientific theory to say G-d did it.

 

ID theorists want to cloak themselves in scientific respectability but claim immunity from scientific inquiry. ID has the same degree of scientific rigor if you theorize the invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster as it does if you theorize an invisible white-bearded Creator G-d.

 

4. And anyway, your argument above is "we don't understand it so it must be supernatural", just rephrased.

See my last post to Bob. It is this kind of flawed view of ID that I object to. You are, simply put, misinformed. What you write above is a regurgitation of the standard sound bite response to ID. It is incorrect.

 

Then explain. You can't just say "you're wrong" and walk away. If ID is a scientifically adequate theory then it is provable or disprovable. Show your work. And do it without referring to the personal beliefs or prejudices of the critics. Explain the theory and tell us what data proves it.

 

ID is like homeopathy - every proponent at some point descends to the argument "and the establishment disparages our theory because they're trying to suppress us." No, sometimes the establishment disparages a theory because it's wrong.

[DavidEBSmith]

I love a good creation-versus-evolution tug-of-war as much as the next fellow, but on this particular occasion I was looking forward to a stimulating conversation on the state of race relations and political correctness in America lately. It frustrated me to see this thread highjacked so completely, but as soon as Eebie mentioned evolution even in a tangential manner, the detour was inevitable; we as a group seem to have some favorite chew toys, and as soon as someone mentions one of the key words or phrases, others get drawn in, and pretty soon the original topic is dead.

 

Actually, I'm glad it got away from the conversation on race relations and political correctness, because other discussions I've heard arising out of this story have been unilluminating and predictably dreary and offensive: political correctness is stupid, blacks are too sensitive, liberals hate America, Barack Hussein Obama, and declining from there. You would have had to kill it anyway. This way, the runaway train went off onto a side track where there's nothing important for it to run into.

 

 

[Bob Palin]

What is important to note is that in the former case is it the hi-jacking of the core values of the system, and corrupting them, due to "the evil that men do" that brought on the ugliness. Whereas, in the latter case, it is the very core beliefs of the system that were carried out that produced the horrors we saw on a scale unequaled in human history preceeding it.

I believe that the core philosophy of all the major religions involves exerting control over the masses to the benefit of an elite few and eliminating those that don't conform, there is more than ample evidence to support this view. The peace and love aspect is just marketing. There is no reason why a "secular logical" system must be evil, in the absence of supernatural beings all that is left is us, the most logical thing to do is to help each other.

[Shaman97]

If anyone has looked at the 'Design' of the interrelationship of the prostate and bladder, the term 'Intelligent' does not come to mind.

 

I'm just sayin'...

[Jerry_75_Guy]

If anyone has looked at the 'Design' of the interrelationship of the prostate and bladder, the term 'Intelligent' does not come to mind.

 

Now that's funny!

 

But to get back to the whole "ID" thing, I really think that.......hold on, I'll be right back: gotta go pee....

[azkaisr]

First they ignore the Dinosaurs, now we are sneaking in Prostrate issues. I can't wait to read the coments on whether or not Levitra could have prolonged the reign of Triceratops in the Mesozoic Era if the Intelligent Designer had let it come out of testing sooner.

 

I will give you all a secret clue. We have about as much chance answering the above statement as we do about answering the one about evolution vs. ID with the data we have today.

 

 

[Pilgrim]

Right you are, of course, Bob. Now apply your statement to the state of things as regards the time plus chance plus nothing theory of evolution as propounded by the current majority of the neo-Darwinists in the scientific community. Especially in light of the suggestions of well credentialed folk as those I cite in my post above? Is it "science?" Does it follow "the scientific method?"

It's the same pathetic argument it's always been: "we don't understand it so it must be supernatural"

 

Bob, there's a frequently-quoted statement attributed to Arthur C. Clarke that touches closely on your point. He said (allowing for a fuzzy quote", "Any technology so advanced that one cannot understand it is indistinguishable from magic."

 

In that phrase, substitute the word "surroundings" for "technology" and "supernatural" for "magic".

 

Mankind naturally seeks to explain the magic he sees; he doesn't like unanswered questions and our universe is full of them. Our present state of understanding is so incomplete that we seek answers in many ways, the two primary ones being science and religion. So far, what I've seen is that science does okay working with the here and now but falls flat on its face when it comes to origins and finality. In considering "finality" you can look either to the end of the universe or individual death. Both are final for the participant and nobody has an answer yet about either of them. Nor, I believe, will they ever until it is discovered through religion which, like science, is still in its infancy.

 

Pilgrim

[Dave McReynolds]

Very similar in fact, to those on the other side who completely abandon any appeal to logic in their arguements. Equally insipid, to my way of thinking.

 

Scott, I assume that your discomfort with close-minded people would lead you to agree that along with the possibility of there being a supernatural nature to the Universe that there is also the possibility of a purely natural Universe with no supernatural elements?

 

Following on from Seth's question, my question, to explore how open-minded you might be in the other direction is, do you discount the possibility of a direct spiritual experience, an epiphany? And for a person who has experienced an epiphany, would it matter whether an intellectual answer is found to the question, other than that some people, and I include myself in this group, may find gratification in solving a Freecell puzzle, the answer to which is already known?