The Conservative Cave
Current Events => General Discussion => Topic started by: The Night Owl on April 21, 2008, 06:17:56 PM
-
No "Intelligence" evident in Stein documentary
Sun Apr 20, 2008 9:15pm EDT
By Frank Scheck
NEW YORK (Hollywood Reporter) - Managing to make the films of Michael Moore and Morgan Spurlock look like dry, scholarly treatises by comparison, "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed" more than lives up to its subtitle.
...
Many of the central ideas expressed are truly offensive, such as the attempt to link Darwinism and Nazism, complete with footage of a grim-faced (not that he ever looks any different) Stein touring a Nazi concentration camp. At another point, the morose host ventures to the lair of the enemy himself, Darwin's home, and engages in a lengthy staring contest with a life-sized sculpture of the scientist.
...
Not surprisingly, there is a climactic showdown between Stein and the leading atheist of the day, Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion"), that is as unenlightening as everything that has preceded it.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
http://www.reuters.com/article/reviewsNews/idUSN2036189120080421?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0
-
Scientific American weighs in on Ben Stein's unintentionally funny movie...
Never You Mine: Ben Stein's Selective Quoting of Darwin
One of the many egregious moments in the new Ben Stein anti-evolution film "Expelled" is the truncation of a quote from Charles Darwin so that it makes him appear to give philosophical ammunition to the Nazis. Steve Mirsky reports.
Podcast Transcript: This is Scientific American’s 60-Second Science. Hi, Steve Mirsky here. I’m going over our usual one minute. By now, you’ve probably heard of Expelled, the new Ben Stein anti-evolution crockumentary. It officially opens today as I speak, that’s April 18th. Because of my job, I’ve had the misfortune of sitting through this film twice now. As least I was getting paid. The film tries very hard to connect Darwin with the Holocaust.
Toward the end, Stein reads the following quote from the book Descent of Man: “With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.â€
That’s the end of the quote. And when he finishes reading the quote, Ben Stein intones the guilty verdict by naming the source: Charles Darwin. Oh my, it sounds like Darwin actually did provide a rationale to the horrific practices of the Nazis.
...
http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=61D30BEB-A65E-7583-BB264FABBD4CD879 (http://www.sciam.com/podcast/episode.cfm?id=61D30BEB-A65E-7583-BB264FABBD4CD879)
-
heh...if it's something TNO wouldn't like I'm sure I'd love it.
-
heh...if it's something TNO wouldn't like I'm sure I'd love it.
Yes, I'm sure that Mr. Stein is counting on people who uncritically accept his misrepesentations.
-
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter
'nuff said! Oh, and one can enjoy something and find it thought provoking without the approval of Scientific American. Knee jerk reactions aren't pretty (or enlightening for that matter). From what I heard that "leading" athiest (oooh, there's something to aspire to) gets bitch-slapping pretty good.
Cindie
-
Yes, I'm sure that Mr. Stein is counting on people who uncritically accept his misrepesentations.
Having a bad day, perhaps?
-
Yes, I'm sure that Mr. Stein is counting on people who uncritically accept his misrepesentations.
Having a bad day, perhaps?
I didn't think liberals were capable of having good days...seeing doom and gloom everywhere as they do.
Cindie
-
Having a bad day, perhaps?
The movie Expelled only seems like it took one day to make.
-
Almost all the posts on this thread are yours TNO.
Kinda lets you know where you stand here, eh?
-
From what I've heard of this movie so far, I believe TNO has hit the nail on the head. It's probably a propoganda flick that counts on peoples tendancy to take what it says at face value. In otherwords, much like a Michael Moore film, just on a topic that supports the right then the left.
We'll just have to wait to see it to find out. But if this is true, I hope people will disavow it just as they would a Moore film. Otherwise, we might be breaking into the realm of hypocrasy. :practicepreach:
-
Night owl did you actually see the movie in person?
-
Night owl did you actually see the movie in person?
No. I won't see Expelled. I've read enough about it to know that it is garbage.
-
Oh I see..... :whatever:
-
Oh I see..... :whatever:
I've never seen Farhenheint 9/11. So can I not claim it to be garbage?
-
heh...if it's something TNO wouldn't like I'm sure I'd love it.
Yes, I'm sure that Mr. Stein is counting on people who uncritically accept his misrepesentations.
Sort of like Mr. Moore and Mr. Gore?
-
The movie Expelled only seems like it took one day to make.
As opposed to the film school quality crap churned out by Michael Moore?
:whatever:
Spare us TNO...really.
The same people that fawn over all of the crap war bashing movies that have lost money are the same ones panning Mr. Stein's movie.
Which proves to me there's some truth in what Stein's move talks about.
-
This is what Ben Stein qouted.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. Hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
This is what Charles Darwin actually said.
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilized men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination. We build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilized societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly anyone is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
-
I haven't seen the movie and probably won't unless it happens to come on TV late at night during my channel surfing and I'm utterly bored to tears. I was under the impression that Mr. Stein was highly intelligent and I logically assume that he would not be associated with misrepresenations, lies or half-truths.
Granted, I am no expert on the evolution debate and it kind of bores me to tears to be honest. Either you feel strongly about it or you don't. It's kind of like aruging with a fence post. I also know that even intelligent folks can make mistakes and be clearly on the wrong side of an issue. Seems like lots of people have made up their minds about Mr. Stein's film. Not surprised to see them draw the same forgone conclusions they had before this film. Just sayin'.....
-
The last good real and true documentary was This Is Spinal Tap anyway. Why watch any others? Well, Left of the Dial was pretty funny but I think that was a mockumentary as it mocked Air America.
-
Spare us TNO...really.
The same people that fawn over all of the crap war bashing movies that have lost money are the same ones panning Mr. Stein's movie.
Which proves to me there's some truth in what Stein's move talks about.
I'm not a fan of Michael Moore's work. He has a mean streak which I find very unappealing and I think he is manipulative in his presentation of information.
-
Isn't there a thread here by someone who has actually SEEN the movie?
(I see you took the show on the road, Owl. . .for someone so smart, you are very transparent and willfully obtuse.)
Night.
*Red*
-
The movie Expelled only seems like it took one day to make.
As opposed to the film school quality crap churned out by Michael Moore?
:whatever:
Spare us TNO...really.
The same people that fawn over all of the crap war bashing movies that have lost money are the same ones panning Mr. Stein's movie.
Which proves to me there's some truth in what Stein's move talks about.
There is none. It is not possible to frame the controversy in any way that is not false. There is no "debate" about Creationism or ID, since neither is science and cannot ever be science. This is about allowing religion (and a particular BRAND of religion) to be taught as science. And that is unconscionable.
-
Isn't there a thread here by someone who has actually SEEN the movie?
(I see you took the show on the road, Owl. . .for someone so smart, you are very transparent and willfully obtuse.)
Night.
*Red*
I did some searching online just to see what others were saying and to find out what the premise of the film is. FWIW -
http://www.floppingaces.net/2008/02/09/expelled-the-new-ben-stein-movie/
And -
Synopsis:
There is a nation today in which scientists are being silenced and ousted, in which teachers and professors teach a theory as indisputable fact. No, this isn’t a Third World dictatorship, it’s America, as recorded in Ben Stein’s controversial, satirical and entertaining documentary... [More]
There is a nation today in which scientists are being silenced and ousted, in which teachers and professors teach a theory as indisputable fact. No, this isn’t a Third World dictatorship, it’s America, as recorded in Ben Stein’s controversial, satirical and entertaining documentary EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed.
Stein, the well-known television personality, actor and former White House presidential speechwriter, takes a journey across America and to Europe to explore the debate between proponents of intelligent design and Darwinian evolution. What he discovers is an elitist scientific establishment that has traded in its skepticism for dogma.
Even worse, Stein uncovers a long line of scientists and philosophers who have had their reputations destroyed and their careers ruined by a scientific establishment that allows absolutely no dissent from Charles Darwin’s theory of random mutation and natural selection. What freedom-loving American wouldn’t be outraged?
“Big Science in this area has lost its way,†says Stein, who is also a lawyer, economist, author and social commentator. “Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-science, it’s anti-American.†--© Rocky Mountain Pictures
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/expelled_no_intelligence_allowed/#synopsis
-
I read some of the rest of it, and it seems there's some mis-representation at work....
The new film, ” EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed” does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either.
To me it seems the film isn't to advocate a replacement for the Theory of Evolution, but to at least discuss something else. I'll confirm that when I see it, but that's the impression I'm getting so far.
Why is the idea of "Something else" pushed away so violently?
*Red*
-
I read some of the rest of it, and it seems there's some mis-representation at work....
The new film, †EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed†does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either.
To me it seems the film isn't to advocate a replacement for the Theory of Evolution, but to at least discuss something else.
Why is the idea of "Something else" pushed away so violently?
*Red*
There are lots of places to discuss "Something Else." Philosophy, theology, comparative religion... Just not science.
-
I read some of the rest of it, and it seems there's some mis-representation at work....
The new film, †EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed†does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either.
To me it seems the film isn't to advocate a replacement for the Theory of Evolution, but to at least discuss something else.
Why is the idea of "Something else" pushed away so violently?
*Red*
That aspect of the film is fine. It's the part where he starts pushing that Darwinism is the basis of everything that is wrong in this world that things go down hill.
-
I read some of the rest of it, and it seems there's some mis-representation at work....
The new film, †EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed†does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either.
To me it seems the film isn't to advocate a replacement for the Theory of Evolution, but to at least discuss something else.
Why is the idea of "Something else" pushed away so violently?
*Red*
That aspect of the film is fine. It's the part where he starts pushing that Darwinism is the basis of everything that is wrong in this world that things go down hill.
So, we might have a overstatement.
Okay, I'll keep that in mind. If he can make a case that other theories deserve to be looked at, I'll consider this film worth it.
*Red*
-
Big Science in this area has lost its way,†says Stein, who "is also a lawyer, economist, author and social commentator. “Scientists are supposed to be allowed to follow the evidence wherever it may lead, no matter what the implications are. Freedom of inquiry has been greatly compromised, and this is not only anti-science, it’s anti-American.â€
There is not a scintilla of evidence that scientifically leads to an Intelligent Designer (much less God). Many scientists do in fact believe in God (as do I), but we generally believe that God established the whole shebang. To see the wonders of the Universe and NOT believe in God is actually pretty amazing.
But God gave us an ordered Universe which follows Rules which he doesn't need to cheat on. To suggest that He needs to manually tweak things (much less toss it all aside on a whim) is to diminish Him greatly.
-
I read some of the rest of it, and it seems there's some mis-representation at work....
The new film, †EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed†does not presume to bury the theory of evolution… but it declines to praise it, either.
To me it seems the film isn't to advocate a replacement for the Theory of Evolution, but to at least discuss something else.
Why is the idea of "Something else" pushed away so violently?
*Red*
That aspect of the film is fine. It's the part where he starts pushing that Darwinism is the basis of everything that is wrong in this world that things go down hill.
So, we might have a overstatement.
Okay, I'll keep that in mind. If he can make a case that other theories deserve to be looked at, I'll consider this film worth it.
*Red*
There are no other theories. Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory. It is a belief. And belongs in the domain of belief.
Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science. It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.
-
But he kind of has a point about the whole "freedom of inquiry" thing and the dogma that is pervasive in the scientific community. Yes, plenty of scientists subscribe to the notion of a Creator but let's face it, it's not the most common theme throughout science. Especially with the whole ID debate.
Personally, I don't understand why there is such a fuss. I probably have always believed in a form of ID without knowing it was called "ID". I don't doubt science. But I also don't think science requires you to exclude God from the equation. I really dislike the either/or aspect. I guess that's why I shy away from entering into this particular debate subject. No matter what science explains, it doesn't chip away at my beliefs one bit. The experts can tell me how something was made but that doesn't mean I can't believe God wasn't the catalyst. And you can call it a "belief" or "theory" or whatever makes you feel comfortable. Science can explain, but only God can manifest.
-
There is none. It is not possible to frame the controversy in any way that is not false. There is no "debate" about Creationism or ID, since neither is science and cannot ever be science. This is about allowing religion (and a particular BRAND of religion) to be taught as science. And that is unconscionable.
Ummm...you'd probably find a more friendly place to spout your crap here: www.darwincentral.org
Oh wait...nevermind.
You already laugh it up over there at those that believe in creationism as willing dupes and refer to us as Crevo's.
We should just accept Darwin's "theory" as fact and STFU right?
-
There is none. It is not possible to frame the controversy in any way that is not false. There is no "debate" about Creationism or ID, since neither is science and cannot ever be science. This is about allowing religion (and a particular BRAND of religion) to be taught as science. And that is unconscionable.
Ummm...you'd probably find a more friendly place to spout your crap here: www.darwincentral.org
Oh wait...nevermind.
You already laugh it up over there at those that believe in creationism as willing dupes and refer to us as Crevo's.
We should just accept Darwin's "theory" as fact and STFU right?
No, accept it as a scientific theory.
Keep faith where it belongs -- in philosophy and related areas of study. Faith is an important part of science -- in the Humanities. It is not, nor can it ever be, part of the Life Sciences.
Creationism is pure fantasy and has zero basis in science. You can believe whatever you want, up to and including the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That belief system has no place to be plugged into science.
-
But he kind of has a point about the whole "freedom of inquiry" thing and the dogma that is pervasive in the scientific community. Yes, plenty of scientists subscribe to the notion of a Creator but let's face it, it's not the most common theme throughout science. Especially with the whole ID debate.
Personally, I don't understand why there is such a fuss. I probably have always believed in a form of ID without knowing it was called "ID". I don't doubt science. But I also don't think science requires you to exclude God from the equation. I really dislike the either/or aspect. I guess that's why I shy away from entering into this particular debate subject. No matter what science explains, it doesn't chip away at my beliefs one bit. The experts can tell me how something was made but that doesn't mean I can't believe God wasn't the catalyst. And you can call it a "belief" or "theory" or whatever makes you feel comfortable. Science can explain, but only God can manifest.
There is no place to put God INTO the equation is the problem. As science compiles evidence and data, it uses a very specific methodology to determine what it tells us, how it fits into the pattern of known evidence, how it can be useful (almost all of pharmacology is a direct result of TToE), etc. There is no place in science to say "oh! We can't explain this! Goddidit!" That wouldn't even make sense. It is not useful, it doesn't further knowledge, it can't be applied, it can't be falsified, etc. IT ISN'T SCIENCE.
There is a HUGE difference between a Scientific Theory and Faith. The former is a very rigorous method used to explain a large body of interrelated data. The latter is something that needs no basis in any fact.
Your point about God isn't lost. And most scientists do believe in God. But it is as I said, as an external agent who is much more interested in our souls and how we live our lives than the Universe He started so long ago.
-
But he kind of has a point about the whole "freedom of inquiry" thing and the dogma that is pervasive in the scientific community. Yes, plenty of scientists subscribe to the notion of a Creator but let's face it, it's not the most common theme throughout science. Especially with the whole ID debate.
Personally, I don't understand why there is such a fuss. I probably have always believed in a form of ID without knowing it was called "ID". I don't doubt science. But I also don't think science requires you to exclude God from the equation. I really dislike the either/or aspect. I guess that's why I shy away from entering into this particular debate subject. No matter what science explains, it doesn't chip away at my beliefs one bit. The experts can tell me how something was made but that doesn't mean I can't believe God wasn't the catalyst. And you can call it a "belief" or "theory" or whatever makes you feel comfortable. Science can explain, but only God can manifest.
There is no place to put God INTO the equation is the problem. As science compiles evidence and data, it uses a very specific methodology to determine what it tells us, how it fits into the pattern of known evidence, how it can be useful (almost all of pharmacology is a direct result of TToE), etc. There is no place in science to say "oh! We can't explain this! Goddidit!" That wouldn't even make sense. It is not useful, it doesn't further knowledge, it can't be applied, it can't be falsified, etc. IT ISN'T SCIENCE.
There is a HUGE difference between a Scientific Theory and Faith. The former is a very rigorous method used to explain a large body of interrelated data. The latter is something that needs no basis in any fact.
Your point about God isn't lost. And most scientists do believe in God. But it is as I said, as an external agent who is much more interested in our souls and how we live our lives than the Universe He started so long ago.
First time I've given a H5 for a post.
-
No, accept it as a scientific theory.
Theory yes. Science never.
Keep faith where it belongs -- in philosophy and related areas of study. Faith is an important part of science -- in the Humanities. It is not, nor can it ever be, part of the Life Sciences.
The great scientists in history would probably disagree with your little "theory" of where exactly religion belongs.
Down through history it has played a large part in science.
Creationism is pure fantasy and has zero basis in science.
Your opinion.
That belief system has no place to be plugged into science.
Again your very short sighted opinion.
-
First time I've given a H5 for a post.
Look at your kids and then explain to me how God and religion should be left out of the equation.
Explain to me exactly how homosexuality fits into the whole equation of evolution?
-
First time I've given a H5 for a post.
Look at your kids and then explain to me how God and religion should be left out of the equation.
Explain to me exactly how homosexuality fits into the whole equation of evolution?
Thats not the point that is even being argued right now Sarge. The point is that Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science. It is a belief. Whereas the study of evolution is science. I can't explain it any better then Freedumb did.
-
But does science have an answer for everything FD? I honestly don't know the answer to that. And, I have never heard anyone who believes in God as Creator say, "oh, it's a mystery! Must have been God!" To me, that implies that all Christians shun science for faith. I'm sure there are Christians who do shun science and take the bible literally. I know some Christians (not personally) who think the Earth is only several thousand years old. And those that do not choose to examine scientific theory and would rather believe the Word are free to do so. I'll fight for their rights all day long.
To me, this is part of a larger debate. The one concerning freedom of religion and state funded education. Put ID in whatever class you want to. Philosophy, Humanties, Religion, etc...pick one. Acknowledge the different ideas and let people choose for themselves.You can even add a section on every major religion and what they believe in terms of creation (in fact, that's the only way to do it IMO).
This whole notion of frothing at the mouth over things as simple as mentioning "there are people who believe in something called ID...." is preposterous to me. Both sides have their zealots and neither is willing to concede any ground.
-
The point is that Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science.
Who decided that? The Godless evolutionists?
Who determines what is science and what isn't? Religion has played a hand in science down through out the ages...who decied it should be removed and why?
It is a belief.
So is Evolution.
Whereas the study of evolution is science.
It's an unproven theory.
I can't explain it any better then Freedumb did.
Amazing...you'll laugh at the people who buy hook line and sinker into the "science" of Man Made Global warming.
Yet you sound just like them where evolution is concerned. Another unproven "theory"
How do you square the two different views?
[/quote]
-
Whereas the study of evolution is science.
Let me know when they find proof of the missing link. You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.
-
Who decided that? The Godless evolutionists?
Who determines what is science and what isn't? Religion has played a hand in science down through out the ages...who decied it should be removed and why?
sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
Where is the evidence of facts or truth? Where are the fossil records? Where is the evidence? Where are the laws? Religion has been a tool to explain what science at the time couldn't. Meteorology and other physical sciences now gives sound reasoning for the whole belief of most of the Greek Pantheon.
So is Evolution.
Evolution is a science founded on gathered knowledge and evidence. Everything is not yet know about it, so yes one could coin it a "belief". But it does not take faith to know that evolution occurs. Just the willingness to accept the evidence that is put forth to you.
It's an unproven theory.
How so? 5 million years of fossil records of progressive human evolution just didn't happen because the bible says otherwise?
Tell me how ID is a proven theory. Show me your physical evidence of it. Show me the theorems. Show me the equations.
Amazing...you'll laugh at the people who buy hook line and sinker into the "science" of Man Made Global warming.
Yet you sound just like them where evolution is concerned. Another unproven "theory"
How do you square the two different views?
I laugh at those who buy Global Warming hook line and sinker because they are the types who aren't looking into it themselves. They don't truly understand the process, so they don't know it's impossible to really know the truth at this time.
I've studied meteorology.
I've also extensively studied evolution. I've seen the mountains of physical data that I can reach out and touch. I've seen how things add up. I've seen how theories are presented, accepted, disproven, through research, discussion, and reasoning. Not taken simply on faith.
-
The point is that Creationism/Intelligent Design is not science.
Who decided that? The Godless evolutionists?
Who determines what is science and what isn't? Religion has played a hand in science down through out the ages...who decied it should be removed and why?
No, the scientists over the last hundreds of years established what is and isn't science. Science has a core of how it goes about approaching data. The same approach is used for TToE as astronomy, chemistry, physics, geology, etc.
Religion established the desire for the search for Truth, no matter where that leads. It is because of the Enlightenment that the Scientific Method (only accepted by every single scientist in the last 400 years) was established. And there is no place for "and here a miracle occurred."
It is a belief.
So is Evolution.
No it isn't. It is a scientific discipline that stands astride physics, chemistry, geology, etc. And it is very much advanced from the Theory of Gravity and others.
Whereas the study of evolution is science.
It's an unproven theory.
[/quote]
As a friend, I really suggest you stop making a fool of yourself. A Scientific Theory is not a sanctified guess. There is not a hierarchy that goes Guess>Hypothesis>Theory>Fact. A Scientific Theory is a collective strucure which explains a large body of interrelated data. In this case, BILLIONS of data points. BILLIONS.
Ignorance is NOT a Conservative value. Willful Ignorance is especially not one.
I can't explain it any better then Freedumb did.
No you can't.
Amazing...you'll laugh at the people who buy hook line and sinker into the "science" of Man Made Global warming.
Yet you sound just like them where evolution is concerned. Another unproven "theory"
How do you square the two different views?
Because so-called "climatology" is an infant science. Rather than being driven by data and facts, it started with the conclusion and then tries to fit the data to fit that conclusion (which is NOT what TToE has done -- witness the number of changes over the years). If in 30 years, it can take the same data and go from Global Cooling to Global Warming, then its very mechanisms must be reviewed with great skepticism.
And AGW has multiple physical explanations and no fantastic ones. AGW may or may not be happening, if it is it may or may not be a result of human activity or (more likely) it is the planet doing what planets do (which, BTW requires it be billions of years old, not 6,000).
Again, what NON-fantastic alternate theories has anyone proposed to TToE? Answer: None.
-
Whereas the study of evolution is science.
Let me know when they find proof of the missing link. You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
-
Whereas the study of evolution is science.
Let me know when they find proof of the missing link. You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
I don't view wikipedia as a valid source, since just about anyone can do an edit there.
But your link to it did prompt me to google Ardipithecus.
I found a few site worthy of checking into a bit more... But at a surface glance, I am not prepared to declare it the missing link.
But thanks for the heads up.
-
Whereas the study of evolution is science.
Let me know when they find proof of the missing link. You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
I don't view as a valid source, since just aobut anyone can to an edit there.
But your link to it did prompt me to google Ardipithecus.
I found a few site worthy of checking into a bit more... But at a surface glance, I am not prepared to declare it the missing link.
But thanks for the heads up.
If your looking for the actual missing link, your going to wait a long time buddy. We may never find fossil remains of the actual species that made the jump from ape to hominid. But Ardipithecus is the closest thing found so far. While maintaining most of the charecteristics of apes, it shows sides of bipedalism, which is the biggest differentiator between apes and hominids.
-
Who decided that? The Godless evolutionists?
Who determines what is science and what isn't? Religion has played a hand in science down through out the ages...who decied it should be removed and why?
sci·ence /ˈsaɪəns/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[sahy-uhns] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws
Where is the evidence of facts or truth? Where are the fossil records? Where is the evidence? Where are the laws? Religion has been a tool to explain what science at the time couldn't. Meteorology and other physical sciences now gives sound reasoning for the whole belief of most of the Greek Pantheon.
So is Evolution.
Evolution is a science founded on gathered knowledge and evidence. Everything is not yet know about it, so yes one could coin it a "belief". But it does not take faith to know that evolution occurs. Just the willingness to accept the evidence that is put forth to you.
It's an unproven theory.
How so? 5 million years of fossil records of progressive human evolution just didn't happen because the bible says otherwise?
Tell me how ID is a proven theory. Show me your physical evidence of it. Show me the theorems. Show me the equations.
Amazing...you'll laugh at the people who buy hook line and sinker into the "science" of Man Made Global warming.
Yet you sound just like them where evolution is concerned. Another unproven "theory"
How do you square the two different views?
I laugh at those who buy Global Warming hook line and sinker because they are the types who aren't looking into it themselves. They don't truly understand the process, so they don't know it's impossible to really know the truth at this time.
I've studied meteorology.
I've also extensively studied evolution. I've seen the mountains of physical data that I can reach out and touch. I've seen how things add up. I've seen how theories are presented, accepted, disproven, through research, discussion, and reasoning. Not taken simply on faith.
There is a reason why it is still called "The Theory of Evolution".
It has yet to be proven as an uncontestable fact.
-
There is a reason why it is still called "The Theory of Evolution".
It has yet to be proven as an uncontestable fact.
*sigh*
Please read my responses above. A scientific theory is not the same as what lay people think is a theory. A scientific theory will be a theory FOREVER. It doesn't "grow up" into a "fact."
The Theory of Evolution is much better understood than The Theory of Gravity. But that doesn't mean you will start floating off the planet.
And please don't tell me gravity is a fact. The phenomenon of gravity is (only to some degree) observable. That is only a tiny part of TTOG.
Oh, and if you don't think there is a factual basis for TToE, you shouldn't take any pharmaceuticals. Almost every single drug on the market was a direct result of the knowledge and application of TToE.
-
I have a way to settle this. Everyone for and against (and those of us who have no idea yet, like me), go see the movie...then come back and discuss it.
-
There are no other theories. Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory. It is a belief. And belongs in the domain of belief.
Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science. It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.
The film, as far as I can tell isn't exclusively about Creationism or ID. From what I can tell, the film is about... let's look at other alternatives and see if there's any thing to them.
If there's a case for any alternative theories, I want to know.
People have said so much about previous theories that turned out not to be valid, why is it not appropriate to question this one? I want to see this movie b/c I want to know what else is out there.
*Red*
-
I have a way to settle this. Everyone for and against (and those of us who have no idea yet, like me), go see the movie...then come back and discuss it.
I never saw F 9/11, nor shall I ever. But I have been able to gather enough information to determine it is a fabric of lies.
This is a r/w version of the same. The trailer was enough to tell me that Stein is using the usual Straw Men to buttress his non-argument. Unless someone can tell me that it concedes that Creationism (or its retarded cousin, ID) is not trying to elbow its way into the science table as an "alternate theory" then there is no point in seeing it.
-
There are no other theories. Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory. It is a belief. And belongs in the domain of belief.
Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science. It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.
The film, as far as I can tell isn't exclusively about Creationism or ID. From what I can tell, the film is about... let's look at other alternatives and see if there's any alternatives.
If there's a case for any alternative theories, I want to know.
People have said so much about previous theories that turned out not to be valid, why is it not appropriate to question this one? I want to see this movie b/c I want to know what else is out there.
*Red*
As soon as you have an alternate theory, science is all ears. Creationism and ID are not "theories" by any definition.
-
Whereas the study of evolution is science.
Let me know when they find proof of the missing link. You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
I don't view as a valid source, since just aobut anyone can to an edit there.
But your link to it did prompt me to google Ardipithecus.
I found a few site worthy of checking into a bit more... But at a surface glance, I am not prepared to declare it the missing link.
But thanks for the heads up.
If your looking for the actual missing link, your going to wait a long time buddy. We may never find fossil remains of the actual species that made the jump from ape to hominid. But Ardipithecus is the closest thing found so far. While maintaining most of the charecteristics of apes, it shows sides of bipedalism, which is the biggest differentiator between apes and hominids.
If there was such a missing link, why haven't we found the actual fossils yet?
Good grief, we have museums chock full of fossils dating back millions of years.
If there was indeed this missing link, there would have had to be millions of them in existence at one time in order for the hominids to continue to evolve into Homo Sapien.
So were are their fossils?
-
There are no other theories. Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory. It is a belief. And belongs in the domain of belief.
Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science. It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.
The film, as far as I can tell isn't exclusively about Creationism or ID. From what I can tell, the film is about... let's look at other alternatives and see if there's any alternatives.
If there's a case for any alternative theories, I want to know.
People have said so much about previous theories that turned out not to be valid, why is it not appropriate to question this one? I want to see this movie b/c I want to know what else is out there.
*Red*
As soon as you have an alternate theory, science is all ears. Creationism and ID are not "theories" by any definition.
Did you not hear me? From what I can tell the film is not exclusively about Creationism and ID....
Let. It. Go.
There probably are theories, but with the attitudes I've been seeing, no wonder no one's heard about them!
Good night Gentlemen.
*Red*
-
There are no other theories. Creationism/ID is not a scientific theory. It is a belief. And belongs in the domain of belief.
Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science. It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.
The film, as far as I can tell isn't exclusively about Creationism or ID. From what I can tell, the film is about... let's look at other alternatives and see if there's any alternatives.
If there's a case for any alternative theories, I want to know.
People have said so much about previous theories that turned out not to be valid, why is it not appropriate to question this one? I want to see this movie b/c I want to know what else is out there.
*Red*
As soon as you have an alternate theory, science is all ears. Creationism and ID are not "theories" by any definition.
Did you not hear me? From what I can tell the film is not exclusively about Creationism and ID....
Let. It. Go.
There probably are theories, but with the attitudes I've been seeing, no wonder no one's heard about them!
Good night Gentlemen.
*Red*
Science has never really accepted new ideas easily. It usually takes about a generation, 20 years, for a new idea to start circulating as old scientists die off and new ones come in to become the new scientific establishment. It's a priesthood. Power has to be guarded. Power told is power lost.
-
Whereas the study of evolution is science.
Let me know when they find proof of the missing link. You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
I don't view as a valid source, since just aobut anyone can to an edit there.
But your link to it did prompt me to google Ardipithecus.
I found a few site worthy of checking into a bit more... But at a surface glance, I am not prepared to declare it the missing link.
But thanks for the heads up.
If your looking for the actual missing link, your going to wait a long time buddy. We may never find fossil remains of the actual species that made the jump from ape to hominid. But Ardipithecus is the closest thing found so far. While maintaining most of the charecteristics of apes, it shows sides of bipedalism, which is the biggest differentiator between apes and hominids.
If there was such a missing link, why haven't we found the actual fossils yet?
Good grief, we have museums chock full of fossils dating back millions of years.
If there was indeed this missing link, there would have had to be millions of them in existence at one time in order for the hominids to continue to evolve into Homo Sapien.
So were are their fossils?
There is no single "missing link." That is an idea that has been floated by lay people. There are transitional fossils for every major "leap" between species of hominids.
Let me ask you -- are you a physicist? If not, do you think your ideas on string theory are particularly valid? How about math and the relational model? Are your views on 2VL vs. 3VL particularly valid? Gravity and gravitons? Geology and variable strata?
I ask these because people with zero understanding of TToE somehow think that when they have a question they somehow have a valid argument against it. You have proven that you have no knowledge of formal science and have no knowledge of TToE, yet you persist in making ignorant statements.
Why do people with no knowledge speak of this and then get upset when they can't understand the answers?
-
I have a way to settle this. Everyone for and against (and those of us who have no idea yet, like me), go see the movie...then come back and discuss it.
I never saw F 9/11, nor shall I ever. But I have been able to gather enough information to determine it is a fabric of lies.
This is a r/w version of the same. The trailer was enough to tell me that Stein is using the usual Straw Men to buttress his non-argument. Unless someone can tell me that it concedes that Creationism (or its retarded cousin, ID) is not trying to elbow its way into the science table as an "alternate theory" then there is no point in seeing it.
I saw F 9/11 when I was flipping through the channels one night on HBO. I forced myself to watch it. Go see Expelled and make fun of it after, I'll pay for your ticket. Come back and "educate" all us stupid folks about how we are just blind little sheeple.
-
Science has never really accepted new ideas easily. It usually takes about a generation, 20 years, for a new idea to start circulating as old scientists die off and new ones come in to become the new scientific establishment. It's a priesthood. Power has to be guarded. Power told is power lost.
In some fantasy world, maybe. In the real world, science goes where the data lead it.
Do you have a valid scientific alternative to TToE? If you post Creationism/ID you need to be able to support it with evidence. And if CR/ID is OK for Evolutions it MUST also apply to EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC BODY EVERYWHERE. Want to know where planets came from? *POOF* Intelligent Designer. Gravity? **POOF* Intelligent Designer.
CR/ID even if "true" is inapplicable. It furthers no knowledge. It cannot be applied against a problem. It is unfalsifiable. It meets no criteria for science -- as established over 400+ years.
-
I have a way to settle this. Everyone for and against (and those of us who have no idea yet, like me), go see the movie...then come back and discuss it.
I never saw F 9/11, nor shall I ever. But I have been able to gather enough information to determine it is a fabric of lies.
This is a r/w version of the same. The trailer was enough to tell me that Stein is using the usual Straw Men to buttress his non-argument. Unless someone can tell me that it concedes that Creationism (or its retarded cousin, ID) is not trying to elbow its way into the science table as an "alternate theory" then there is no point in seeing it.
I saw F 9/11 when I was flipping through the channels one night on HBO. I forced myself to watch it. Go see Expelled and make fun of it after, I'll pay for your ticket. Come back and "educate" all us stupid folks about how we are just blind little sheeple.
I am educating you -- I have been very clear on what a scientific theory is, why CR/ID doesn't fit, why Evolution is not a "belief." How hundreds of years and billions of data create a general, understandable structure.
It isn't the movie -- it is its premise.
-
I will iterate:
Good grief, we have museums chock full of fossils dating back millions of years.
If there was indeed this missing link, there would have had to be millions of them in existence at one time in order for the hominids to continue to evolve into Homo Sapien.
So were are their fossils?
There should be miilions of them out there for the finding.
So where are they?
-
I will iterate:
Good grief, we have museums chock full of fossils dating back millions of years.
If there was indeed this missing link, there would have had to be millions of them in existence at one time in order for the hominids to continue to evolve into Homo Sapien.
So were are their fossils?
There should be miilions of them out there for the finding.
So where are they?
There are. They are called "transitional forms." There is no such thing as a "missing link." That is what lay people think. Just like they think a "theory" will grow up into a "fact."
Here is a primer:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evosite/lines/IAtransitional.shtml
-
No "Intelligence" evident in Stein documentary
Not surprisingly, there is a climactic showdown between Stein and the leading atheist of the day, Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion"), that is as unenlightening as everything that has preceded it.
Was the unenlightening"part Ben Stein's questions or the part where Richard Dawkins speculated that aliens may have seeded the Earth with life? Oh, that's right, you didn't see the movie did you NO?
:lmao:
Oh, and about the "attempt to link Darwinism and Nazism"... it never happened. (Oh, that's right, you didn't see the movie did you NO?) Stein was very careful to link Nazis with Darwinism. Not the other way around. (a point I explained a bit in my lounge thread)
Just saw 'Expelled' ask me anything
http://www.conservativecave.com/index.php?topic=5995.0
The tie to the movies of Michael Moore are unfair. Moore lied with the intent of leaving the viewer less informed. (or ill-informed if you like) The Stein movie, if it lied, did so with the intent that ID (not creationism) deserves a place at the table IF it can be proved WITH SCIENCE.
fwiw- I left the movie with the desire to learn more about the facts. Which, BTW, I suspect will lead me down the path toward evolution and Darwinism. (where I started to begin with) The first half of the movie is very funny and the second half is very provacative. What I never want to see... is science ruled by politics which the movie makes a fantastic case AGAINST.
Science ruled by politics leads down the road to Nazi style euginics and todays anti-capitalist equivalent of man made global warming. Science unfettered on the other hand, leads to space shuttles and open heart sugery. Which do you prefer?
-
Science has never really accepted new ideas easily. It usually takes about a generation, 20 years, for a new idea to start circulating as old scientists die off and new ones come in to become the new scientific establishment. It's a priesthood. Power has to be guarded. Power told is power lost.
In some fantasy world, maybe. In the real world, science goes where the data lead it.
Do you have a valid scientific alternative to TToE? If you post Creationism/ID you need to be able to support it with evidence. And if CR/ID is OK for Evolutions it MUST also apply to EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC BODY EVERYWHERE. Want to know where planets came from? *POOF* Intelligent Designer. Gravity? **POOF* Intelligent Designer.
CR/ID even if "true" is inapplicable. It furthers no knowledge. It cannot be applied against a problem. It is unfalsifiable. It meets no criteria for science -- as established over 400+ years.
Every major new scientific breakthrough starts out as heresy. "Big Bang" was a way of making fun of an idea the scientific establishment at the time wasn't ready to accept. Plate Tectonics when first proposed was a laughing stock. The 11th dimension and 10th dimension people used to make fun of each other.
It's always been emotion first and data second. Or third. Or somewhere in the top ten. I think the fantasy world is thinking "science" is some orderly progression. It is mostly serendipity. Or a good deal of it.
The Universe is orderly, which implies some form of intelligence. Science, on the other hand, is kind of chaotic. It sees and documents the order in the Universe and believes it came up with that intelligence. Or that it is that intelligence. Kind of a Münchhausen.
Matter is a simple epiphenomena of consciousness. Science is a simple epiphenomena of federal funding. Science goes where the funding flows.
-
Six Things in Expelled That Ben Stein Doesn't Want You to Know...
...about intelligent design and evolution
By John Rennie and Steve Mirsky
In the film Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed, narrator Ben Stein poses as a "rebel" willing to stand up to the scientific establishment in defense of freedom and honest, open discussion of controversial ideas like intelligent design (ID). But Expelled has some problems of its own with honest, open presentations of the facts about evolution, ID—and with its own agenda. Here are a few examples—add your own with a comment, and we may add it to another draft of this story. For our complete coverage, see "Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed—Scientific American's Take.
...
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=six-things-ben-stein-doesnt-want-you-to-know
Devastating.
-
QUERY:
How did the first cells form from completely naturalistic processes?
How did those cells evolve into multicellular organisms?
How did the cells within the first multi-cellular organism develop specialized tasks?
-
I will iterate:
Good grief, we have museums chock full of fossils dating back millions of years.
If there was indeed this missing link, there would have had to be millions of them in existence at one time in order for the hominids to continue to evolve into Homo Sapien.
So were are their fossils?
There should be miilions of them out there for the finding.
So where are they?
There's about 120,000 of them posting away madly at DU...
-
QUERY:
How did the first cells form from completely naturalistic processes?
How did those cells evolve into multicellular organisms?
How did the cells within the first multi-cellular organism develop specialized tasks?
How did the Universe start?
Where are my car keys?
Abiogensis is irrelevant to TToE.
-
Science has never really accepted new ideas easily. It usually takes about a generation, 20 years, for a new idea to start circulating as old scientists die off and new ones come in to become the new scientific establishment. It's a priesthood. Power has to be guarded. Power told is power lost.
In some fantasy world, maybe. In the real world, science goes where the data lead it.
Do you have a valid scientific alternative to TToE? If you post Creationism/ID you need to be able to support it with evidence. And if CR/ID is OK for Evolutions it MUST also apply to EVERY SINGLE SCIENTIFIC BODY EVERYWHERE. Want to know where planets came from? *POOF* Intelligent Designer. Gravity? **POOF* Intelligent Designer.
CR/ID even if "true" is inapplicable. It furthers no knowledge. It cannot be applied against a problem. It is unfalsifiable. It meets no criteria for science -- as established over 400+ years.
Every major new scientific breakthrough starts out as heresy. "Big Bang" was a way of making fun of an idea the scientific establishment at the time wasn't ready to accept. Plate Tectonics when first proposed was a laughing stock. The 11th dimension and 10th dimension people used to make fun of each other.
It's always been emotion first and data second. Or third. Or somewhere in the top ten. I think the fantasy world is thinking "science" is some orderly progression. It is mostly serendipity. Or a good deal of it.
The Universe is orderly, which implies some form of intelligence. Science, on the other hand, is kind of chaotic. It sees and documents the order in the Universe and believes it came up with that intelligence. Or that it is that intelligence. Kind of a Münchhausen.
Matter is a simple epiphenomena of consciousness. Science is a simple epiphenomena of federal funding. Science goes where the funding flows.
Hundreds of years ago,. maybe. And that changes nothing. As I said, an Intelligent designer makes science useless and moot. It will never be incorporated into any true science.
-
The Universe is orderly, which implies some form of intelligence.
Order in the Universe does not prove that the Universe was designed because order comes from chaos...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem_on_friends_and_strangers
And, even the unlikely is likely in a chaotic universe...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30strogatz.html?ex=1364616000&en=96af12bdef4456f7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
:naughty:
-
HA!
TNO defending the "factual" and "cultural" aspects of Michale Moore and Spurlock.
One thing for certain - no one has ever accused TNO or his leftist lemmings of having any intelligence.
Intellectual lightweights are that way...
-
The Universe is orderly, which implies some form of intelligence.
Order in the Universe does not prove that the Universe was designed because order comes from chaos...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem_on_friends_and_strangers
And, even the unlikely is likely in a chaotic universe...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30strogatz.html?ex=1364616000&en=96af12bdef4456f7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
:naughty:
It's true! It's true because Wiki and the NYT says so.
Both are just OPINIONS based on ZERO scientific facts.
Next?
-
HA!
TNO defending the "factual" and "cultural" aspects of Michale Moore and Spurlock.
One thing for certain - no one has ever accused TNO or his leftist lemmings of having any intelligence.
Intellectual lightweights are that way...
What sort of process goes in your mind that causes you to interpret my statement that I'm not a fan of Michael Moore to be a defense of Michael Moore?
-
It's true! It's true because Wiki and the NYT says so.
If the Wiki entry on the Theorem of Friends and Strangers is incorrect, then feel free to point out how it is incorrect. And, if the baseball simulation written about in the NY Times piece is incorrect, then feel free to point out why it is incorrect.
Both are just OPINIONS based on ZERO scientific facts. Next?
How do you know?
-
QUERY:
How did the first cells form from completely naturalistic processes?
How did those cells evolve into multicellular organisms?
How did the cells within the first multi-cellular organism develop specialized tasks?
How did the Universe start?
Where are my car keys?
Abiogensis is irrelevant to TToE.
See this is the thing that bothers me most. It's as if you're choosing what to include in your "science". If it doesn't fit or can't be answered by your theory you simply ignore it. It IS important because SOMETHING had to start the whole evolutionary ball rolling. If I'm to believe there was nothing and then there was SOMETHING...that something just randomly made the entire universe, including planet earth, plopped some single cell "something" into a conveniently located ocean, which divided and eventual hopped out of the ocean started breathing air so that we could all sit here and be lectured and condescended to by people who seem to believe they're more evolved than the rest of us then by God how we got here matters. What begain this process IS important and would seem to be a key to understanding the whole thing be it ID or evolution. Heck, it might even help evolutionists explain HOW one species could become a completely new species.
But evolution has it's problems, too. The lack of fossil record (and if the whole thing is so random why don't we have humans-to-be with noses on their foreheads or something) is extremely suspect to me. So is the inability of evolutionists to explain the Cambrian Era. All the "major" evidence from Piltdown man to those horse embryos (peer reviewed, by the way) have turned out to be fakes. You are having discussion with people who you otherwise consider intelligent, thoughtful human beings and you're being arrogant and angry, filled with the same kind of stubborn messianic zeal you seem to be accusing ID proponents of having, even toward people who are asking legitimate questions in a quest for greater understanding (maybe you need to evolve a little more, huh?) I don't have your high-minded scientific knowledge, but I DO have common sense which allows me to discern whether something is plausible or not.
Cindie
-
But evolution has it's problems, too. The lack of fossil record (and if the whole thing is so random why don't we have humans-to-be with noses on their foreheads or something) is extremely suspect to me.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC200_1.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC201.html
So is the inability of evolutionists to explain the Cambrian Era.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC301.html
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC216_2.html
All the "major" evidence from Piltdown man to those horse embryos (peer reviewed, by the way) have turned out to be fakes.
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CC/CC001.html
-
See this is the thing that bothers me most. It's as if you're choosing what to include in your "science". If it doesn't fit or can't be answered by your theory you simply ignore it. It IS important because SOMETHING had to start the whole evolutionary ball rolling. If I'm to believe there was nothing and then there was SOMETHING...that something just randomly made the entire universe, including planet earth, plopped some single cell "something" into a conveniently located ocean, which divided and eventual hopped out of the ocean started breathing air so that we could all sit here and be lectured and condescended to by people who seem to believe they're more evolved than the rest of us then by God how we got here matters. What begain this process IS important and would seem to be a key to understanding the whole thing be it ID or evolution. Heck, it might even help evolutionists explain HOW one species could become a completely new species.
The fact that the science of the past could not explain weather or disease did not make religious explanations of those things any more plausible than they were. Similarly, the fact that the science of today cannot explain how life started does not make religious explanations of how life started any more plausible than they are.
-
See this is the thing that bothers me most. It's as if you're choosing what to include in your "science". If it doesn't fit or can't be answered by your theory you simply ignore it. It IS important because SOMETHING had to start the whole evolutionary ball rolling. If I'm to believe there was nothing and then there was SOMETHING...that something just randomly made the entire universe, including planet earth, plopped some single cell "something" into a conveniently located ocean, which divided and eventual hopped out of the ocean started breathing air so that we could all sit here and be lectured and condescended to by people who seem to believe they're more evolved than the rest of us then by God how we got here matters. What begain this process IS important and would seem to be a key to understanding the whole thing be it ID or evolution. Heck, it might even help evolutionists explain HOW one species could become a completely new species.
Well, you would be wrong. Do you require astronomers and physicists to describe the beginnings of the Universe? Do you require chemists to describe the first chemical reaction? You don't get to put an extra onus on TToE because you don't like its conclusions. And speciation is a very simple process. We have observed it. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean you get to toss all kinds of baggage on what it must do or not do. TToE stands next to all sciences and is evaluated and extended the same way as all of them.
Not that abiogenesis is not a valid subject of exploration -- it just isn't a requirement for TToE.
But evolution has it's problems, too. The lack of fossil record (and if the whole thing is so random why don't we have humans-to-be with noses on their foreheads or something) is extremely suspect to me.
Over a billion fossils isn't enough for you? How many do you want?
So is the inability of evolutionists to explain the Cambrian Era.
Ah the old "Cambian Explosiion" canard. I'll tell you what -- describe the length of time and why it isn't possible. 10 to 40 million years is more than enough time to see the very, very low-level phyla determined to be from that era.
All the "major" evidence from Piltdown man to those horse embryos (peer reviewed, by the way) have turned out to be fakes.
No they haven't. And it was science itself which ferreted out the fakers (something religion is incapable of doing). There have been a handful of fakes, but most data which support TToE are quite intact. Remember we are talking about billions of artifacts. Does the fact that Cold Fusion was unreproducible invalidate physics?
You are having discussion with people who you otherwise consider intelligent, thoughtful human beings and you're being arrogant and angry, filled with the same kind of stubborn messianic zeal you seem to be accusing ID proponents of having, even toward people who are asking legitimate questions in a quest for greater understanding (maybe you need to evolve a little more, huh?) I don't have your high-minded scientific knowledge, but I DO have common sense which allows me to discern whether something is plausible or not.
So, what are your thoughts on Nash's writings? How about 3VL vs 2VL? How about cDNA publication? Do they properly reflect PCRs and STSs?
My point is that people think because they have an opinion about a subject with absolutely (or nearly) zero knowledge somehow think their opinion has heft. I "messianic" because I fear for the next generation who will think "well, if I have an opinion it has scientific weight."
I have no problem debating with people who have informed opinions. Uninformed opinions are just that. Yet we have people trying to influence public policy armed with nothing more than Bibles and ignorance.
I have posted many links and statements that clearly define what TToE is and how it fits into the hard science milieu. I have also made it clear how ID and religion not only are NOt science but can NEVER be science.
The quest for further understanding beyond what is measurable is all well and good -- in a philosophical context. Not a scientific one.
As I will continue to say -- ignorance (especially willful) is NOT a Conservative Value.
-
The fact that science cannot yet explain the origin of life does not make the idea that God created it any more plausible than the once widely held belief that God controls the weather.
Nor does it make it any less plausable.....
doc
-
The Universe is orderly, which implies some form of intelligence.
Order in the Universe does not prove that the Universe was designed because order comes from chaos...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theorem_on_friends_and_strangers
And, even the unlikely is likely in a chaotic universe...
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/30/opinion/30strogatz.html?ex=1364616000&en=96af12bdef4456f7&ei=5124&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink
:naughty:
It's true! It's true because Wiki and the NYT says so.
Both are just OPINIONS based on ZERO scientific facts.
Next?
I OTOH have not quoted a single Wiki source. I don't trust it as a source, but I sometimes use it as a jumping off point to find sources.
-
The fact that science cannot yet explain the origin of life does not make the idea that God created it any more plausible than the once widely held belief that God controls the weather.
Nor does it make it any less plausable.....
doc
That is why I keep my discussion in the realm of science. I believe in God and I believe He has a plan that I cannot discern. But I also believe He designed this unbelievable incredible Universe (and maybe others) and gave it rules and then gave Man the ability to discern and use those rules. God is not a trickster. He wouldn't pull the football out from under us when we get close to a major breakthrough such as the very much sought after Theory Of Everything.
-
Nor does it make it any less plausable.....
doc
I disagree. The probability that deficiences in knowledge are the reason why science can't explain certain things is far higher than the probability that God is the explanation for what science can't explain.
-
I disagree. The probability that God is the explanation for something science can't explain is far lower than the probability that the failures of science are due to insufficient knowledge and understanding.
Logical falicy....grow up.......
doc
-
Logical falicy....grow up.......
doc
What is illogical about what I wrote?
-
I disagree. The probability that God is the explanation for something science can't explain is far lower than the probability that the failures of science are due to insufficient knowledge and understanding.
Logical falicy....grow up.......
doc
It's really not relevant to the discussion at hand. The probability of God influencing anything is infinity, since He is, by definition, infinite. But the applicability to science is zero for the converse reason. Unless it can be measured it can't be applied.
-
I'm not going to be goaded into the discussion of ToE/ID, as I come from a scientific background, and am intimately aware of both the intellectual deficiencies/politics inherent in much of "science" today.
Suffice it to say that in physics, which is my field, there is much that is accepted as "fact", or perhaps I should say "settled science", that will not stand much scrutiny in this time of rapid expansion of understanding.
Additionally, I just can't resist tweaking TNO on occasion, as he/she/it pretty much constitutes what we, in academia, used to generally categorize as a "fuzzy thinker"......
doc
-
So, what are your thoughts on Nash's writings? How about 3VL vs 2VL? How about cDNA publication? Do they properly reflect PCRs and STSs?
My point is that people think because they have an opinion about a subject with absolutely (or nearly) zero knowledge somehow think their opinion has heft. I "messianic" because I fear for the next generation who will think "well, if I have an opinion it has scientific weight."
I have no problem debating with people who have informed opinions. Uninformed opinions are just that. Yet we have people trying to influence public policy armed with nothing more than Bibles and ignorance.
I have posted many links and statements that clearly define what TToE is and how it fits into the hard science milieu. I have also made it clear how ID and religion not only are NOt science but can NEVER be science.
The quest for further understanding beyond what is measurable is all well and good -- in a philosophical context. Not a scientific one.
As I will continue to say -- ignorance (especially willful) is NOT a Conservative Value.
Actually, I never said what I think. All I did was express some concerns I had. You made the leap and assumed I deny evolution. It's an interesting dichotomy ID and evolution but it doesn't consume me from day to day. When we were homeschooling we studied both evolution and ID (my son decided ID made more sense, but I see merits in both). I just find more "preachers" on the evolution side than on the ID side, which is rather interesting if you think about it. I do know there's a great many physicists, astronomers, etc. more intelligent than you and I could ever hope to be that are proponents of ID so I guess not all you smart folks believe evolution.
Cindie
-
Additionally, I just can't resist tweaking TNO on occasion, as he/she/it pretty much constitutes what we, in academia, used to generally categorize as a "fuzzy thinker"......
doc
Feel free to explain exactly what you think I'm fuzzy on.
-
I'm not going to be goaded into the discussion of ToE/ID, as I come from a scientific background, and am intimately aware of both the intellectual deficiencies/politics inherent in much of "science" today.
Suffice it to say that in physics, which is my field, there is much that is accepted as "fact", or perhaps I should say "settled science", that will not stand much scrutiny in this time of rapid expansion of understanding.
Additionally, I just can't resist tweaking TNO on occasion, as he/she/it pretty much constitutes what we, in academia, used to generally categorize as a "fuzzy thinker"......
doc
LOL -- I like to do that also. It is pretty easy. But this time he is on the "right" side so I had to defend him.
I know about the uncertainty of physics (and so many other things) -- but as long as we follow the methods and keep substitutions in the physical realm, I think all will be good.
I have had several note that scientific moribundity is a very real phenomenon. And I know that is true. But it will never come to pass that any scientific discipline accepts "OK, the Intelligent Designer stepped in here."
Unless we are introduced to said designer. In RL, not spiritually. If that happens, I hope he (she?) isn't as spoiled as The Q.
-
So, what are your thoughts on Nash's writings? How about 3VL vs 2VL? How about cDNA publication? Do they properly reflect PCRs and STSs?
My point is that people think because they have an opinion about a subject with absolutely (or nearly) zero knowledge somehow think their opinion has heft. I "messianic" because I fear for the next generation who will think "well, if I have an opinion it has scientific weight."
I have no problem debating with people who have informed opinions. Uninformed opinions are just that. Yet we have people trying to influence public policy armed with nothing more than Bibles and ignorance.
I have posted many links and statements that clearly define what TToE is and how it fits into the hard science milieu. I have also made it clear how ID and religion not only are NOt science but can NEVER be science.
The quest for further understanding beyond what is measurable is all well and good -- in a philosophical context. Not a scientific one.
As I will continue to say -- ignorance (especially willful) is NOT a Conservative Value.
Actually, I never said what I think. All I did was express some concerns I had. You made the leap and assumed I deny evolution. It's an interesting dichotomy ID and evolution but it doesn't consume me from day to day. When we were homeschooling we studied both evolution and ID (my son decided ID made more sense, but I see merits in both). I just find more "preachers" on the evolution side than on the ID side, which is rather interesting if you think about it. I do know there's a great many physicists, astronomers, etc. more intelligent than you and I could ever hope to be that are proponents of ID so I guess not all you smart folks believe evolution.
Cindie
There are a tiny, tiny, tiny number of scientists (and almost zero in the Life Sciences) who believe in ID. Whether they are more intelligent than me is irrelevant.
I ask you to provide a single peer-reviewed article that shows how ID has any applicability. How can it be used to further human knowledge? How can it be applied in the lab? How dos one plug ID into a Scientific Theory?
Teaching ID alongside TToE is like teaching astrology alongside astronomy. ID belongs with theology and philosophy (note, I do admit it has a place in academia).
-
Feel free to explain exactly what you think I'm fuzzy on.
It would be a waste of my time......
doc
-
Actually, I never said what I think. All I did was express some concerns I had. You made the leap and assumed I deny evolution. It's an interesting dichotomy ID and evolution but it doesn't consume me from day to day. When we were homeschooling we studied both evolution and ID (my son decided ID made more sense, but I see merits in both). I just find more "preachers" on the evolution side than on the ID side, which is rather interesting if you think about it. I do know there's a great many physicists, astronomers, etc. more intelligent than you and I could ever hope to be that are proponents of ID so I guess not all you smart folks believe evolution.
Cindie
Feel free to point out what gives you the idea that "a great many" scientists are proponents of ID.
Did you know that one the lead proponents of ID was forced to admit to a court that his definition of theory is so broad that it would have to include astrology? It's true...
http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8178
Ouch!
-
It would be a waste of my time......
doc
Yes. Attempting to show that religious explanations of phenomena are no less plausible than scientific explanations of phenomena is a waste of time, but not for the reason you think.
-
[
Yes. Attempting to show that religious explanations of phenomena are no less plausible than scientific explanations of phenomena is a waste of time, but not for the reason you think.
Now you purport to know what I think......you are a waste of time.......as I suggested upthread....grow up, then get back to us....
doc
-
It would be a waste of my time......
doc
Yes. Attempting to show that religious explanations of phenomena are no less plausible than scientific explanations of phenomena is a waste of time, but not for the reason you think.
You should have read his prior responses to me. No reason to wade into the mud if some tells you there is a puddle there...
You're getting killed here, sonny, and I can't save you this time.
-
HA!
TNO defending the "factual" and "cultural" aspects of Michale Moore and Spurlock.
One thing for certain - no one has ever accused TNO or his leftist lemmings of having any intelligence.
Intellectual lightweights are that way...
What sort of process goes in your mind that causes you to interpret my statement that I'm not a fan of Michael Moore to be a defense of Michael Moore?
Some things go without saying. Especially when liberals are concerned. Your hero's were mentioned in your OP. In fact, the OP used your mentors as a comparison to the subject of the OP.
Get it?
Or is it true - you are an intellectual lightweight?
Never mind, I already know the answer.
-
Now you purport to know what I think......you are a waste of time.......as I suggested upthread....grow up, then get back to us....
doc
Considering that you refused to explain your thinking every time I asked you to, I am left with no choice but to form my own interpretation of your posts.
-
This is what humors me:
I ask about abiogenesis--and actually a bit more when the other 2 of my 3 questions related specifically to adaptation--and I'm told that a naturalistic materialist explanation to abiogensis is irrelevant to the discussion of naturalistic materialist evolution and just because science can't explain it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Yet when you ask these same people about their anti-theism they'll tell you absence of evidence is evidence of absence (assuming they even care to make a legitimate inquiry in the first place); in other words they want proof before they will believe/accept (inquire?).
This much I do know: grab 100 atheists, throw them to the floor and put a knife to their throats and without exception they will beg for Justice and Mercy...but mostly Mercy.
They day y'all can throw away immaterial notions of Justice and Mercy while making only such claims about naturalistic materialism as can be supported by verifiable, testable and falsifiable assertions is the day I will admit evolution is more than just so much emotionally driven hypocrisy.
-
Some things go without saying. Especially when liberals are concerned. Your hero's were mentioned in your OP. In fact, the OP used your mentors as a comparison to the subject of the OP.
Get it?
Yes, I get it, but you clearly do not. Frank Scheck's statement that Expelled makes Michael Moore's work seem scholarly implies that Michael Moore's work is not scholarly and that only a film as stupid as Expelled can make it seem scholarly.
Feel free to Hi-five me as an apology.
-
This much I do know: grab 100 atheists, throw them to the floor and put a knife to their throats and without exception they will beg for Justice and Mercy...but mostly Mercy.
They day y'all can throw away immaterial notions of Justice and Mercy while making only such claims about naturalistic materialism as can be supported by verifiable, testable and falsifiable assertions is the day I will admit evolution is more than just so much emotionally driven hypocrisy.
Okay... I'm lost. Exactly what is hypocritical about an atheist asking for mercy?
-
Yet when you ask these same people about their anti-theism they'll tell you absence of evidence is evidence of absence (assuming they even care to make a legitimate inquiry in the first place); in other words they want proof before they will believe/accept (inquire?)
Absence of evidence often is evidence of absence. For instance, if you were to tell me that you can fly by flapping your arms but provide no evidence that you can fly by flapping your arms, the most reasonable assumption I could make based on your failure to provide evidence that you can fly by flapping your arms is to assume that you can't. So, yes... absence of evidence can be evidence of absence. What absence of evidence is not is proof of anything.
-
This is what humors me:
I ask about abiogenesis--and actually a bit more when the other 2 of my 3 questions related specifically to adaptation--and I'm told that a naturalistic materialist explanation to abiogensis is irrelevant to the discussion of naturalistic materialist evolution and just because science can't explain it doesn't mean it didn't happen.
That isn't what I said at all. Science has a pretty solid theory on abiogensis bit it isn't relevant. Light comes in waves and moves in particles. There is a theory about the nature of light. But you don't need to know when light came into existence to formulate theories about light nor apply it to solve problems. You create a false parallel by blithely using the same clause back to back. Clever but not science.
Yet when you ask these same people about their anti-theism they'll tell you absence of evidence is evidence of absence (assuming they even care to make a legitimate inquiry in the first place); in other words they want proof before they will believe/accept (inquire?).
Introduce me to the Intelligent Designer in RL and show how ID can be applied to a single practical problem. I await your response to THIS one with baited breath.
This much I do know: grab 100 atheists, throw them to the floor and put a knife to their throats and without exception they will beg for Justice and Mercy...but mostly Mercy.
I am not an atheist (nor are most scientists) -- so how does this non sequiter play?
They day y'all can throw away immaterial notions of Justice and Mercy while making only such claims about naturalistic materialism as can be supported by verifiable, testable and falsifiable assertions is the day I will admit evolution is more than just so much emotionally driven hypocrisy.
To begin with, Justice and Mercy are not unique to theists. And you are mixing domains. Justice and Mercy are part of philosophy and theology. How would you apply Justice and Mercy to drug formulation? At what point in the process would you put them in? How do you weigh them and measure them? How do you predict the outcome of a physical process that uses Justice and Mercy versus one that does not? What instruments do you use to make that comparison?
Science is designed to explain and use the physical, material world. It makes no statement about the meaning of the human soul.
Philosophy is where you take the measure of things such as Justice and Mercy.
-
Okay... I'm lost. Exactly what is hypocritical about an atheist asking for mercy?
Mercy--like its counterpart Justice--does not exist.
-
Mercy--like its counterpart Justice--does not exist.
Mercy and Justice exist as abstract concepts. Religionists believe in God not in the way that athiests believe in mercy and justice, as abstract concepts, but as being something very real.
I will hi-five you for making a creative albeit false comparison.
-
Okay... I'm lost. Exactly what is hypocritical about an atheist asking for mercy?
Mercy--like its counterpart Justice--does not exist.
They exist. They just aren't measurable. Like Love. I mean if you are going to go down that road, let's take it to the end.
-
Science has a pretty solid theory on abiogensis bit it isn't relevant.
It has nothing observed or testable.
As evolution presupposes strictly naturalistic-materialistic (NM) causes to explain all variation and adaptation then, yes, it is relevant. You're asking for a mulligan at the first tee.
Now one might proffer an intelligent designer kick-started evolution, but then we veer off into the intent of the design.
Introduce me to the Intelligent Designer in RL and show how ID can be applied to a single practical problem.
I await your response to THIS one with baited breath.[/quote]
1. If you met the designer how would knowing it in any way interfere with the study of any branch of science including the origin of life. In fact the founders of science figure prominently from theistic religion.
2. You claim in your subsequent paragraph that justice and mercy are not unique to theists. Hm-m-m...
3. What could be considered proof? Even if giant flaming letters were to appear in the sky proclaiming "Yes, freedumb2003, I exist--God" it would require little effort to rationalize a hallucination or pyrotechnics or something.
It seems to me that the best method of inquiry is to ask: is there any phenomenon to which all observers will agree exists despite individual biases/perceptions/whatnot that cannot be explained in materialist means? Now some would call this looking for a miracle. It seems arrogant in the extreme that Deity--if it exists--should jump through hoops to entertain spoiled children with parlor tricks; as if miracles should be a matter of turning whine-into-water-into-wine.
Thus my reference to Justice and Mercy. These are immaterial--as opposed to irrelevant--because they cannot be observed, measured or formulated. I have always asked why races cannot slaughter or enslave with moral impunity, why the genetically handicapped cannot be excised from the breeding pool and all the things that make us cringe and at best I have received is a lame "social order enhances survivability."
Horse shit. If anything man's "ascension"--if non-existent standards can be presumed to exist--is predicated on the unintentional, pitiless, mindless and unending slaughter and suffering of innumerable beings before us and it assumes we deserve preservation/ascension for the future.
Again, horse shit. Evolution can just as easily and capriciously throw mankind back into the australio-pithicus era with a flick of its genetic wrist.
But oh how the atheists wail at the thought of their preious little world being mindless and cruel. I chuckle everytime I am reminded how many times the secular humanists rewrote their manifesto because it gave tyrants too much wiggle room for their tastes.
They exist. They just aren't measurable. Like Love. I mean if you are going to go down that road, let's take it to the end.
Love doesn't exist either.
What you mistook for your mother's affection was a biochemical disposition to species preservation. It is nothing she conjured within herself it is merely the happenstance of countless molecular variations over time. Those creatures that had the genetic predisposition for offspring nurturing had a greater propensity for species survival and those who lacked it died out.
Your wife does not love you, she merely possesses a biologial unction to procreate.
Your children cling to you because it enhances their odds of producing a successive generation.
And sure as shit the universe doesn't love you because we are phlegm into fish into marsupials into men. It never intended it, is unaware of it and will never know or care about the outcome or offer recompense for the suffering and "injustice" born by its accidents...and that's the *******ed naturalistic fact.
-
There is a reason why it is still called "The Theory of Evolution".
It has yet to be proven as an uncontestable fact.
BINGO!!!
-
Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science.
Really? Who determined that? If it's the "best understood"...they why isn't it settled science?
Why still just a theory?
It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.
Wow talk about injecting your own opinion as fact.
Last time I checked...no one in the world is in doubt about gravity...astronomy...and light and the science behind it.
You should really leave that DarwinCentral echo chamber more often.
You guys get like the DUmmies and start to believe your BS cause that's all you ever hear.
-
There is a reason why it is still called "The Theory of Evolution".
It has yet to be proven as an uncontestable fact.
BINGO!!!
That is NOT a "BINGO." It is a miss. Again, you have to know what a Scientific Theory is. I have explained this repeatedly. A Theory NEVER "grows up" into a fact.
Did you know there is a Theory of Gravity?
Why do Conservatives promote ignorance?
-
Evolution is one of the best understood scientific theories in all of science.
Really? Who determined that? If it's the "best understood"...they why isn't it settled science?
Why still just a theory?
It is understood better than the (competing) theories of gravity, astronomy, light and others.
Wow talk about injecting your own opinion as fact.
Last time I checked...no one in the world is in doubt about gravity...astronomy...and light and the science behind it.
You should really leave that DarwinCentral echo chamber more often.
You guys get like the DUmmies and start to believe your BS cause that's all you ever hear.
You would be wrong on all your points. Your ignorance (which I hope to contain) doesn't invalidate the facts. The phenomenon of Gravity is observable. What causes it is very much a theory.
Would you like to expound on your opinions on Nash's writings? 3VL vs 2VL? I am sure there are a ton of subjects of which yo know nothing that you have opinions on.
-
That is NOT a "BINGO." It is a miss.
Again...merely your opinion.
A Theory NEVER "grows up" into a fact.
Except for evolution and the folks whoo tell those of us that don't believe in it to "just accept it"?
Why do Conservatives promote ignorance?
Why do asshats like you purport to be Conservative?
-
You would be wrong on all your points.
Your opinion.
Your ignorance (which I hope to contain) doesn't invalidate the facts.
Your arrogance is repugnant. Go take a shower hippie.
The phenomenon of Gravity is observable. What causes it is very much a theory.
Where exactly is evolution "observable"?
Would you like to expound on your opinions on Nash's writings? 3VL vs 2VL? I am sure there are a ton of subjects of which yo know nothing that you have opinions on.
And I would counter you with Genesis for starters and other writings and scientific research that supports the beliefs of the majority of the people in this country...which for you constitutes "are a ton of subjects of which yo know nothing that you have opinions on."
-
Science has a pretty solid theory on abiogensis bit it isn't relevant.
It has nothing observed or testable.
As evolution presupposes strictly naturalistic-materialistic (NM) causes to explain all variation and adaptation then, yes, it is relevant. You're asking for a mulligan at the first tee.
Now one might proffer an intelligent designer kick-started evolution, but then we veer off into the intent of the design.
Again, your assertion don't make it so. And if you put this onus on TToE you need to put it on all Life Sciences. Once you explain the origin of gravity, you then are in a position to build the Theory of Gravity?
Sorry, science doesn't work that way.
Introduce me to the Intelligent Designer in RL and show how ID can be applied to a single practical problem.
I await your response to THIS one with baited breath.
1. If you met the designer how would knowing it in any way interfere with the study of any branch of science including the origin of life. In fact the founders of science figure prominently from theistic religion.[/quote]
That makes no sense and has no historical basis. The fact that modern science was created out of a theistic milieu doesn't mean that theism is somehow structurally a part of science.
2. You claim in your subsequent paragraph that justice and mercy are not unique to theists. Hm-m-m...
There is a non statement.
3. What could be considered proof? Even if giant flaming letters were to appear in the sky proclaiming "Yes, freedumb2003, I exist--God" it would require little effort to rationalize a hallucination or pyrotechnics or something.
No, just a repeatable, applicable physical phenomenon that can be measured.
It seems to me that the best method of inquiry is to ask: is there any phenomenon to which all observers will agree exists despite individual biases/perceptions/whatnot that cannot be explained in materialist means? Now some would call this looking for a miracle. It seems arrogant in the extreme that Deity--if it exists--should jump through hoops to entertain spoiled children with parlor tricks; as if miracles should be a matter of turning whine-into-water-into-wine.
Nice philosophy. It has no applicability to science.
Thus my reference to Justice and Mercy. These are immaterial--as opposed to irrelevant--because they cannot be observed, measured or formulated. I have always asked why races cannot slaughter or enslave with moral impunity, why the genetically handicapped cannot be excised from the breeding pool and all the things that make us cringe and at best I have received is a lame "social order enhances survivability."
Horse shit. If anything man's "ascension"--if non-existent standards can be presumed to exist--is predicated on the unintentional, pitiless, mindless and unending slaughter and suffering of innumerable beings before us and it assumes we deserve preservation/ascension for the future.
Again, horse shit. Evolution can just as easily and capriciously throw mankind back into the australio-pithicus era with a flick of its genetic wrist.
[/qoute]
These are not measurable. You can wax and wane until the cows come home about your philosophy -- it is no more applicable to TToE than it is to mathematics, physics or any other branch of science.
But oh how the atheists wail at the thought of their preious little world being mindless and cruel. I chuckle everytime I am reminded how many times the secular humanists rewrote their manifesto because it gave tyrants too much wiggle room for their tastes.
They exist. They just aren't measurable. Like Love. I mean if you are going to go down that road, let's take it to the end.
Love doesn't exist either.
What you mistook for your mother's affection was a biochemical disposition to species preservation. It is nothing she conjured within herself it is merely the happenstance of countless molecular variations over time. Those creatures that had the genetic predisposition for offspring nurturing had a greater propensity for species survival and those who lacked it died out.
Your wife does not love you, she merely possesses a biologial unction to procreate.
Your children cling to you because it enhances their odds of producing a successive generation.
And sure as shit the universe doesn't love you because we are phlegm into fish into marsupials into men. It never intended it, is unaware of it and will never know or care about the outcome or offer recompense for the suffering and "injustice" born by its accidents...and that's the *******ed naturalistic fact.
You misunderstand me -- on purpose. Love and compassion and all the range of human emotions do exist but they can't be measured. Knee jerk flinging of the term "naturalism" (whatever the heck that is) at people who understand science doesn't really advance the discussion and pretty much reeks of Luddism.
-
You would be wrong on all your points.
Your opinion.
My LEARNED opinion. I can back up my claims. Yours are just dust in the wind.
Your ignorance (which I hope to contain) doesn't invalidate the facts.
Your arrogance is repugnant. Go take a shower hippie
.
I was never a hippie. I have facts on my side. I have millions of scientists and hundreds of years of science explored by the greatest minds this planet has ever seen on my side. You have...?
You don't get to invent things and opine when you have zero knowledge and then get all pissy because you are exposed.
The phenomenon of Gravity is observable. What causes it is very much a theory.
Where exactly is evolution "observable"?
Billions of fossils, many which directly point to transitional forms, observed speciation in both controlled and uncontrolled environments. Almost all modern drugs exist because of the understanding of TToE.
Would you like to expound on your opinions on Nash's writings? 3VL vs 2VL? I am sure there are a ton of subjects of which yo know nothing that you have opinions on.
And I would counter you with Genesis for starters and other writings and scientific research that supports the beliefs of the majority of the people in this country...which for you constitutes "are a ton of subjects of which yo know nothing that you have opinions on."
I know Genesis quite well. Including the fact that Genesis I and Genesis II don't agree. I assume you have read Genesis in its original Arameic? Have ypou reconciled the accounts in the Bible, the Torah and the qu'aran?
And I have not opined on Genesis. You, OTOH, have opined a lot on TToE. To have a meaningful opinion, you need to have at least a little bit of knowledge. I gather you have served our country. How about I start telling you about military tactics, equipment, daily routine, etc., having never served a day? I would be out of place to do so.
So what is it that allows people that can't even describe the basics of science pontificate on it?
-
People fear that which they don't understand; thus failing to understand their fears.
Seems to be a recurring theme with the evolutionists here.
-
People fear that which they don't understand; thus failing to understand their fears.
Seems to be a recurring theme with the evolutionists here.
Please tell me what I don't understand. I have been quite clear and explicit on what you don't.
-
You misunderstand me -- on purpose. Love and compassion and all the range of human emotions do exist but they can't be measured. Knee jerk flinging of the term "naturalism" (whatever the heck that is) at people who understand science doesn't really advance the discussion and pretty much reeks of Luddism.
Yes, I come from a sect of internet faring Luddites. ::)
Love is a biochemical reaction to propagate the species.
Anger is a biochemical reaction to a percieved threat to survival.
Angst is a biochemical reaction to to stimuli for which the brain is not readily prepared.
There is no Love, Anger, Angst or any other emotion in more "poetic" terms. The material cannot produce the immaterial. When you "feel" an emotion there is a biochemical reaction going on with the synapses, glands and lobes of the brain; endorphins, andreniline and the rest. A simple EEG or similar measure will settle this debate. If you claim the immaterial can produce a material reaction you might as well claim Homer was literally visited by the Muses.
All the more so with Justice and Mercy. They simply do not exist. At least "love" can be measured with scans and hormone profiles.
-
You misunderstand me -- on purpose. Love and compassion and all the range of human emotions do exist but they can't be measured. Knee jerk flinging of the term "naturalism" (whatever the heck that is) at people who understand science doesn't really advance the discussion and pretty much reeks of Luddism.
Yes, I come from a sect of internet faring Luddites. ::)
Love is a biochemical reaction to propagate the species.
Anger is a biochemical reaction to a percieved threat to survival.
Angst is a biochemical reaction to to stimuli for which the brain is not readily prepared.
There is no Love, Anger, Angst or any other emotion in more "poetic" terms. The material cannot produce the immaterial. When you "feel" an emotion there is a biochemical reaction going on with the synapses, glands and lobes of the brain; endorphins, andreniline and the rest. A simple EEG or similar measure will settle this debate. If you claim the immaterial can produce a material reaction you might as well claim Homer was literally visited by the Muses.
All the more so with Justice and Mercy. They simply do not exist. At least "love" can be measured with scans and hormone profiles.
I don't agree with those, but if you think so, then my philosophical reaction is to support your world view.
-
Please tell me what I don't understand.
Creationism for starters.
I have been quite clear and explicit on what you don't.
No what you've been and continue to be is an arrogant prig.
-
I don't agree with those, but if you think so, then my philosophical reaction is to support your world view.
Yes, well, at least science is on my side.
-
Please tell me what I don't understand.
Creationism for starters.
Earthmaker began to think about what he should do and in the end he began to cry, tears flowing from his eyes and falling down to where they became bright objects, seas formed from his tears.
Earthmaker thought, 'Anything I wish will happen just as I wish it'.
He wished for light - it happened.
He wished for earth and earth was formed.
Speaking for the first time, he said 'I shall make a being like myself' and he took some earth and made it just like himself.
He spoke to the creature, but it gave no answer. He looked closely, saw it had no mind and made a mind for it. But when he spoke to it, still it did not answer.
He made it a tongue and spoke to it, but still it did not answer.
He saw it had no soul, so he made it a soul, and talked to it ... and it very nearly said something, but failed to make itself understood.
So Earthmaker breathed into its mouth and spoke to it ... and it answered.
The suns were the ten children of Di Jun, the god of the eastern sky. Each morning one of the suns would rise, climb into a chariot pulled by a dragon, and ride across the sky bringing light to the different parts of the world. In this way the earth got the right amount of sunshine, at the different seasons of the year.
But the ten suns grew bored. They wanted to work together and, one day, they woke early and rode across the sky together in their chariots.
The Earth hated it. It burnt. It cracked. The rivers ran dry. Animals and people grew weak with the heat. But the ten suns were enjoying themselves and would not listen to those who asked them to stop. They laughed and carried on riding around the sky.
Even their father, Di Jun, had no influence over them. To save the world he sent for the Divine Archer and gave him a magic bow ...
The Archer flew on the wind, down to the highest mountain he could see. He had nine arrows in his quiver and, one by one, he shot an arrow at each of the suns. As each arrow struck, the sun exploded and turned into a bird.
By the end of the day, only one sun remained. Next day he rose again and his sad tears filled the rivers and made the plants grow again. And that is the sun we see today.
I have been quite clear and explicit on what you don't.
No what you've been and continue to be is an arrogant prig.
You opine on things you have no knowledge of and I am the arrogant one??????
You are just upset that you have been exposed.
-
I don't agree with those, but if you think so, then my philosophical reaction is to support your world view.
Yes, well, at least science is on my side.
I have yet to see any scientific definition of "Love" but things like physical attraction are, in fact, based in TToE.
But God gave us free will and brains and the ability to make our own decisions. Thinking and feeling are just a few of His gifts.
-
I think this bears repeating at this point: those that believe in God as Creator base their faith on religious teachings. Those that believe in evolution base their belief on scientific theory. No one is saying that a person cannot hold those thoughts concurrently. But, you will often find these thoughts at odds with each other and that's fine. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, people feel strongly about these matters and no amount of convincing will change their mind. It is what it is. Thinking one or the other doesn't make you a "flat earther" or "liberal". We Conservatives come in all shapes and sizes remember?
-
I think this bears repeating at this point: those that believe in God as Creator base their faith on religious teachings. Those that believe in evolution base their belief on scientific theory. No one is saying that a person cannot hold those thoughts concurrently. But, you will often find these thoughts at odds with each other and that's fine. Like I said at the beginning of this thread, people feel strongly about these matters and no amount of convincing will change their mind. It is what it is. Thinking one or the other doesn't make you a "flat earther" or "liberal". We Conservatives come in all shapes and sizes remember?
There is no conflict. The Bible teaches us how to live. It is God speaking to us and being quite clear on what He expects of us, why he sent his Son down to die for us and why we are here.
Science gives us a mechanism for understanding His wondrous Universe and how to use it for the betterment of all of mankind. He smiles as we find the next nugget he placed there -- in plain sight but requiring using the fabulous resource He gave us: creativity, curiosity, raw intelligence and a desire to grow.
They are different, if interlocking, domains.
Science without faith must be dreary, indeed.
-
All the more so with Justice and Mercy. They simply do not exist. At least "love" can be measured with scans and hormone profiles.
The science of mathematics does not exist except as an abstract construct and yet it has been one of the most useful tools known to mankind. Similarly, justice and mercy do not exist except as abstract constructs and they have been some of the most useful tools known to mankind.
-
You may not see a conflict FD (neither do I) but some people do. And that's fine. Chrisitanity varies on the matter and you will find people who don't believe the science at all. And you will find people who accept the science even when it seemingly contradicts scripture. We (everyone not just us) get into trouble when we point fingers and say "You're dead wrong!!!". I was just trying to make peace. :-)
-
I don't agree with those, but if you think so, then my philosophical reaction is to support your world view.
Yes, well, at least science is on my side.
I have yet to see any scientific definition of "Love" but things like physical attraction are, in fact, based in TToE.
But God gave us free will and brains and the ability to make our own decisions. Thinking and feeling are just a few of His gifts.
"Love" is a biochemical reaction. It's measurable.
That people feel love--or rather a biological unction to propagate--is as much a mystery as the opposable thumb: it just is, there is no intent behind it. You might as well be asking why the Roulette wheel landed on a particular space on a particular spin.
To argue the existence of God-breathed evolution strikes me as an ever-interesting conundrum.
Tell me: How many species did God design to die to make way for man?
Is there a "better man" yet to evolve?
Whence cometh this "freewill" when so many have died without it, to be saved or damned of their own volition?
Is salvation by mutation and adaptation?
I dare say I can find no sin in Conquistadors baptizing pagan infants only to dash their heads against the stones; survival of the fittest and all. Nature is quite blood-soaked. I'm curious as to where in the spiritual-evolutionary scale we can claim, "savage beast and thus no further".
I find the OT/NT traditions to be far more romantic: man perfect in nature (as opposed to moving "up"), fallen and inviting death into the world only to be saved by a God of Grace. If you're going to believe in a god believe in that one, but please don't bastardize evolutionary theory and its implications over some philosophical embarrassment you suffer from.
-
You may not see a conflict FD (neither do I) but some people do. And that's fine. Chrisitanity varies on the matter and you will find people who don't believe the science at all. And you will find people who accept the science even when it seemingly contradicts scripture. We (everyone not just us) get into trouble when we point fingers and say "You're dead wrong!!!". I was just trying to make peace. :-)
I understand that, Belle darlin'. But I have to draw the line where people want to replace science with faith. It is bad public policy, it is bad for the USA, it reduces our ability to be competitive in the world and, if it gains any credence, it will allow the government to begin to favor a single religion.
Willful Ignorance is NOT a Conservative Value.
-
All the more so with Justice and Mercy. They simply do not exist. At least "love" can be measured with scans and hormone profiles.
The science of mathematics does not exist except as an abstract construct and yet it has been one of the most useful tools known to mankind.
Nonsense it is materially verifiable.
For example:
:bigbird: + :bigbird: = :bigbird: :bigbird:
In fact, a mathematical abstraction that does have a material corrollary is pretty much useless. For example, of what use would E=MC^2 be if it were not testable with empirical study?
So simple children can grasp it.
Hm-m-m...
How telling you seem lost.
Similarly, justice and mercy do not exist except as abstract constructs and they have been some of the most useful tools known to mankind.
orly?
Explain to me why slavery and eugenics are "wrong" (whatever that means) in strictly scientific terms.
-
I understand that, Belle darlin'. But I have to draw the line where people want to replace science with faith. It is bad public policy, it is bad for the USA, it reduces our ability to be competitive in the world and, if it gains any credence, it will allow the government to begin to favor a single religion.
Willful Ignorance is NOT a Conservative Value.
I demonstrate the material facts behind the unction known as love, i.e. hormones, EEG's etc to which you offer no scientific rebuttal only your "philosophical" acquiesence and then you write THIS?
Your entire post is riddled with unscientific suppositions, as noted in bold. Please scientifically define "bad".
-
I don't agree with those, but if you think so, then my philosophical reaction is to support your world view.
Yes, well, at least science is on my side.
I have yet to see any scientific definition of "Love" but things like physical attraction are, in fact, based in TToE.
But God gave us free will and brains and the ability to make our own decisions. Thinking and feeling are just a few of His gifts.
"Love" is a biochemical reaction. It's measurable.
No it isn't. Lust is.
That people feel love--or rather a biological unction to propagate--is as much a mystery as the opposable thumb: it just is, there is no intent behind it. You might as well be asking why the Roulette wheel landed on a particular space on a particular spin.
Again, you confuse lust (biochemical and reproduction oriented) with love (internally driven). There are physical markers for Love -- the increased heartbeat, dilation of pupils, etc. -- but even a trained scientist cannot distinguish them from physiological. IOW, what CAUSES and SUSATINS love will always be outside the realm of science and stay firmly in the realm of philosophy.
To argue the existence of God-breathed evolution strikes me as an ever-interesting conundrum.
Tell me: How many species did God design to die to make way for man?
None. The path from early primitive creatures to Man is a stochasticcontinuum. How many of your ancestors died to make you?
Is there a "better man" yet to evolve?
Not "better" but better adapted to his environment. Certain vestigial elements such as the appendix, maybe even male nipples, etc. may dissapear over thenext million or so years. Modern man gies back somewhere between 100,000 and 10,000 years -- an eyeblink. Certainly our spines will change around as the rest of evolution catches up with where we are now.
Whence cometh this "freewill" when so many have died without it, to be saved or damned of their own volition?
That is a philosophical question, not an evolutionary question. It is certainly interesting, scientifically, when man became Self-aware and began to contemplate his place in the UNniverse.
Is salvation by mutation and adaptation?
No, evolution is.
I dare say I can find no sin in Conquistadors baptizing pagan infants only to dash their heads against the stones; survival of the fittest and all. Nature is quite blood-soaked. I'm curious as to where in the spiritual-evolutionary scale we can claim, "savage beast and thus no further".
More philosophy. There is certainly an atavistic streak that we must use our better natures to tame.
I find the OT/NT traditions to be far more romantic: man perfect in nature (as opposed to moving "up"), fallen and inviting death into the world only to be saved by a God of Grace. If you're going to believe in a god believe in that one, but please don't bastardize evolutionary theory and its implications over some philosophical embarrassment you suffer from.
I have no idea what you mean. I have not posited any implications of TToE. I merely note that it is a scientific theory and is subject to scientific disciplines as opposed to religious ones.
-
I understand that, Belle darlin'. But I have to draw the line where people want to replace science with faith. It is bad public policy, it is bad for the USA, it reduces our ability to be competitive in the world and, if it gains any credence, it will allow the government to begin to favor a single religion.
Willful Ignorance is NOT a Conservative Value.
I demonstrate the material facts behind the unction known as love, i.e. hormones, EEG's etc to which you offer no scientific rebuttal only your "philosophical" acquiesence and then you write THIS?
Your entire post is riddled with unscientific suppositions, as noted in bold. Please scientifically define "bad".
Huh?
By "bad" public policy I mean that TToE is based in science. Conflating faith and science means we will have a very real back seat in the Life Sciences and will lose our now narrowing margin in these fields.
If you want to try to shove philosophy into the science realm, be my guest.
I have been crystal clear in what does and doesn't belong in TToE. ID does not. The downstream implications of Man having intelligence and self-awareness I leave to experts in other fields.
-
All the more so with Justice and Mercy. They simply do not exist. At least "love" can be measured with scans and hormone profiles.
The science of mathematics does not exist except as an abstract construct and yet it has been one of the most useful tools known to mankind.
Nonsense it is materially verifiable.
For example:
:bigbird: + :bigbird: = :bigbird: :bigbird:
In fact, a mathematical abstraction that does have a material corrollary is pretty much useless. For example, of what use would E=MC^2 be if it were not testable with empirical study?
So simple children can grasp it.
Hm-m-m...
How telling you seem lost.
Similarly, justice and mercy do not exist except as abstract constructs and they have been some of the most useful tools known to mankind.
orly?
Explain to me why slavery and eugenics are "wrong" (whatever that means) in strictly scientific terms.
This whole "reverse science" thing isn't really accomplishing what you want it to. It might with TNO but you know it won't with me.
-
But I have to draw the line where people want to replace science with faith. It is bad public policy, it is bad for the USA, it reduces our ability to be competitive in the world and, if it gains any credence, it will allow the government to begin to favor a single religion.
The Jesuits would find this bit of nonsense as laughable as I do. There have been many notable Jesuit Scientists through history and they continue research today.
Yet somehow their religious beliefs don't get in the way of their studies.
-
But I have to draw the line where people want to replace science with faith. It is bad public policy, it is bad for the USA, it reduces our ability to be competitive in the world and, if it gains any credence, it will allow the government to begin to favor a single religion.
The Jesuits would find this bit of nonsense as laughable as I do. There have been many notable Jesuit Scientists through history and they continue research today.
Nor do the Jesuits inject God into TToE. And they are more religious scholars than science scholars.
Yet somehow their religious beliefs don't get in the way of their studies.
Nor do mine.
-
So much protest.
So little empirical basis.
-
So much protest.
So little empirical basis.
From whom?
-
Nonsense it is materially verifiable.
For example:
:bigbird: + :bigbird: = :bigbird: :bigbird:
The means we use to prove theorems have no bearing on the fact that numbers and mathematics exist only as constructs.
-
Whereas the study of evolution is science.
Let me know when they find proof of the missing link. You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
I don't view as a valid source, since just aobut anyone can to an edit there.
But your link to it did prompt me to google Ardipithecus.
I found a few site worthy of checking into a bit more... But at a surface glance, I am not prepared to declare it the missing link.
But thanks for the heads up.
If your looking for the actual missing link, your going to wait a long time buddy. We may never find fossil remains of the actual species that made the jump from ape to hominid. But Ardipithecus is the closest thing found so far. While maintaining most of the charecteristics of apes, it shows sides of bipedalism, which is the biggest differentiator between apes and hominids.
so then, why are there still apes? why didnt all of the apes evolve into us thousands of [millions of] years ago?
i find it somewhat absurd that ove time an ape morphed into my species, yet there are still plenty of apes left that didnt...
-
I have a way to settle this. Everyone for and against (and those of us who have no idea yet, like me), go see the movie...then come back and discuss it.
i think youre on to something! [probably the entire reason for the movie being made] :-)
-
I will iterate:
Good grief, we have museums chock full of fossils dating back millions of years.
If there was indeed this missing link, there would have had to be millions of them in existence at one time in order for the hominids to continue to evolve into Homo Sapien.
So were are their fossils?
There should be miilions of them out there for the finding.
So where are they?
There's about 120,000 of them posting away madly at DU...
H5+
good one. :cheersmate:
-
Whereas the study of evolution is science.
Let me know when they find proof of the missing link. You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
I don't view as a valid source, since just aobut anyone can to an edit there.
But your link to it did prompt me to google Ardipithecus.
I found a few site worthy of checking into a bit more... But at a surface glance, I am not prepared to declare it the missing link.
But thanks for the heads up.
If your looking for the actual missing link, your going to wait a long time buddy. We may never find fossil remains of the actual species that made the jump from ape to hominid. But Ardipithecus is the closest thing found so far. While maintaining most of the charecteristics of apes, it shows sides of bipedalism, which is the biggest differentiator between apes and hominids.
so then, why are there still apes? why didnt all of the apes evolve into us thousands of [millions of] years ago?
i find it somewhat absurd that ove time an ape morphed into my species, yet there are still plenty of apes left that didnt...
*sigh*
Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?"
-
Whereas the study of evolution is science.
Let me know when they find proof of the missing link. You know that "creature" that bridges the gap between ape and human.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus
I don't view as a valid source, since just aobut anyone can to an edit there.
But your link to it did prompt me to google Ardipithecus.
I found a few site worthy of checking into a bit more... But at a surface glance, I am not prepared to declare it the missing link.
But thanks for the heads up.
If your looking for the actual missing link, your going to wait a long time buddy. We may never find fossil remains of the actual species that made the jump from ape to hominid. But Ardipithecus is the closest thing found so far. While maintaining most of the charecteristics of apes, it shows sides of bipedalism, which is the biggest differentiator between apes and hominids.
so then, why are there still apes? why didnt all of the apes evolve into us thousands of [millions of] years ago?
i find it somewhat absurd that ove time an ape morphed into my species, yet there are still plenty of apes left that didnt...
*sigh*
Humans and other apes are descended from a common ancestor whose population split to become two (and more) lineages. The question is rather like asking, "If many Americans and Australians are descended from Europeans, why are there still Europeans around?"
*sigh* right back at ya :whatever:
so you are now equating two separate species (apes and humans) with several different cultures within the same species(Americans, Australians and Europeans) ...?
are you a college kid still? :popcorn:
-
TNO has 4025 Bitch Slaps! Incredible!
:rotf:
-
*sigh* right back at ya :whatever:
so you are now equating two separate species with several different cultures within the same species?
are you a college kid still? :popcorn:
*sigh* *sigh*
No. But the analogy holds. There are multiple branches from a common lineage. Your question may more closely be analogous to descendants of red haired people who then become blond, brunette, etc. You could then ask "why are there red haired people still?"
Evolution is a stochastic process. As a result, different branches will evolve at different rates depending on different circumstances. I guarantee you the modern gorilla no more resembles its ancient ancestor than we do. The "apes" of millions of years ago represent a common lineage, not an unchanging species.
And I am probably older than your parents. In fact, I *knew* some of those common ancestors.
-
I don't agree with those, but if you think so, then my philosophical reaction is to support your world view.
Yes, well, at least science is on my side.
I have a tendancy to agree with your statements above.
-
*sigh* right back at ya :whatever:
so you are now equating two separate species with several different cultures within the same species?
are you a college kid still? :popcorn:
*sigh* *sigh*
No. But the analogy holds. There are multiple branches from a common lineage. Your question may more closely be analogous to descendants of red haired people who then become blond, brunette, etc. You could then ask "why are there red haired people still?"
Evolution is a stochastic process. As a result, different branches will evolve at different rates depending on different circumstances. I guarantee you the modern gorilla no more resembles its ancient ancestor than we do. The "apes" of millions of years ago represent a common lineage, not an unchanging species.
And I am probably older than your parents. In fact, I *knew* some of those common ancestors.
so, the color of hair of a bunch of humans is analogous to two separate species being linked together way back thousands of years ago?
and you cant guarantee me *anything* about modern gorillas no more resembling anything of their ancestors cause... well, science doesnt go back that far, now does it? or are you going to tell us now that all of history is written down somewhere?
as for where this discussion started, there are untold records and books about Jesus and his part in mankind's history. heck, there are even *gasp* artifacts that date back to those times. as someone already stated some pages back, science relies mostly on theories and those are proven and disproven over and over again.. depending on who has the purse strings.
the fact that separate and independant theories and faiths cannot coincide inside your mind at once is telling... it seems the most vehement deniers of God are fairly close minded about many things in this life, and for that, I feel bad for ya. but I'm not here to debate whether God is science or not; I could care less what a person of science tells me about their 'facts' since I know that fashion or time will render that person's facts obsolete and they will be onto their next big idea..
not even 50 years ago, 'scientists' told doctors ,who told the rest of us, that smoking was an ideal way to keep our waistes slim. now how exactly did that turn out again?
right now a whole of 'scientists' believe that man made global warming will do humanity a bunch of damage in ten years or so.. and you wont count the majority of Americans as agreeing with it at all.
in fact, the I tend to think that people in general view modern day scientists as a nuisance who find answers to our problems only for the right amount of money..
-
not even 50 years ago, 'scientists' told doctors ,who told the rest of us, that smoking was an ideal way to keep our waistes slim. now how exactly did that turn out again?
Scientific misconceptions about smoking were cleared up by guess what... science. We don't give up on science just because it doesn't serve us well all the time.
-
TNO has 4025 Bitch Slaps! Incredible!
:rotf:
Now if only I could find a way to make money by getting bitch slapped.
-
so, the color of hair of a bunch of humans is analogous to two separate species being linked together way back thousands of years ago?
Yes. And it is millions, not thousands.
and you cant guarantee me *anything* about modern gorillas no more resembling anything of their ancestors cause... well, science doesnt go back that far, now does it? or are you going to tell us now that all of history is written down somewhere?
Yes -- the fossil record is pretty complete, especially in the last few million years. The record is, indeed, "written down."
as for where this discussion started, there are untold records and books about Jesus and his part in mankind's history. heck, there are even *gasp* artifacts that date back to those times. as someone already stated some pages back, science relies mostly on theories and those are proven and disproven over and over again.. depending on who has the purse strings.
The Bible was written hundreds of years after Jesus died. Imagine writing about George Washington right now with zero written records. But I accept the Bible as the Word of God on theology, with interesting historical notes.
And I see I must once again educate someone. I really wish you would READ the upstream posts before popping off. A Scientific Theory is the HIGHEST form of organization in the scientific world. Lay people think that there is a hierarchy that goes something like Guess>Hypothesis>Theory>Fact. That is completely incorrect. A theory is a general explanation of a large number of interrelated data and phenomena.
the fact that separate and independant theories and faiths cannot coincide inside your mind at once is telling... it seems the most vehement deniers of God are fairly close minded about many things in this life, and for that, I feel bad for ya. but I'm not here to debate whether God is science or not; I could care less what a person of science tells me about their 'facts' since I know that fashion or time will render that person's facts obsolete and they will be onto their next big idea..
Did you read my posts? I said there is no conflict within me between faith and science. And repudiation of facts and the scientific method pretty much describe Luddism.
not even 50 years ago, 'scientists' told doctors ,who told the rest of us, that smoking was an ideal way to keep our waistes slim. now how exactly did that turn out again?
But TToE has been developed over 150 years and has been investigated by millions of scientists and supported by billions of artifacts. And FWIIW, smoking does promote thinness by supressing appetite. It kills you but you die thin.
right now a whole of 'scientists' believe that man made global warming will do humanity a bunch of damage in ten years or so.. and you wont count the majority of Americans as agreeing with it at all.
Yes, but they are merely substituting one physical model for another. No scientist substitutes "a miracle happened here" for even a hypothesis. Which is what AGW is. It isn't even a theory and it is an infant "science."
in fact, the I tend to think that people in general view modern day scientists as a nuisance who find answers to our problems only for the right amount of money..
So I would suggest you not take drugs such as Metformin, Lipitor, ACE inhibitors, antibiotics, etc. etc. etc. They were all formulated by these nuisances and -- horror of horrors -- could never have been developed in the absence of TToE. Oh and cancel your next Md appointment. He or she is also on the take.
I am not saying some scientists are for sale -- almost all of the AGW crowd are. But to suggest that the millions of Life Scientists who understand and apply TToE are on the take is way beyond incredulity.
-
not even 50 years ago, 'scientists' told doctors ,who told the rest of us, that smoking was an ideal way to keep our waistes slim. now how exactly did that turn out again?
Scientific misconceptions about smoking were cleared up by guess what... science. We don't give up on science just because it doesn't serve us well all the time.
science is wrong so often that most thinking people dont give it much credence any longer.
we know about 'theories' and the 'best educated guesses' but by and large, science causes more problems than it solves.
for instance, and this is one i know you will hate TNO, when science discovers that gay gene, guess what will happen?
-
not even 50 years ago, 'scientists' told doctors ,who told the rest of us, that smoking was an ideal way to keep our waistes slim. now how exactly did that turn out again?
Scientific misconceptions about smoking were cleared up by guess what... science. We don't give up on science just because it doesn't serve us well all the time.
science is wrong so often that most thinking people dont give it much credence any longer.
we know about 'theories' and the 'best educated guesses' but by and large, science causes more problems than it solves.
for instance, and this is one i know you will hate TNO, when science discovers that gay gene, guess what will happen?
Who is this "most" that your talking about? Are they avoiding hospitals? Are they not shopping and using simple math? Are they not driving their cars anywhere? Are they not watching their TV's? Are they not being protected day and night by the most SCIENTIFICALLY advanced military force on this planet?
-
freedumb said...
"And FWIIW, smoking does promote thinness by supressing appetite. It kills you but you die thin."
that may be one of the dumber things ive seen today.. :whatever: not everyone that dies of lung cancer is thin. are you really a scientist? cause so far, you dont seem to be convincing anyone of it..
and yes, lump me in with those people who think doctors are less 'scientists' today than drug retailers who care less about keeping people well, than making more money from the insurance companies. maybe years ago they did, but by and large they cant afford to keep us healthy or their profits dry up.
as for the rest of your sighing and being irritated that i didnt read all of your words on 10+ pages of this thread... sorry. i didnt find much in the first four pages that was all that compelling.
-
not even 50 years ago, 'scientists' told doctors ,who told the rest of us, that smoking was an ideal way to keep our waistes slim. now how exactly did that turn out again?
Scientific misconceptions about smoking were cleared up by guess what... science. We don't give up on science just because it doesn't serve us well all the time.
science is wrong so often that most thinking people dont give it much credence any longer.
we know about 'theories' and the 'best educated guesses' but by and large, science causes more problems than it solves.
for instance, and this is one i know you will hate TNO, when science discovers that gay gene, guess what will happen?
Who is this "most" that your talking about? Are they avoiding hospitals? Are they not shopping and using simple math? Are they not driving their cars anywhere? Are they not watching their TV's? Are they not being protected day and night by the most SCIENTIFICALLY advanced military force on this planet?
wow.. you wandered pretty far away on that one.
but alas, my husband just got home from a meeting so.. maybe someone new will come in and be dazzled by ya..
-
freedumb said...
"And FWIIW, smoking does promote thinness by supressing appetite. It kills you but you die thin."
that may be one of the dumber things ive seen today.. :whatever: not everyone that dies of lung cancer is thin. are you really a scientist? cause so far, you dont seem to be convincing anyone of it..
and yes, lump me in with those people who think doctors are less 'scientists' today than drug retailers who care less about keeping people well, than making more money from the insurance companies. maybe years ago they did, but by and large they cant afford to keep us healthy or their profits dry up.
as for the rest of your sighing and being irritated that i didnt read all of your words on 10+ pages of this thread... sorry. i didnt find much in the first four pages that was all that compelling.
Jeeze, you can't take a joke. I can certainly recap if you would like a synopsis:
1) A Scientific Theory is not a "guess writ large." It describes a large body of interrelated data and is subject to peer review by a LOT of scientists.
2) TToE is over 150 years old and has millions of scientists who understand it and billions of artifacts to support it.
3) Evolution is a stochastic process, which is why we have apes today as well as humans -- both are descended from a common ancestor but took different paths.
4) ID (and Creationism) are inapplicable to science, since they create no new knowledge and cannot meet any scientific criteria.
5) Although some scientists are certainly subject to bribery, that can't explain the millions of scientists who understand TToE, including drug manufacturers and MDs.
I hope this saves you lots of reading. It isn't all that complicated.
-
in fact, the I tend to think that people in general view modern day scientists as a nuisance who find answers to our problems only for the right amount of money..
Bingo.
-
in fact, the I tend to think that people in general view modern day scientists as a nuisance who find answers to our problems only for the right amount of money..
Bingo.
Well, I hope you enjoy your next visit to a Voodoo Queen, since MDs are scientists. And, as I noted, most of the modern day wonder drugs that sustain and improve our lives are these same "nuisances."
-
in fact, the I tend to think that people in general view modern day scientists as a nuisance who find answers to our problems only for the right amount of money..
Bingo.
Well, I hope you enjoy your next visit to a Voodoo Queen, since MDs are scientists. And, as I noted, most of the modern day wonder drugs that sustain and improve our lives are these same "nuisances."
Hell yeah I will. She let's me pay her with chicken bones, frog legs and rattle snake venom.
-
not even 50 years ago, 'scientists' told doctors ,who told the rest of us, that smoking was an ideal way to keep our waistes slim. now how exactly did that turn out again?
Scientific misconceptions about smoking were cleared up by guess what... science. We don't give up on science just because it doesn't serve us well all the time.
science is wrong so often that most thinking people dont give it much credence any longer.
we know about 'theories' and the 'best educated guesses' but by and large, science causes more problems than it solves.
for instance, and this is one i know you will hate TNO, when science discovers that gay gene, guess what will happen?
Who is this "most" that your talking about? Are they avoiding hospitals? Are they not shopping and using simple math? Are they not driving their cars anywhere? Are they not watching their TV's? Are they not being protected day and night by the most SCIENTIFICALLY advanced military force on this planet?
wow.. you wandered pretty far away on that one.
but alas, my husband just got home from a meeting so.. maybe someone new will come in and be dazzled by ya..
I must have misunderstood what you where trying to say then, because my interpretation is that your saying most people don't "trust" science anymore.
-
I must have misunderstood what you where trying to say then, because my interpretation is that your saying most people don't "trust" science anymore.
That is what I got out of it, too.
-
Nonsense it is materially verifiable.
For example:
:bigbird: + :bigbird: = :bigbird: :bigbird:
The means we use to prove theorems have no bearing on the fact that numbers and mathematics exist only as constructs.
I'm sure if I asked how the Big Bang could evolve the formation of stars, solar systems, planest, microbes, plants, animals and on to men you could do so.
Now please show how this same process regurgitates Justice, Mercy et al. Show me the phyllogenic tree, if you will.
-
I'm sure if I asked how the Big Bang could evolve the formation of stars, solar systems, planest, microbes, plants, animals and on to men you could do so.
Now please show how this same process regurgitates Justice, Mercy et al. Show me the phyllogenic tree, if you will.
You are the one who claims to know how the Universe and everything got started, not me. You are convinced that it was designed and created by an omniscient and omnipotent being. You have no doubts about that. You think that scientific attempts to explain how the Universe and life on Earth came to be are futile and that scientists should just throw up their hands and assume that God did it all. No thanks.
-
I don't think anyone is impugning science or scientists as a group. Let's not conflate here. Take the Gorons/Global Warming Cultists, the U.N., James Hansen (funded by Soros) and any other Scientific group put together with a specific purpose and you will find science trotted out with an underlying agenda. Is it any wonder why average folks are weary? And yes, I mean "weary" and not "wary". No one is afraid of science but we are damn tired of the agenda underneath. Not to mention the crushing of dissent and the closeminded school of thought that says, "it's settled, we have a consensus". I'm specifically speaking about climate change but you cannot deny the damage they have caused in the world of science.
And to tell such a person, "well don't take these lifesaving medicines, or don't go see an oncologist, etc..." is really condesending and off point. You're kind of insinuating that people skeptical of TToE are cave dwelling luddites. Not true.
-
I don't think anyone is impugning science or scientists as a group. Let's not conflate here. Take the Gorons/Global Warming Cultists, the U.N., James Hansen (funded by Soros) and any other Scientific group put together with a specific purpose and you will find science trotted out with an underlying agenda. Is it any wonder why average folks are weary? And yes, I mean "weary" and not "wary". No one is afraid of science but we are damn tired of the agenda underneath. Not to mention the crushing of dissent and the closeminded school of thought that says, "it's settled, we have a consensus". I'm specifically speaking about climate change but you cannot deny the damage they have caused in the world of science.
And to tell such a person, "well don't take these lifesaving medicines, or don't go see an oncologist, etc..." is really condesending and off point. You're kind of insinuating that people skeptical of TToE are cave dwelling luddites. Not true.
There are several differences between the AGW and TTOE.
The AGW debate (and there is one) is in reading a very small amount of data to predict the future. It is clearly being influenced by governments and liberals because they see it as a lever to control people and money. But it is completely within the physical world. There are competing hypotheses, all of which at least meet the minimum scientific standards.
TToE "skeptics" don't propose an alternate theory. They suggest a supernatural alternative which has no applicability to science at all.
My point about taking drugs is that, more than almost any other endeavor, creating drugs is based almost completely on understanding TToE. If TToE was wrong, the drugs would not be able to be created. It is a response to "TToE can't be proven in a lab."
As I have said over and over again, I am amazed at the number of people who offer an opinion while holding little or no knowledge of the subject matter. It isn't condescending to suggest that people have a basic understanding of what they are discussing. I don't mean you, I mean in general. So please don't take my examples as being "condescending." I am trying to explain something to people who don't have the knowledge tools to understand.
-
^But it is condesending to some people. You're 100% confident and it can come across as belittling. Especially when you say, "....to people who don't have the knowledge tools to understand." Not only do you negate their faith, you are calling them ignorant. How is that helpful? I'm not upset or calling you out, I'm just trying to illustrate why there is a visceral response from the faithful.
Like you said before, it's faith we're talking about here. Best to just respect it and leave it be. And those who strongly hold on to the faith need to leave it be as well. There is never going to be a middleground in this debate. I'm not talking here, I'm talking in general.
-
^But it is condesending to some people. You're 100% confident and it can come across as belittling. Especially when you say, "....to people who don't have the knowledge tools to understand." Not only do you negate their faith, you are calling them ignorant. How is that helpful? I'm not upset or calling you out, I'm just trying to illustrate why there is a visceral response from the faithful.
Like you said before, it's faith we're talking about here. Best to just respect it and leave it be. And those who strongly hold on to the faith need to leave it be as well. There is never going to be a middleground in this debate. I'm not talking here, I'm talking in general.
If there is another way to put it, I am happy for the recommendation.
I am not belittling anyone's faith -- I merely ask they not try to replace science with it. If I am assembling a vehicle and you don't know what a fuel injector is or what rings and pistons are, I don't know how else to put it.
-
I have followed this thread, and noted learned discussions (with the possible exception of our resident teenager) on both sides of the somewhat splintered discussion.
As both a former scientist, and as a Christian, I think that these problems nearly always arise from the "faith" side of the issue. For all of the years that I studied practiced, and taught physics, I never had an occasion where my faith, and my "science" were in conflict. With every new theory that was advanced over the decades to explain one phenomena or another, I just viewed each as man's advance toward the futile, but ultimate desire to understand the mechanics of the "Creation". Specifically, I disciplined myself, as a scientist to NEVER allow faith (subjectivity) to enter the scientific thought process. The two must eternally remain separate, in order for true science to exist, and man continue to expand his understanding. People of faith must understand that injecting their theology/morality into the scientific process effectively shuts down the discussion, and makes it impossible to further advance the quest for new knowledge.
At the risk of oversimplifying........
Faith says: "God did it....discussion over....."
Science says: "the discussion is never over......"
I think that people of faith would do themselves, and the body politic in general, a great service if they remained neutral and aloof on most scientific issues, as the science community will always view injection of faith into the debate as repression and closed-mindedness. And if one views the debate through the lens of history, scientists have good reason to think this way.
Reciprocally, people of science should bear in mind that "science" should never be used as a political tool to create a wedge between believers, and their faith.
The two should always be divergent, but essentially seeking the same goal........truth......
doc
-
I have followed this thread, and noted learned discussions (with the possible exception of our resident teenager) on both sides of the somewhat splintered discussion.
As both a former scientist, and as a Christian, I think that these problems nearly always arise from the "faith" side of the issue. For all of the years that I studied practiced, and taught physics, I never had an occasion where my faith, and my "science" were in conflict. With every new theory that was advanced over the decades to explain one phenomena or another, I just viewed each as man's advance toward the futile, but ultimate desire to understand the mechanics of the "Creation". Specifically, I disciplined myself, as a scientist to NEVER allow faith (subjectivity) to enter the scientific thought process. The two must eternally remain separate, in order for true science to exist, and man continue to expand his understanding. People of faith must understand that injecting their theology/morality into the scientific process effectively shuts down the discussion, and makes it impossible to further advance the quest for new knowledge.
At the risk of oversimplifying........
Faith says: "God did it....discussion over....."
Science says: "the discussion is never over......"
I think that people of faith would do themselves, and the body politic in general, a great service if they remained neutral and aloof on most scientific issues, as the science community will always view injection of faith into the debate as repression and closed-mindedness. And if one views the debate through the lens of history, scientists have good reason to think this way.
Reciprocally, people of science should bear in mind that "science" should never be used as a political tool to create a wedge between believers, and their faith.
The two should always be divergent, but essentially seeking the same goal........truth......
doc
Which was Einstein's point in the famous quotes about his spirituality.
You say it gentler than me (there's a surprise), but you summarize my thoughts exactly. The problem arises when movies like Expelled are created and suggest that science needs to replace part of itself with faith. And conversely if someone were to say that "science says there is no God AND all churches should be abolished (or other anti-faith steps taken)" I would fight just as hard to keep science out of faith.
-
I have followed this thread, and noted learned discussions (with the possible exception of our resident teenager) on both sides of the somewhat splintered discussion.
As both a former scientist, and as a Christian, I think that these problems nearly always arise from the "faith" side of the issue. For all of the years that I studied practiced, and taught physics, I never had an occasion where my faith, and my "science" were in conflict. With every new theory that was advanced over the decades to explain one phenomena or another, I just viewed each as man's advance toward the futile, but ultimate desire to understand the mechanics of the "Creation". Specifically, I disciplined myself, as a scientist to NEVER allow faith (subjectivity) to enter the scientific thought process. The two must eternally remain separate, in order for true science to exist, and man continue to expand his understanding. People of faith must understand that injecting their theology/morality into the scientific process effectively shuts down the discussion, and makes it impossible to further advance the quest for new knowledge.
At the risk of oversimplifying........
Faith says: "God did it....discussion over....."
Science says: "the discussion is never over......"
I think that people of faith would do themselves, and the body politic in general, a great service if they remained neutral and aloof on most scientific issues, as the science community will always view injection of faith into the debate as repression and closed-mindedness. And if one views the debate through the lens of history, scientists have good reason to think this way.
Reciprocally, people of science should bear in mind that "science" should never be used as a political tool to create a wedge between believers, and their faith.
The two should always be divergent, but essentially seeking the same goal........truth......
doc
Another H5. Some great posts coming out of this thread.
-
The problem arises when movies like Expelled are created and suggest that science needs to replace part of itself with faith.
I have not seen the movie yet and I probably won't, but are yuu certain that is what the movie is attempting to suggest?
Have you seen the movie?
-
The problem arises when movies like Expelled are created and suggest that science needs to replace part of itself with faith.
I have not seen the movie yet and I probably won't, but are yuu certain that is what the movie is attempting to suggest?
Have you seen the movie?
No, and I don't intend to. I didn't need to see F911 to know it was all lies and deception. The very premise of Expelled is flawed. It suggests that because science has rigorous standards that exclude the supernatural that somehow that is "wrong."
It is in the trailers and it is in the synopsis.
-
I have followed this thread, and noted learned discussions (with the possible exception of our resident teenager) on both sides of the somewhat splintered discussion.
As both a former scientist, and as a Christian, I think that these problems nearly always arise from the "faith" side of the issue. For all of the years that I studied practiced, and taught physics, I never had an occasion where my faith, and my "science" were in conflict. With every new theory that was advanced over the decades to explain one phenomena or another, I just viewed each as man's advance toward the futile, but ultimate desire to understand the mechanics of the "Creation". Specifically, I disciplined myself, as a scientist to NEVER allow faith (subjectivity) to enter the scientific thought process. The two must eternally remain separate, in order for true science to exist, and man continue to expand his understanding. People of faith must understand that injecting their theology/morality into the scientific process effectively shuts down the discussion, and makes it impossible to further advance the quest for new knowledge.
At the risk of oversimplifying........
Faith says: "God did it....discussion over....."
Science says: "the discussion is never over......"
I think that people of faith would do themselves, and the body politic in general, a great service if they remained neutral and aloof on most scientific issues, as the science community will always view injection of faith into the debate as repression and closed-mindedness. And if one views the debate through the lens of history, scientists have good reason to think this way.
Reciprocally, people of science should bear in mind that "science" should never be used as a political tool to create a wedge between believers, and their faith.
The two should always be divergent, but essentially seeking the same goal........truth......
doc
Seems to me that the "science" people here are saying that the discussion IS over.
-
The problem arises when movies like Expelled are created and suggest that science needs to replace part of itself with faith.
I have not seen the movie yet and I probably won't, but are yuu certain that is what the movie is attempting to suggest?
Have you seen the movie?
No, and I don't intend to. I didn't need to see F911 to know it was all lies and deception. The very premise of Expelled is flawed. It suggests that because science has rigorous standards that exclude the supernatural that somehow that is "wrong."
It is in the trailers and it is in the synopsis.
Ok. I haven't seen the trailers or synopsis either. But I did for F911 so I think I understand your point about seeing the movie.
On the other hand I have seen some very good articles tearing down F911 by folks that actually saw it. I suspect it is rather difficult to do a point by point disagreement with a movie one hasn't seen.
-
Seems to me that the "science" people here are saying that the discussion IS over.
It depends on which discussion. Can religion be part and parcel of science and incorporated into the scientific method? No and never will be. Does science say there is no God? Again no and it never will. Does faith provide a proper philosophical framework within which science should operate? Absolutely yes.
-
The problem arises when movies like Expelled are created and suggest that science needs to replace part of itself with faith.
I have not seen the movie yet and I probably won't, but are yuu certain that is what the movie is attempting to suggest?
Have you seen the movie?
No, and I don't intend to. I didn't need to see F911 to know it was all lies and deception. The very premise of Expelled is flawed. It suggests that because science has rigorous standards that exclude the supernatural that somehow that is "wrong."
It is in the trailers and it is in the synopsis.
Ok. I haven't seen the trailers or synopsis either. But I did for F911 so I think I understand your point about seeing the movie.
On the other hand I have seen some very good articles tearing down F911 by folks that actually saw it. I suspect it is rather difficult to do a point by point disagreement with a movie one hasn't seen.
I posted the review and synopsis upthread. I haven't seen it either but there are things online. I am under the impression that it focused on some scientists who were blackballed and run out of their jobs for debating the subject and questioning evolution. I think the film also attempts to instruct on the matter and evolution folks are taking issue with the facts presented. Fair enough. I still want to see it before I make up my mind.
-
I saw Expelled tonight.
And it was not that bad. And it is NOT what you think.
Like Marc Antony, it neither comes to bury or praise the theory of Evolution, only to ask some questions of it. . .What happens between the bang and that first cell? How complicated is a cell, anyway, and how does it replicate all the information that may lie within it?
The film doesn't quite start there. It starts with shots of the Berlin Wall (I really wish he'd of stuck with that theme all the way through, because it was alot more logically effective than the later theme) and works down to an evolutionary biologist that got booted for merely mentioning Intelligent Design. He moves at a comfortable pace, from D.C, to Seattle/Redmond, to even as exotic a locales as Paris, Germany, and finally London.
He does speak to both sides, giving you a look at a world that discouraged me at first, but now leaves me pissed: Academia. Don't take that as a desire to remain ignorant, but a vocalization of an irritation of the entrenched politics within academia. Expelled, while it is about the theory of evolution is about a wider truth - - true, we can talk about the ignorance and the lack of curiosity that plagues todays students. But isn't it time we discuss and pull the curtain back on the lack of inquiry, debate and willful ignorance of their teachers?
He missteps on the Darwinism=Hitler Link, but it is as not as grand as you think. Others make those links for him, but cover themselves by placing Hitler against the preceding scientific thoughts about eugenics and natural selection. It's not a deal-breaker. . .and if he had explored eugenics more than Hitler, I think his case (Re:Abuse of the ToE) would have been that much stronger.
As a friend of mine said, it IS worth the 7 of 9 dollars I paid for it. Especially towards the end when he catches up with Richard Dawkins. I REALLY expected more of Mr. Dawkins. Not that I like the guy, but I expected more. I'd of loved to have seen the unedited video of that interview.
(This will be reposted)
*Red*
-
I have followed this thread, and noted learned discussions (with the possible exception of our resident teenager) on both sides of the somewhat splintered discussion.
As both a former scientist, and as a Christian, I think that these problems nearly always arise from the "faith" side of the issue. For all of the years that I studied practiced, and taught physics, I never had an occasion where my faith, and my "science" were in conflict. With every new theory that was advanced over the decades to explain one phenomena or another, I just viewed each as man's advance toward the futile, but ultimate desire to understand the mechanics of the "Creation". Specifically, I disciplined myself, as a scientist to NEVER allow faith (subjectivity) to enter the scientific thought process. The two must eternally remain separate, in order for true science to exist, and man continue to expand his understanding. People of faith must understand that injecting their theology/morality into the scientific process effectively shuts down the discussion, and makes it impossible to further advance the quest for new knowledge.
At the risk of oversimplifying........
Faith says: "God did it....discussion over....."
Science says: "the discussion is never over......"
I think that people of faith would do themselves, and the body politic in general, a great service if they remained neutral and aloof on most scientific issues, as the science community will always view injection of faith into the debate as repression and closed-mindedness. And if one views the debate through the lens of history, scientists have good reason to think this way.
Reciprocally, people of science should bear in mind that "science" should never be used as a political tool to create a wedge between believers, and their faith.
The two should always be divergent, but essentially seeking the same goal........truth......
doc
Seems to me that the "science" people here are saying that the discussion IS over.
ok cool.. i thought it was just me seeing it that way.
-
I saw Expelled tonight.
And it was not that bad. And it is NOT what you think.
Like Marc Antony, it neither comes to bury or praise the theory of Evolution, only to ask some questions of it. . .What happens between the bang and that first cell? How complicated is a cell, anyway, and how does it replicate all the information that may lie within it?
The film doesn't quite start there. It starts with shots of the Berlin Wall (I really wish he'd of stuck with that theme all the way through, because it was alot more logically effective than the later theme) and works down to an evolutionary biologist that got booted for merely mentioning Intelligent Design. He moves at a comfortable pace, from D.C, to Seattle/Redmond, to even as exotic a locales as Paris, Germany, and finally London.
He does speak to both sides, giving you a look at a world that discouraged me at first, but now leaves me pissed: Academia. Don't take that as a desire to remain ignorant, but a vocalization of an irritation of the entrenched politics within academia. Expelled, while it is about the theory of evolution is about a wider truth - - true, we can talk about the ignorance and the lack of curiosity that plagues todays students. But isn't it time we discuss and pull the curtain back on the lack of inquiry, debate and willful ignorance of their teachers?
He missteps on the Darwinism=Hitler Link, but it is as not as grand as you think. Others make those links for him, but cover themselves by placing Hitler against the preceding scientific thoughts about eugenics and natural selection. It's not a deal-breaker. . .and if he had explored eugenics more than Hitler, I think his case (Re:Abuse of the ToE) would have been that much stronger.
As a friend of mine said, it IS worth the 7 of 9 dollars I paid for it. Especially towards the end when he catches up with Richard Dawkins. I REALLY expected more of Mr. Dawkins. Not that I like the guy, but I expected more. I'd of loved to have seen the unedited video of that interview.
(This will be reposted)
*Red*
you have said what i have read from others... that it merely questions why academia is so against the mere discussion.
-
Exactly. The film just makes you want to do your own leg work and find out what the fuss is about, without some professor looking over your shoulder.
*Red*
-
you have said what i have read from others... that it merely questions why academia is so against the mere discussion.
I wish Stein had concentrated his arguments in areas that truly point out academia's Leftward spin. Stories are legion of students who got failed for saying good things about Conservatives in Poly Sci classes and students are required to accept islam and Buddism and reject Christianity and the like. Ones where opinion or interpretations are the discussion topic. That would have been a good and meaningful (and profitable) movie.
There is a legal group (I can't remember the name) which is dedicated to protecting the rights of Conservative students in college. I am sure they have hundreds, if not thousands, of stories that are truly outrageous and could have stirred the pot.
Hinging his thesis on rejection of ID and Creationism in science, however, was a non-starter since extra-naturalism doesn't fit and philosophical discussions about things like ID are irrelevant. And clearly the Conservative base agrees with me.
-
Hinging his thesis on rejection of ID and Creationism in science, however, was a nonstarter since extra-naturalism doesn't fit and philosophical discussions about things like ID are irrelevant. And clearly the Conservative base agrees with me.
I think that there should however, be a place reserved in the academic arena for discussion of ID, probably as an adjunct to history (since most high schools probably don't offer much in the realm of philosophy), that said, I further think that discussions of ToE should always be moderated with the caveat that "this is based on the best evidence that is available so far". Science teachers should never use ToE as a club to denigrate those of faith who feel that a philosophical explanation is possible, by calling it "stupid", or "ridiculous", as I have heard teachers do. They should also not present ToE as a "fact", any more so than they would the "Theory of Relativity".....
Expanding on this, I think that if a curricula is going to dwell at length on ToE as a required subject, the curricula should be also required to present alternative concepts albeit in a non-science environment. Similarly, if a lesson plan discusses the great religions such as Islam, Buddism, etc. it cannot avoid the same depth devoted to Christianity, as schools are constantly attempting to do.
Education should expose the student to the widest range of ideas possible, arm the student with the ability to think critically, and then allow the student to challenge each idea and reach his/her own conclusions as to the validity of each......censorship of ideas is "indoctrination", not "education".......
doc
-
I think that there should however, be a place reserved in the academic arena for discussion of ID, probably as an adjunct to history (since most high schools probably don't offer much in the realm of philosophy), that said, I further think that discussions of ToE should always be moderated with the caveat that "this is based on the best evidence that is available so far". Science teachers should never use ToE as a club to denigrate those of faith who feel that a philosophical explanation is possible, by calling it "stupid", or "ridiculous", as I have heard teachers do. They should also not present ToE as a "fact", any more so than they would the "Theory of Relativity".....
Expanding on this, I think that if a curricula is going to dwell at length on ToE as a required subject, the curricula should be also required to present alternative concepts albeit in a non-science environment. Similarly, if a lesson plan discusses the great religions such as Islam, Buddism, etc. it cannot avoid the same depth devoted to Christianity, as schools are constantly attempting to do.
Education should expose the student to the widest range of ideas possible, arm the student with the ability to think critically, and then allow the student to challenge each idea and reach his/her own conclusions as to the validity of each......censorship of ideas is "indoctrination", not "education".......
doc
No one has a problem with ID being taught in a context of philosphy or religion. The controversy over ID stems from the fact that proponents of it want to insert it into the science classroom.