expelled

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sounds like faith to me, you believe it happened, you do not know
how or why, you just accept it is possible.
Kelly

You don't seem to understand the distinction that Twhitehead is making.

In his scenario, scientists are not making an exclusive claim (i.e. A DID happen), but rather suggesting a possible cause or mechanism (A might have happenned).

The theists, in his scenario, are making a definitive claim (Goddunit), and the onus of proof must be on him.

I agree with the logic, but not the sentiment, as I'm sure he doesn't either. It is not enough for us scientists to say "maybe" or "possibly", we must always be searching for proof. Which we are.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Sounds like faith to me, you believe it happened, you do not know
how or why, you just accept it is possible.
Kelly

What? Where did I say that I believe something happened? Now you are making things up.

I believe God used evolution as a tool in his toolbox to create life here on Earth. I think every single piece of evidence points to the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old. I think the idea of putting forth religious ideas like intellegent design to counter the mountain of evidence supporting evolution is like trying to stop a freight train with a pea shooter. I think it's a terrible disservice to young people to disavow an entire body of science in favor of unprovable theory that defies the laws of physics - the same laws that scientists and physicists have used to establish the behavior of the universe back to four one-trillionths of a second before the Big Bang. And I hope that with the passing of the Bush presidency, the terrible disservice the Religious Right has done America can begin to be reversed.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I think the idea of putting forth religious ideas like intellegent design to counter the mountain of evidence supporting evolution is like trying to stop a freight train with a pea shooter.

I love this analogy!

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What do you mean "making things up"? What evidence do you have for that claim??

To me, it sounds like they are taking their best estimates (based on evidence) of what happenned, and then testing predictions made from that information. That hardly sounds like "making stuff up".

Why do you bring God into it?

"Since there are no physical records of what the first primitive cells on Earth looked like, or how they grew and divided, the research team's protocell project offers a useful way to learn about how Earth's earliest cells may have interacted with their environment approximately 3.5 billion years ago."

You can make it up as you go from here on out, it does not matter
it is all projections about an unknowable past, but that does not stop
people from thinking they 'got it right' since it fits whatever it is
they want to believe occured.

The difference between anything that people come up iwth for ID
and this is the just the name or label they assign to it.

I did bring up God, sorry, I try to avoid that in this type of discussion,
but that time I did.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
You don't seem to understand the distinction that Twhitehead is making.

In his scenario, scientists are not making an exclusive claim (i.e. A DID happen), but rather suggesting a possible cause or mechanism (A might have happenned).

The theists, in his scenario, are making a definitive claim (Goddunit), and the onus of proof must be on him.

I a ...[text shortened]... tists to say "maybe" or "possibly", we must always be searching for proof. Which we are.

I understand that, and I agree with you and him on that level. I do
not make a claim beyond one of faith, I believe God did it, I do
reject the notion that once someone thinks they know how or why
somethings occured, that is different than saying they believe it
occured this way or like that; what brought them to that point may
be differrent, but they are there nonetheless. If you think something
is true because you worked it out in your head or someone you trust
spoke to you about it and you believe them, it is still a matter of
accepting things as true.

To be always searching for the truth means you never really find it
too.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
"Since there are no physical records of what the first primitive cells on Earth looked like, or how they grew and divided, the research team's protocell project offers a useful way to learn about how Earth's earliest cells may have interacted with their environment approximately 3.5 billion years ago."

You can make it up as you go from here on out, it do ...[text shortened]... p God, sorry, I try to avoid that in this type of discussion,
but that time I did.
Kelly

Scientists have to make approximations and guess sometimes. I don't think that is just "making stuff up", for the simple reason that they have a very good understanding of the systems they are studying, the evidence for them and the hows and whys of their workings. For example, geological evidence can give quite a bit of information about the conditions under which life formed. The chemical make up of cells themselves provides more information.

Sure, we cannot know 100% - we never claimed we could. We did claim that our hypothesis is testable though, and according to all best information we have, it seems to be largely true.

We make choices every day based on less evidence than these guys work on, and our standards of proof are almost always lower than those than scientists use in their work. Being skeptical is good, setting such a high bar than nothing passes is unproductive though.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Scientists have to make approximations and guess sometimes. I don't think that is just "making stuff up", for the simple reason that they have a very good understanding of the systems they are studying, the evidence for them and the hows and whys of their workings. For example, geological evidence can give quite a bit of information about the conditio ...[text shortened]... Being skeptical is good, setting such a high bar than nothing passes is unproductive though.

ScottishInnz struck the right cord with his phrase 'testable hypothesis'. See, the way science works, you observe, you form a hypothesis, and then you make predictions based on your hypothesis. And if your hypothesis works, you devise more and more complicated tests to try to disprove it. doesn't work, you adjust it or throw it out and start over.

When you take the body of work of Galileo, Copernicus, Kepler, Newton, Einstein, and the legions of other intellectual titans that have uncovered the rules that govern our universe, the rules they discovered apply in every single physical situation. You can explain why the past unfolded the way it did, and you can predict the future - with confidence. A NASA scientist can tell you exactly what phase the moon will be in and how it will be oriented in the sky as far out in the future as you'd like to go. And he can tell you countless other things about the future besides.

So the fossil record isn't some fanciful exploit meant to undermine religion. It's the indisuptable history of our planet. Your - 'theories' - require wild - absolutely wild - deviation from known and accepted scientific and physical laws (like the universe expanded at ten or a hundred times the speed of light for a period - a requirement for your assertion that Earth is, in fact, only four thousand years old). Not only is there no good science whatsoever behind your theories, you violate the carved-in-stone tenets of science.

To equate intelligent design with science is like trying to compare apples and cinder blocks. Intelligent design contains no testable hypotheses, requires such a wild physical universe that life could not have possibly existed under the conditions it speculates may have existed. And to hear someone say, "Well, your belief in science is no different from my belief in religion", that's just utter nonsense. I believe what I believe - for instance, every time you throw a ball in the air it will come back down - because that ball obeys predictable physical laws. I don't think that one day, maybe one glorious day, I'll throw a ball up and it won't come back.

And the part that'll stick in your craw? I believe in God. I believe that there had to be a spark, a prime mover if you will, that willed the 26.8 billion light-year wide universe into existence. That's faith - not this ill-advised, childish attempt to drag us back into the Dark Ages because Evangelical Christians are threatened by science.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
To equate intelligent design with science is like trying to compare apples and cinder blocks.

Remember kids, a cinder block a day keeps the dentist in constant work!

But seriously, I agree with everything you've written here, mate, except the part about there being a requirement for some type of God to kick it all off, as it were. However, since the very start of the universe is somewhere we cannot currently, and probably never will be able to go, it seems largely an moot point, with both if us merely giving our opinions. And that's just fine.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I believe that there had to be a spark, a prime mover if you will, that willed the 26.8 billion light-year wide universe into existence. That's faith - not this ill-advised, childish attempt to drag us back into the Dark Ages because Evangelical Christians are threatened by science.

You appear to be contradicting yourself.
Either "there had to be" ie there is no other logical explanation, or its faith ie you believe it without logical reasoning.

This link is sums up the differences between a scientific aproach and a religious or faith based aproach:

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html

It is meant to be humourous, but the sad thing is that it is very accurate.

Originally posted by MattP
This link is sums up the differences between a scientific aproach and a religious or faith based aproach:

http://www.wellingtongrey.net/miscellanea/archive/2007-01-15%20--%20science%20vs%20faith.html

It is meant to be humourous, but the sad thing is that it is very accurate.

Excellent charts! 😀

The best comedy always relies on truth.

Originally posted by twhitehead
What? Where did I say that I believe something happened? Now you are making things up.

Okay, you do not believe abiogenesis happened, you accept it could
have, you know it could have, you suspect it could have, you fill in the
blank it could have.
Kelly

Originally posted by sasquatch672
I believe God used evolution as a tool in his toolbox to create life here on Earth. I think every single piece of evidence points to the age of the earth as 4.5 billion years old. I think the idea of putting forth religious ideas like intellegent design to counter the mountain of evidence supporting evolution is like trying to stop a freight train wit ...[text shortened]... sidency, the terrible disservice the Religious Right has done America can begin to be reversed.

There is no mountain of evidence to support one view over the other,
it is all the same evidence you paint it to mean certain things to prove
your view. It is all the same evidence, it may or may not mean what
you think it does.
Kelly

Originally posted by scottishinnz
Scientists have to make approximations and guess sometimes. I don't think that is just "making stuff up", for the simple reason that they have a very good understanding of the systems they are studying, the evidence for them and the hows and whys of their workings. For example, geological evidence can give quite a bit of information about the conditio ...[text shortened]... Being skeptical is good, setting such a high bar than nothing passes is unproductive though.

I agree, even a bad theory can and will cause us to move forward
in knowledge as we figure it out. My point about the past which you
have seen me say over and over is that you don't know all there is to
know! You admit our knowledge isn't a 100%, yet you can accept it
as nearly truthful when someone gives a percentage about what they
think is true as they supposedly tell us about what may have
occurred great distances in time long gone. To suggest they have a
clue on odds on what could have, may have, or whatever is believed
to be true suggests all or most of the variables have been taken into
account, without which all projections about odds are worthless. We
only know about the odds in a coin toss because we have taken into
account nearly all the variables there is to know about them. As I have
said before you can date something with a test, that doesn’t mean
that the date is true; it only means that the test used shows it so.
Kelly