Originally posted by jaywill
That's the way science is very often. What we fervently believe today may be proved untrue in the future.
Only because good science continues to question and hold theories (including our theories of evolution) accountable to new data. Anyone have an example of a modern (last 300 years), strongly-held, false belief among scientists about nature that was corrected simply by reviewing religious dogma?
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzI'm a creationist not a ID'er.
Rubbish. You entire argument here is dishonest. A scientists work is "trash" when he does not follow proper protocol, seeking always the most parsimonious argument. Behe fails this particular test, when he tries to attribute "design" to a designer, without proof one exists. It's that simple.
Yet what you are saying is rubish.
His conclusion is that ID must be the result of what he sees.
His arguments like yours support his views, you are upset that he
has a different view than yours so you trash him. You like what you
like and if someone's conclusions do not agree with your faith you
trash them. I do not believe the ID group makes the claims they
know or can prove who the designer is, only that one is required
seeing what they see.
Kelly
1 edit
Originally posted by KellyJayKJ, I can claim that the world was flat and made of pure gold 5,000 years ago because that's just what I think right? Nobody that is alive today was there to say that it wasn't flat or golden.
I'm a creationist not a ID'er.
Yet what you are saying is rubish.
His conclusion is that ID must be the result of what he sees.
His arguments like yours support his views, you are upset that he
has a different view than yours so you trash him. You like what you
like and if someone's conclusions do not agree with your faith you
trash them. I do not bel ...[text shortened]... now or can prove who the designer is, only that one is required
seeing what they see.
Kelly
That seems to be the essence of your argument. Inference from current observation to conditions about the past are pure faith with no inference being any better than another.
Now I've already told you a few pages ago why ID in its current state is a failure. They look at a very tiny sample of data and say that there has to be a designer simply because they already believe in a designer (they all believe that Jesus Christ is that designer). They ignore/brush off all work that harmonizes random mutation/natural selection and the data. They have no working objective standard by which to measure design or distinguish it from 'non-design.' They have no testable hypothesis about how the designer designed. They have no organized research, simply loose collections of essays on a whole range of topics. At this point, ID is simply "Goddunnit" restated in "sciency-sounding" language intended to make xians feel more secure about their beliefs and get the Bible back into public schools.
Originally posted by XanthosNZNeither are universal, as is a theories want. Therefore, I cannot conclude them to be "properly formed theories". Indeed, whilst evolution is well researched, its research is not complete.
What about Newton's theory of motion and gravitation? It is clearly absurd in both extremes and yet it stood as the understood theory for a few hundred years.
In fact it is still taught in schools and acts as a bridge between relativity and quantum behaviour until the unified theory is found.
Originally posted by jaywillLook at the Earth centered Solar System as opposed to the Sun centered Solar System.
Look at the Earth centered Solar System as opposed to the Sun centered Solar System.
I had a science teacher tell me that Ptolemy's Earth Centered Solar System was actually worked on with quite sophisticated mathematical ideas. He was very scientific about believing that all the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth.
Today people champion Copernic ...[text shortened]... science is very often. What we fervently believe today may be proved untrue in the future.
Strangely, the ancient greeks knew the earth was round, and had measured its circumference. The flat earth scenario is a construct of your religion.
I had a science teacher tell me that Ptolemy's Earth Centered Solar System was actually worked on with quite sophisticated mathematical ideas. He was very scientific about believing that all the heavenly bodies revolved around the earth.
However, his model was not parsimonious, since it did not take all factors into account. For example, Ptolemy's model required the planets to travel in perfect spheres, which, of course, they don't. Either that, or epicycles, which, again, defy parsimony.
There was a cartoon about some scientists standing around a black board filled with all kinds of complexed equations. And one of the scientists was saying sadly to the others:
"The most depressing thing is that one day everything we believe here will be proved wrong."
Good. One hopes that science remains dynamic, able to adapt to new material - something religion cannot do. Strangely, religious folk tend to try and manipulate the scriptures to fit their own agendas.
Originally posted by KellyJayI knew there was a post somewhere I needed to respond to...
[b] "...but are exactly the sort of thing that are predicted by the theory of evolution.
You predicted the eyes forming before they formed, or are you
claiming you would have before they did? Creationism isn't science
it is a story about a special event, predictions within Christianity if
you settle on its creation story, there are predictions th ...[text shortened]... does what you
want it gets the job done, and if it doesn't break it is good code.
Kelly[/b]
You don't have to predict the feature before it occurs, or even before it is discovered. Einsteins theories of relativity (or one of them at least) was strengthened by observations of starlight during a solar eclipse. However, if the eclipse had happened and observations made before Einstein came up with relativity, the observations would still reinforce relativity and relativity could still be said to predict them. If the stars hadn't appeared to shift their positions, that would have discredited relativity irrespective of when the observations were taken.
With regards flaws, no I don't claim to have the perfect design for an eye but that does not stop me seeing where some 'designs' are less than perfect. If nobody could come up with any way in which any organism could be more effective at what it did, that would be evidence (but not proof) for ID. Since their are plenty of obvious ways that organisms could be more effective at what they do, that is evidence (but not proof) of evolution.
You also mention that creationism isn't science. Quite right. But I'm sure you (it may have been someone else, apologies if so) have claimed that ID is science. Behe certainly claims this. ID is a form of creationism so do you claim it is science or not?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by KellyJayNo, Kelly. I think I know what I mean better than you know what I mean. Stop trying to force your words into my mouth. BEHE OVERSTEPS THE MARK. It's that simple. He falls foul of the rules of parsimony, and infers a designer without any proof, or even any substantive evidence, whatsoever. THAT, and that alone, is what makes his work "trash".
I'm a creationist not a ID'er.
Yet what you are saying is rubish.
His conclusion is that ID must be the result of what he sees.
His arguments like yours support his views, you are upset that he
has a different view than yours so you trash him. You like what you
like and if someone's conclusions do not agree with your faith you
trash them. I do not bel ...[text shortened]... now or can prove who the designer is, only that one is required
seeing what they see.
Kelly
Originally posted by scottishinnzHe makes an argument for design, he has not that I know of claimed
No, Kelly. I think I know what I mean better than you know what I mean. Stop trying to force your words into my mouth. BEHE OVERSTEPS THE MARK. It's that simple. He falls foul of the rules of parsimony, and infers a designer without any proof, or even any substantive evidence, whatsoever. THAT, and that alone, is what makes his work "trash".
knowledge about the designer. You are claiming what about a designer
that there isn't one, that one isn't needed? I have not attempted to
put words in your mouth, but from my perspective you do the same
thing he does, make your views known, and using your reasoning and
logic back up your views. The reason I find fault with ID within
science is that, design reaches a conclusion on something, and science
is the ever learning never coming to knowledge type of methodology
there must always be room for doubt and new knowledge, except
where people’s favorite theories are, the sacred theories must not be
doubted just accepted or else you get trashed.
Kelly
Originally posted by telerionJust use the words I use, put quotes around the ones you dislike, and
KJ, I can claim that the world was flat and made of pure gold 5,000 years ago because that's just what I think right? Nobody that is alive today was there to say that it wasn't flat or golden.
That seems to be the essence of your argument. Inference from current observation to conditions about the past are pure faith with no inference being any bette ...[text shortened]... xians feel more secure about their beliefs and get the Bible back into public schools.
speak to those things. If you want to argue my points it will be easier
if you let me make them then go after them.
Kelly
4 edits
Originally posted by PenguinI am not someone who worries about ID; I am a creationist for me it is
I knew there was a post somewhere I needed to respond to...
You don't have to predict the feature before it occurs, or even before it is discovered. Einsteins theories of relativity (or one of them at least) was strengthened by observations of starlight during a solar eclipse. However, if the eclipse had happened and observations made before Einstein came s this. ID is a form of creationism so do you claim it is science or not?
--- Penguin.
a matter of faith. Now if there are people who claim to be ID people
yet they are also creationist I would say they are not honest about it,
since creation is faith. If there are people who are not creationist, yet
think that too many things have to happen at once to get life to
happen without design being involved, than I can buy the ID part of
their claim. If someone with what I’ll call honest ID views becomes a
creationist because of their ID views, I'd say they have crossed the
line, and should make the claim creationist. This of course is just my
views on ID and creationism, and I think I'm quite sure those views
also scare off people from giving the idea of ID an honest appraisal
incase there is truth there they may be missing. Nothing like the fear
of being branded a religious nut to have pride stand in the way of
giving an idea a real chance to prove itself. Just look at what happens
to the names of those that have defended the idea, that has to scare
some if not a lot of people.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayWell then, if he wants to put those views across as his UNQUALIFIED opinion, that's fine. You creationists can stop harping on about it.
He makes an argument for design, he has not that I know of claimed
knowledge about the designer. You are claiming what about a designer
that there isn't one, that one isn't needed? I have not attempted to
put words in your mouth, but from my perspective you do the same
thing he does, make your views known, and using your reasoning and
logic back up you ...[text shortened]... es are, the sacred theories must not be
doubted just accepted or else you get trashed.
Kelly
KJ wrote:
I am not someone who worries about ID; I am a creationist for me it is
a matter of faith. Now if there are people who claim to be ID people
yet they are also creationist I would say they are not honest about it,
since creation is faith. If there are people who are not creationist, yet
think that too many things have to happen at once to get life to
happen without design being involved, than I can buy the ID part of
their claim. If someone with what I’ll call honest ID views becomes a
creationist because of their ID views, I'd say they have crossed the
line, and should make the claim creationist. This of course is just my
views on ID and creationism, and I think I'm quite sure those views
also scare off people from giving the idea of ID an honest appraisal
incase there is truth there they may be missing. Nothing like the fear
of being branded a religious nut to have pride stand in the way of
giving an idea a real chance to prove itself. Just look at what happens
to the names of those that have defended the idea, that has to scare
some if not a lot of people.
I don't think ID can be thought of as anything other than creationism. It claims that life was created by an intelligent agent. Whether that agent is the christian God (as ID proponants believe but will not admit), Allah, Zeus, space aliens or the Cosmic Teapot doesn't matter. Creationists believe the same thing (unless you are saying that God is not intelligent). The only difference is that the ID proponents are still trying to get ID taught as science whereas Creationist have given up on that front and admit that what they believe is not science.
--- Penguin
1 edit
Originally posted by Penguin[/b]You have a strong argument, and it is one I'd almost agree with, but
KJ wrote:
[b]I am not someone who worries about ID; I am a creationist for me it is
a matter of faith. Now if there are people who claim to be ID people
yet they are also creationist I would say they are not honest about it,
since creation is faith. If there are people who are not creationist, yet
think that too many things have to happen at once to g have given up on that front and admit that what they believe is not science.
--- Penguin
there is enough wiggle room for me to say no, you cannot say that.
Life requiring a designer does not speaks to how the universe came
into being, it does not require any god, only something able to design
and set in motion the life cycle at some state. This is like going to
a web page finding a chat box and getting into a conversation there.
Being in a conversation today does not mean you are talking to
another person, it only means you are in a conversation, if it is two
way you are speaking to another person, if it is canned on one end
with a program responding to key words, a conversation is taking
place, but not between two people.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayKelly,
You have a strong argument, and it is one I'd almost agree with, but
there is enough wiggle room for me to say no, you cannot say that.
Life requiring a designer does not speaks to how the universe came
into being, it does not require any god, only something able to design
and set in motion the life cycle at some state. This is like going to
a we ...[text shortened]... am responding to key words, a conversation is taking
place, but not between two people.
Kelly[/b]
I was lying in bed last night thinking about this. Please, answer me this question.
Based upon the fact that you believe in biblical creationism, and have absolutely no regard for the contradictory scientific evidence (creationists (or any deeply religious person) believe irrespective of evidence, correct?), what, precisely, is wrong with evolution as a scientific theory?
It is the only scientific theory we currently have which explains the diversity of life on earth. So what's so wrong with it other than that you don't believe in it?